Thanks squetch, I do remember that and even checked the abstract of the patent. Either way, Aviron does not seem to have the rights to this patent, and it is not that directly relevant because, as you say, it covers treatment and not preventions.
I was not very clear in my long post last night on the issue of cost per dose. My understanding is that the total cost of administration (to the patient or to the insurance company) for current injected versions is about $10; of this only $2 or so may be attributed to the cost of the vaccine itself while the rest goes into supplies and to pay the health worker doing the administration, among other things. The case for Aviron getting a lot more than $2 per dose lies in the possibility of limiting or eliminating the role of the health worker (because of the nature of delivery) so that the cost to the patient is still about $10 but net revenues (not earnings!) to Aviron could increase well beyond the $2 per dose number. So, one more time, the cost to the patient (or insurance company) will remain about the same as current formulations, about $10-12, BUT, more of this would flow into the vaccine maker. I am not sure if I believe all this will or could happen, but I think this is closer to the "bull case" for Aviron in the revenue per dose side of the equation: Total Revenue to AVIR = revenue/dose times (Number of doses).
We've heard arguments pro and con regarding the possible magnitude of "Number of doses" I have nothing to add here. |
