I think so. But I'm just some guy.
I think so. But I'm just some guy.
It will probably be much, much more expensive than this.Same. LMAO $200 for the injection (including numbing gel), $500 per ear?
I hope you're right. It will be significantly more expensive until the drug gets a generic version.I would argue they price their drug just below the price of $6k to beat out the market of hearing aids.
Aside from the inexpensive materials and inexpensive manufacturing of their product, the good news is that 1/6 of the world is estimated to have some degree of hearing loss. The more people that share your ailment the cheaper it becomes per unit.
I suspect that only soldiers or other special cases will be covered under insurance. At least, at first. It would be nice though.Health care is refunding cochlear implants so it would be nice to get cured for free.
Some of you don't understand economics. At least 300 mil people have considerable hearing loss, more profitable to treat them all at $1k than just a small minority at a price of $25k.
Let's make a simple calculation.
If insurance companies and/or health care systems cover the costs:
300,000,000 x 25,000 = economic crisis
You will also have to keep in mind that if it is approved by the FDA they will still have to do their testing and approval elsewhere. That will dramatically limit those who can get the treatment at first to the US.Some of you don't understand economics. At least 300 mil people have considerable hearing loss, more profitable to treat them all at $1k than just a small minority at a price of $25k.
That was of course just a naive calculation. I only used the $25k value and the 300 mil (the mentioned values) just to get a feeling for the numbers and why I believe they can't cover it in the first years. I think it will be a process that starts private first and will be integrated in health care systems later on depending on the result of the treatment (cure hearing loss/improvement in hearing loss/cure tinnitus/improvement in tinnitus/... etc.)You are not accounting for their costs. They wouldn't make 25,000 per treatment in profit. And also I highly doubt that 100% of all people that have tinnitus would have the treatment no matter the cost.
Bruh, was it Frequency Therapeutics that did this study?It should be clearly understood that as of today Frequency Therapeutics is the only real hope.
All other researchers, such as the Hearing Health Foundation, which has a large cohort of scientists, including Professor Stefan Heller, could not regenerate hair cells in adult mice in vivo today.
I have gone out of my way and incurred personal financial losses many times to help people.They have to cover the cost of production as well as cost of development. Development can sometimes be not only for the working drug but for all failed drugs that the company might have worked on before.
As harsh as it may sound but nobody works for free and when it comes to treatments that you would have to do only once or twice, opposed to drugs you have to take indefinitely, they have to make up for that by having the treatment be expensive. Drugs are typically patented for 20 years so that's the time frame they have to make money from their initial investment.
Typically when setting prices you make some kind of prediction as to how many customers/patients you would have at certain price points and then try to find an optimal price that would make you the most revenue.
I think it's very difficult to speculate about price at the moment. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
I have gone out of my way and incurred personal financial losses many times to help people.
I think that the government should pay to develop medical technology to save lives and heal people just like they do to develop military technology to destroy lives and kill people.That is the double edged sword of capitalism and the free market. On one hand, free and open markets allow the pursuit of new ideas and is one of the primary drivers of innovation which then in turn converts to profit. The downside is that you gotta pay for the innovations....a small price to pay in this case in my opinion.
The pharmaceutical industry is far from being a free market.That is the double edged sword of capitalism and the free market. On one hand, free and open markets allow the pursuit of new ideas and is one of the primary drivers of innovation which then in turn converts to profit. The downside is that you gotta pay for the innovations....a small price to pay in this case in my opinion.
No truer words were ever spoken. They should put this in quotations on a gold plaque or something. Gold star. Nobel peace prize. Hell, even a Tinnitus Talk trophy: JohnAdams award.I think that the government should pay to develop medical technology to save lives and heal people just like they do to develop military technology to destroy lives and kill people.
You can just fly here.Let's say there is a cure approved in the US by 01.01.2020.
Are there any estimates when and how it will be available in Europe?
What's the process?
Why is it outdated? What is replacing it?oh and should I mention the outdated tonal audiogram will be the final judgement for this test.
You're saying this only works for mild and moderate? Im moderate but this totally upsets me! I wish everyone had the cure, fuck this, everyone is worthy of a good research in order to find a cure to help people! This makes me mad, this is pure torture. This is hell. I really wish they continue doing their research in order to find a cure for all of us.1: if you have cochlear implants you are disqualified from this treatment
2: if you have severe, profound hearing this treatment may not work as well on you
3: if you have mild hearing loss insurance will not cover this, especially if you have a mental illness to go with it
Modearate hearing loss is the Goldelocks zone
oh and should I mention the outdated tonal audiogram will be the final judgement for this test.
Why is it outdated? What is replacing it?
How can you know the exact price?How many grams of LY411575 will be needed? 25 mg is $189.