Okay Doc, I see your point ... 4 years since the investment/purchase.
______________
To everybody ... Again I'll highlight that it took them only 15 days to decide to pursue, negotiate a price, and complete papers .... from Dr. Gane's presentation at "The Liver Meeting”, or AASLD 2011, in San Francisco, to the completion of sale of Pharmasset to Gilead for $11.1 billion .... that's gotta be some kinda record.
www.ft.com/cms/s/2/542ad524-8b77-11e2-b1...0.html#axzz3lD22Lvzo
There is no way this was perceived as a high risk transaction. They saw it as a sure thing ... a "cash cow" in marketing terminology. Their idea that they should be getting Venture Capital style returns is ludicrous.
On the other hand, Pharmasset was in fact funded by Venture Capitalists such that it appears Schinazi only held barely over 4% of his own company. Those people did deserve a good return. (Whatever that may mean.) (I'm holding out on my opinion of Schinazi's relationship with the VA etc. until relevant questions are answered.)
The typical human mind is such that most people don't mentally grasp big numbers. When they hear $11.1 billion what registers is "really big number" and when they hear $3.6 trillion what registers is "really big number." Politicians take advantage of this fact to appear like they're dealing with problems when in fact they're not.
But I'm going to crunch some numbers here to show why I'm not upset by Pharmasset's sale price and its investors' profits while I'm appalled at Gileads prices.
First, it is a known fact that the western world and Japan carry the weight of drug development costs for the rest of the world. In the US, with Medicare/medicaid prohibited from negotiating prices, and insurance companies forbidden to source out of country, the US is the primary cost bearer of Pharmaceutical Company profit taking. Japan with its aging population is likely a distant second with the EU as a single entity coming in third. So let's look at some numbers to see what happens when you spread that $11.1 billion cost around.
$11.1 billion / various HCV Populations
US HCV population ~5.37 million or
$2067/patient
This number assumes that the US carries the entire cost of the Pharmasset purchase alone.
As a US citizen I could actually accept that.
If cost is carried by the primary Western World + Japan, S Korea, Singapore * ... HCV population ~10.8 million ...
$1028/patient
If cost is carried by the "developed world minus China" (Vororo's number above) ... HCV population ~43 million ...
$258/patient
If cost is carried by the whole world .... HCV population ~160 million ...
$69.39
/patient
These numbers really aren't very big and bear no relationship to Gilead's price tags. Again, Pharmasset's profits aren't remotely the problem.
______________________
*
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, S. Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, USA, UK.
Oops, I forgot Denmark .... oh well, I'm not doing it over .... you get the point.