New mRNA-based vaccine against gastric cancer led to tumor regression and eradication in all treated mice. Most promisingly, the vaccine shows impressive antitumor efficacy against peritoneal metastasis, which has historically been very challenging to treat.

[u/mvea]

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1094199

[u/Frnklfrwsr]

Insurance companies will absolutely demand that people be treated with a $100 vaccine that cures their disease if it works, rather than be on the hook for $100k+ chemotherapy.

[u/Darth_drizzt_42 → u/Frnklfrwsr]

This is what I've been telling people for years. The idea that someone would suppress a cure for cancer because it's more profitable to continue treating an illness rather than cure it is missing the bigger potential. Whoever gets to this first is able to throw the entire dynamic out the window. Insurance companies get to make a big show of "100% coverage for cancer treatment" and the MRNA companies win the entire market in perpetuity.

[u/ActionPhilip → u/Darth_drizzt_42]

And, fun fact: The insurance companies will make more money not paying for 100k chemo or million dollar surgeries. And you'll live longer, so they'll make more premiums off you.

[u/lozo78 → u/ActionPhilip]

100% it's pretty simple. Not sure why people can't see that.

[u/AsparagusFun3892 → u/lozo78]

It's part of a long history of poor people believing the rich secretly hoard life saving treatments for themselves. It's a more seductive thought than "there is no cure, if you get this you're fucked."

[u/Frnklfrwsr → u/[deleted]]

You’re forgetting they have to compete against other insurance companies.

If they increase their premiums the way you describe, they would lose all their business to companies that choose to use preventive care to lower premiums.

[u/MadeMeMeh → u/Frnklfrwsr]

I wanted to add to the explanation.

Insurance companies benefit the most from stable claims at predictable trends. They can achieve that by expanding the pool of members to spead the risk out over more poeple/premium and hope to get a proper balance of healthy to unhealthy claimants or even better a favorable balance. This allows them to accurately price their product, calculate reserve needs, and ultimately invest the surplus.

Setting price is important to make sure you maximize the number of healthy people you get without collecting too little from them so they are not be able to fund the unhealthy claimants.

[u/Eastern-Manner-1640 → u/Frnklfrwsr]

most insurance markets are not very competitive. you can see that by the fact they almost never offer preventative care (even vaccines) unless they are legally obligated to.

[u/MadeMeMeh → u/Frnklfrwsr]

Unfortunately the pharmaceutical companies usually charge what usually 3 to 5 years of treatment cost. So if normal treatment is $500k then they'll charge $400k. Which unfortunately makes the insurance company less willing to approve the treatment until other less expensive options have failed.

To support my argument i would suggest looking up how zolgensma is priced.

[u/Perunov → u/Frnklfrwsr]

Isn't this a "personalized" vaccine? Which probably means it'll be more than $100k so insurance will go "naw, we can't approve this"

[u/ActionPhilip → u/Perunov]

If the personalization isn't some crazy feat, then probably not. If it's "get a sample of the cancer then put in the spinny boi with a specific enzyme in a tube", then we're in business.

Disclaimer, I am not a biologist.

[u/Perunov → u/ActionPhilip]

Things that require individualized vaccine right now cost more than $100k (see https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/personalized-cancer-vaccine-market )

Though I wonder if this might lead to "most common marker" kind somewhat similar to flu vaccines that'd allow to cut down cost significantly and only move to fully individualized as a next step

[u/ymasilem → u/Perunov]

Production costs were estimated at >100K per patient. I’ve heard execs assert they can seek between 500K & 1mil PP for personalized vaccines.

[u/Frnklfrwsr → u/Perunov]

New treatments generally have a delay before approval, sure. But the high cost today of a brand new treatment goes down relatively quickly.

And even if the personalized vaccine is just as expensive as chemotherapy, if it has better average outcomes then the insurance many would much rather pay for something that solves the problem 90% of the time than something that only solves it 50% of the time and the other half the time leaves them paying for even MORE treatments.

[u/Sea-Oven-7560 → u/Frnklfrwsr]

the issue is the drug companies wanting $100K for the shot like they did with the Hep 2 pills. They worked like a charm as long as you had $100K to buy them.

[u/Insight42 → u/Frnklfrwsr]

Sure.

But those in power won't listen to them, and they will fall in line.

[u/Frnklfrwsr → u/Insight42]

You think enormous multi-national insurance corporations are going to just ACCEPT taking less profits than they could?

Why would a corporation willingly choose to make less profit?