Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (57229)	5/2/2016 8:11:27 AM
From: staring	Respond to of 78717

I tend agree with your rationale. Planning selling GILD once I find an opportunity. I am not sure of the robustness of GILD's CF...

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (57229)	5/2/2016 11:42:26 AM
From: Graham Osborn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78717

"While politicians scream the reality is treatment cost per patient hasn't really increased that much over the past decade. The ancillary cost savings as a result of treatment length being reduced from as much as a year down to 12 weeks add up in the over all cost of cure. Not to mention the increased % of successfully treated patients per treatment course." While this might be true for Hep C, it isn't true for the wider space of chronic disease including Hep C and oncology. Price per treatment course is skyrocketing out of control. That's the problem for manufacturers claiming a lower total cost of care - their case is so unusual they are likely to get lumped into overall reimbursement or generic pathway reforms. GILD was on the recently published "hit list" of overpriced drugs along with CELG and some others I think.

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (57229)	5/4/2016 8:55:29 AM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78717

This field has quickly progressed with some approved drugs even almost being hopscotched such as VRTX's. While politicians scream the reality is treatment cost per patient hasn't really increased that much over the past decade So the Drug companies have been able to keep all the productivity for a decade for gains due to their research for themselves, without passing on anything to their customers? I wish the same could be said for the business i work in. I would be filthy rich.

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (57229)	5/4/2016 12:36:07 PM
From: Graham Osborn	1 Recommendation Recommended By gizwick Respond to of 78717

He's talking about Hep C specifically pertaining to GILD and VRTX's therapies. I don't know the numbers there. Costs per pt across chronic dx have gone up dramatically the past 10 years owing to biologics and expensive maintenance regimens. And yes, those productivity gains have been passed on directly to pharma companies and their shareholders/ creditors. It's been tougher in generic/ specialty/ now starting in the branded space hence "growth pharma." But historically the business was very, very good. Most companies had built-in annual price hikes of 5-10%. What's been in the news recently is just a sudden case of what was happening incrementally for a very long time.