Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 188 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#91

Post by s0rce »

apparent wrote: post #71

This reminds me of the new-ish treatments that promise to regrow tooth enamel or prevent the growth of bacteria that causes cavities. These won't get widespread adoption until the American Dental Association or whatever says they're safe/effective, but there's a clear conflict of interest because it would have a huge negative impact on their members' business model. There's money to be made selling a cure, but the cr…

I did my PhD in an adjacent area and its not clear any of these come anywhere close to regenerating your enamel.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#92

Post by devsda »

bluGill wrote: post #75
stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

Public transit is a good business model if you don't have to compete with government subsdized roads and you don't have government limits on what you can charge. Good luck finding anyplace without those.

> Public transit is a good business model if you don't have to compete with government subsdized roads and you don't have government limits on what you can charge

Without subsidized roads, its easy for deep pockets to offer exorbitant prices for land and monopolize the roads. Anyone not planning to charge high prices for usage will be held off by high acquisition prices at "market" rates.

There's only so much land and roads possible to a given location, privatized roads is like giving default monopoly. It will turn out just like the isp situation, only worse.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#93

Post by shridharxp »

stego-tech wrote: post #35
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person dies from a disorder in their 20s, they'll never buy your heart medication in their 70s. Today's patient is tomorrow's patient.

The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society. The opportunity cost is something we've figured out from a medical perspective, but shareholders want returns today, not returns fifty years from now. That is what we need to address.

>The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society.

This is questionable. Highly populous countries have worse living conditions than moderately populous ones, currently.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#94

Post by majormajor »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.

It does make sense if you turn it around "Having permanent patient by treating only symptoms is better than curing them right away" Basically living (comfortably, or at all) as a subscription service

That assumes equal ability to manage a long-revenue-stream treatment that keeps people alive enough not to die but doesn't help them enough to stop taking it. Doable for somethings. Not so much against cancer.

And it assumes none of your competitors spot the cure that you suppressed or simply didn't look for and eat your lunch by taking all those patients away from you.

If you "accidentally" came up with a single-course cure for something like Crohn's or RA while trying to create a every-three-months recurring treatment instead, would you honestly shelve it? No.

You could make an argument that the incentives discourages certain types of research, but that's assuming a certain level of foreknowledge about how to treat or cure a lot of these things that I don't think we have right now.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#95

Post by snowwrestler »

idontwantthis wrote: post #10
snowwrestler wrote: post #7

It doesn’t matter if it is a sustainable business. People will do what they can to maximize their income now. If 10 companies are withholding a cure to milk the patients, any one of them can break from that strategy at any time, with near-instant financial reward and competitive advantage. It is not a stable equilibrium.

As long as government regulation prevents them from forming a cartel.

Ah yes, the cartel, a famously stable arrangement that never ends in cheating or betrayal.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#96

Post by devsda »

im3w1l wrote: post #32
stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

I think it's the opposite. I think people are very aware of those effects, and that's actually why they ask the question in the first place. They ask it "is this good business" not just because they care about the answer itself but because they want to start a debate on how society should promote the invention of cures. Like I think most people in most industries are passionate people that really want to do good, but…

Do you believe the current medical research is held back by the price limitations and if we just infuse more money, we'll find cure for many more diseases ?

Even if we consider that, we'll reach the same position as today because if only rich can afford medicine, the market will price that in and it's customer who can barely afford the medicine will shift from middle class to upper middle class and so on.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#97

Post by Loughla »

loeg wrote: post #57
egypturnash wrote: post #5

Meanwhile over in the world where the government sinks a lot of money and energy into its citizen's healthcare, government-funded labs are exploring permanent cures for all kinds of problems via genetic therapy. But not here. Someone's gotta make mad bank off of every aspect of this shit here.

Which governments in particular; how much funding; and what outcomes have they actually achieved? (In general the US actually subsidizes pharma for the rest of the world.)

>In general the US actually subsidizes pharma for the rest of the world.

I've never understood this argument. Our companies make money off of people in other countries. I understand that our costs are higher in the US, but I don't get how we're subsidizing the rest of the world when they pay for the drugs as well. It just seems like our funding scheme for healthcare is broken. What am I missing?

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#98

Post by apparent »

s0rce wrote: post #91
apparent wrote: post #71

This reminds me of the new-ish treatments that promise to regrow tooth enamel or prevent the growth of bacteria that causes cavities. These won't get widespread adoption until the American Dental Association or whatever says they're safe/effective, but there's a clear conflict of interest because it would have a huge negative impact on their members' business model. There's money to be made selling a cure, but the cr…

I did my PhD in an adjacent area and its not clear any of these come anywhere close to regenerating your enamel.

Thanks for chiming in. What do you think they do, and why do you think they are perceived as being more effective than they actually are? Any thoughts on the bacteria-morphing one?

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#99

Post by beeflet »

socalgal2 wrote: post #74
stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

> ~public~ transit is not a good business model. ~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other busin…

Rail was a dominant industry in the USA when railroad companies were able to exploit their unique control over property during westward expansion.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#100

Post by danielmarkbruce »

stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

>> If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.

This is one of those things that sounds clever but is total nonsense. Communism sounds nice too. The key problems are: a) incentives and b) ability to see the trees instead of pretending to see a forest because you are blind to the details.

Post reply on HN