NEW PERSPECTIVES
(Updated)
Over the course of this year so far, I've gotten news of several good friends being diagnosed with various types of Cancer and other near-fatal diseases. Just got one such piece of heart-breaking news yesterday about an old, young friend.
Needless to say, it's added a jarring layer of real-world perspective on the fragility of life and the things we sometimes take for granted.
On the surface, the number of incidents seemed pretty high.
And then I read this interview in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, with the CEO of Genentech, Arthur D. Levinson.
Having followed Genentech peripherally for decades, I hadn't realized the company's recent focus on cancer. As the CEO observes:
"We decided 15 years ago that we would be committing to oncology, which at the time for us was new. We are now the leading producer of anticancer drugs in the United States."
This quote in particular by the Genentech CEO hit home for me, on the total scope of Cancer and what's being spent on finding cures:
"There's another way to look at it -- look at how much society is investing in cancer. In the absence of better care, 42% of everybody out there is going to get cancer. And half of those 42% are going to die of cancer.
It's the leading cause of death among Americans under age 85.
So how much are we spending on drugs for cancer? We have a $12 trillion GDP [gross domestic product].
And we're spending $15 billion. If I do that math, 1/800th of GDP for the leading cause of death. And people say cancer drugs are bankrupting America! Give me a break."
42%! That's a number that hadn't quite registered for me.
And those seem to be the numbers for one of the primary diseases we face. One can only imagine the research state of affairs for rarer, "orphaned" diseases.
The thrust of the article though is an attempt by the CEO to explain (rationalize?) the high cost of cancer treatment ($50,000 plus per year per patient), given the high risk, drawn out process to find potential cures and get them through the long approval processes.
He even goes so far as to say that Genentech's margins are not egregious when compared to Microsoft.
It's an uphill climb on that front, and I know the issues are highly complex on all sides.
At the same time, even a Republican like me has to wonder how many more people who have the disease could be saved if the prices were far more affordable by mainstream folks. How different might the mortality statistics be?
Given the number of friends who are now battling various cancers, this issue now has a lot more of my attention. I intend to be more smarter on this front.
Better late than never.
Heart wrenching indeed Michael.
Unfortunately, Mr. Levinsohn's comments beg the question given that it's the cost that the pharmas are charging for cancer drugs that are bankrupting America, not the more generic and faceless "what is being spent" number. According to their financials, Genentech's 2006 revenues were at $9.2B and they netted an operating income of $3.1B. Current trailing 12 months revenue is at $10.1B w/operating income of $3.5B. Seems their margins are more analogous to the other price gougers in our world, the oil companies ;) Sadly, this just helps make the case for socialized healthcare and drug development.
Posted by: p-air | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Michael, I can totally sympathize with you. My wife died of lung cancer last year and she didn't even smoke and she's young (37). I think it is time for our leaders to inspire Americans to find a cure for cancer the way that JFK inspired us to land on the moon over thirty years ago. Instead of spending tons of money on defense, devote a significant portion of our national resources to research for a cure and defeat the true scourge of human race. That's how we can earn admiration and respect around the world.
Posted by: Dennis Chan | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 02:38 PM