$84,000 for a (likely) cure is a huge improvement over ~$300,000 for a liver transplant. This is partly how they established the pricing, they knew that insurers would go for the cost savings.
It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.
> It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.
Keep in mind that the value is only "theirs" by force of IP law which at least officially exists for the benefit of society as a whole. Permitting a situation where people are priced out of a cure because the only available alternative is exorbitantly expensive doesn't seem moral or useful.
If the concern is ensuring corporate investment into R&D then public policy could be adopted to subsidize R&D expenses either up front or after the fact.
In Czechia, with its public insurance system, the cost of a liver transplant is about 70 000 USD. But our medical professionals make peanuts compared to the US, and they don't need medical malpractice insurance.
I suspect that the lowest realistic cost in the US could be about 150k.
When compared to conservative treatments, transplants are expensive everywhere. A very invasive treatment with a small army of specialists involved.
It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.