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

FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 228 posts

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#61

Post by soulbadguy »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #57
ajross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collectively paying for rare but expensive treatments is literally the problem that insurance solves. This isn't wildly out of the expected range for this sort of thing. And it will surely get cheaper as it evolves.

Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Hence the (typical) requirement to purchase insurance and lack of ability to price it based on risk. Of course, insurance and taxation can be viewed as similar things anyway, but it is different from things like term life insurance or motor vehicle insurance…

> Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution.

Humm no... It's just risk amortization...

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#62

Post by huytersd »

pknerd wrote: post #33

I wonder whether in the future doctors have a visual designer(WYSIWYG) similar what programmers have in the form of Visual Basic/QT to alter DNA. It'd be pretty interesting if it happens

Also terrifying in a sense. Instead of some wacko shooting up a school, he’s going to make an apocalyptic virus instead.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#63

Post by lotsofpulp »

soulbadguy wrote: post #61
lotsofpulp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Hence the (typical) requirement to purchase insurance and lack of ability to price it based on risk. Of course, insurance and taxation can be viewed as similar things anyway, but it is different from things like term life insurance or motor vehicle insurance…

> Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Humm no... It's just risk amortization...

If it was just that (in the US), then there would be no need to prevent insurers from pricing based on health of the insured. Or legislating a 3x cap on premiums between highest and lowest premium. Or legislating out of pocket maximums.

The premiums are very explicitly a subsidy from young to old, which I view as a tax by a different name. Except instead of it being based on one’s income/wealth, it is based on age.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#64

Post by biomcgary »

freedomben wrote: post #35
mritchie712 wrote: post #25

Ohalo (the company Dave Friedberg is now CEO of) recently got approval for a potato edited by CRISPR: > Ohalo had two RSRs under consideration this year for its potato, one which focuses on higher concentrations of beta carotene – enhancing the overall health and nutrition value of the potato – and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, which, according to Ohalo, will reduce the…

thanks that's neat, although I wish it wasn't with a Solanaceae member. Do you know if they are working on other types of produce or are they just working on potatoes?

Are you concerned about off-target edits activating toxin producing pathways?

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#65

Post by huytersd »

elektor wrote: post #3

Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…

You answered your own question. The taxpayer already pays the same amount for lifetime treatment. This is just going to be the same except the person can lead a completely normal life after this. Also over time this will probably be much, much cheaper than the current lifetime treatment. There’s no reason a lot of the process can’t be easily automated.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#66

Post by bigfishrunning »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #13

Lots of AI content recently (and I am working on AI-adjacent stuff myself lol), but I am most excited for upcoming medical changes. Cure every disease, then let people have designer bodies if they like.

I can't wait to grow all those extra fingers and teeth!

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#67

Post by biomcgary »

jimbob45 wrote: post #36
SamBam wrote: post #21

> Vertex set the price of Casgevy at $2.2 million > Patients must spend weeks, even months, in the hospital before and after the therapy is administered. Yoiks. So how many actual people are going to be able to get this treatment?

The Hep C cure was 100k USD when it released in 2014. 10 years later, it’s 25k USD max before insurance. The price you see now will likely shrink in the coming years. Pretty good opportunity for an analysis on CRISPR pricing if you have a well-trafficked blog and are willing to track this for the next five years.

And much better than a liver transplant.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#68

Post by lotsofpulp »

huytersd wrote: post #58
lotsofpulp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Society does not have unlimited resources. Especially the one that extremely ill people need, humans.

People with sickle cell already cost the taxpayer a lot of money over their lifetimes. I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost more than this treatment.

Of course, in that case it is simple. I imagine dopa42365 was referring to a scenario where there was an alternative way to spend the money.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#69

Post by lostlogin »

w0mbat wrote: post #44

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia actually provides partial immunity to malaria, which is why this gene has not been bred out of the population over time.

> which is why this gene has not been bred out of the population over time.

Is that why? Or is it just the people with it aren’t sick enough to die before procreating?

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

ponector wrote: post #37
ericmay wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Day 1 so the price and how well it works today is almost certainly the worst it will ever be. Insurance will likely cover the cost. It's a very bad, painful, and outright deadly genetic mutation and $2.2 million is practically nothing compared to doubling someone's lifespan or giving them an extra 10 years. More info I found relevant regarding cost for typical treatment and out of pocket estimated costs: http…

I don't agree that it is nothing. 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Take ten children from poverty, give ten children chance to get a good education, etc. There is always a some kind of moral dilemma: should you spent millions to try to extend extremely I'll person or help with that money to some healthy poor children?

> 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people.

Its very close to the lifetime average financial cost of medical services related to sickle cell disease for those with it, from things posted elsewhere in the thread. So its literally just paying the same (loosely) financial cost up front and then not having them suffer through the disease.

An incentive structure that encourages mostly making the wrong decisions on things like this when it comes to cost/quality-of-life is why the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world on a per capita or per GDP basis, and doesn't have better-than-typical general outcomes to show for it.

Post reply on HN