How pharma might make do with less

Yesterday, in light of a federal estimate that Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing bill would result in between eight and 15 fewer new therapies over a decade, we asked readers: What kind of lost drugs are we talking about here?

About 59% of respondents argued that, with cheaper drugs leading to smaller revenues, pharma companies would shy away from investing in high-risk, high-reward areas like gene therapy, resulting in fewer practice-changing products. The other 40% said drug companies would instead curtail their efforts to develop me-too treatments, the ones that compete in crowded markets for diminishing returns.

It may not surprise you to read that the industry leans toward the former conclusion, with BIO President Jim Greenwood saying in a statement that the Pelosi bill is an “assault on an innovative industry [that] will be especially devastating for patients” and PhRMA CEO Stephen Ubl opining last week that it would bring “nuclear winter” for biopharma.

It is perhaps worth noting that this is a biotech newsletter, one whose audience largely works in and around the drug industry and thus relies on the sector’s health for job security. Through that lens, that 40% figure, despite coming from a deeply unscientific survey, is interesting.