- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Interesting question J,
In the Australian case*, what we have heard from the advocacy groups is that the PBS (correctly taxpayers) are apparently paying a total of A$1 billion for up to 65,000 treatments over the next five years with any treatments above that quantity being provided at nil cost by the pharmaceutical companies. Keep in mind that those numbers are supposedly “per treatment” rather than per 12 weeks of a particular drug although I assume there will also be some sort of rollover and annual quotas fine print in the agreements that attempts to favour the company bottom lines. Overall though, that works out to less than A$16k per treatment assuming we get the full numbers treated and as low as A$4.5k if we manage to treat every one of the estimated 230,000 with HCV in this country. The latter being an unlikely but worthy goal.
Those costs are still quite high for a drug that costs less than US$100/A$130 to manufacture and up to nearly 10x higher than generics pricing however given the capped pricing and the Australian government’s likely continued adherence to patent laws a reasonably strong case can be made for advocacy for as many Australians as possible to access what is effectively a fixed level of PBS funding within the five year period. i.e. Once we hit target taxpayers don’t fork out any more for extra patients to treat so effectively we are renegotiating a lower pricing structure for each extra person.
(* I believe that the improved access/pricing situation in Australia, while no doubt due to some hard headed negotiations by our government, was enabled because of some very effective grass roots advocacy for generics by a couple of Tasmanians and some NSW pharmacies that definitely were not funded by big pharma
)
G3a since ’78 – Dx ’12 – F4 (2xHCC)
24wk Tx – PEG/Riba/Dac 2013 relapsed
24wk Tx – Generic Sof/Dac/Riba 2015/16 relapsed
16wk Tx – 12/01/17 -> 03/05/17 NS3/NS5a + Generic Sof
SVR7 – 22/06/17 UND
SRV12 – 27/07/17 UND
SVR24 – 26/10/17 UND
”James-Freeman-facebook” wrote:Gilead said its donations have nothing to do with the legal fight. If the plaintiffs prevail, however, Gilead and other drug companies stand to make billions because Washington’s Medicaid program would be forced to cover expensive treatments — and other states may be pressured to follow suit.[/i]
That seriously makes me want to vomit.
ick:' /> Or punch something. 
Or maybe both. In no particular order. No wonder the world is in an uproar
Gaj wrote:Interesting question J,
Overall though, that works out to less than A$16k per treatment assuming we get the full numbers treated and as low as A$4.5k if we manage to treat every one of the estimated 230,000 with HCV in this country. The latter being an unlikely but worthy goal.
(* I believe that the improved access/pricing situation in Australia, while no doubt due to some hard headed negotiations by our government, was enabled because of some very effective grass roots advocacy for generics by a couple of Tasmanians and some NSW pharmacies that definitely were not funded by big pharma
)Hi Gaj,
A part of me (near my back pocket) thinks that if the government spent my hard earn’t tax money more wisely, they could even reduce this bill further, say to $1600.00 per head, by buying generics.
Could not agree more about the Tasmanians and New South Welshmen.
Pity Gilead does not have the patent on nuclear weapons and the like.
Yours
J.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.