On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:58:39AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote:On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to go through the second and third operations she went through, or the reconstructions she faces next year? The answer is I would pay anything for a cure drug.
No. You would pay as much as you had (or could lay your hands on), but not anything. There is definitely a limit. For most people, that limit would probably be much lower than for you (the higher the price, the less the demand). And if insurance pays for it, then everyone pays for it, and the government(s) would find a way to force a lower price. Or someone else would find a slight variation and undercut the price of the original treatment. Or there would be a big black market. Or all of the above. It is almost surely less profitable to develop a cure rather than a long treatment.
But whatever that abritrary amount is that I can lay my hands on, or that insurance companies will supply, it will always be a lot higher than for the treatment drugs. Especially if it removes all the hospital time and surgeon's costs that the patient and/or insurance company pay as well.
All the other factors (undercutting/black market etc) apply to the treatment drugs as well so aren't as significant when we are talking about return on a cure compared to return on a treatment.
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
