Saum Sutaria, M.D.

And over 65, arguably, you may reduce the burden of disease, but you may increase longevity, which, as we know, creates additional costs over time because it's kind of unknown whether you can stay on these drugs or whether people will stay on the drugs. above 70, 80 into their 90s? And will there be a reversion? In other words, are you just delaying the spend?

And over 65, arguably, you may reduce the burden of disease, but you may increase longevity, which, as we know, creates additional costs over time because it's kind of unknown whether you can stay on these drugs or whether people will stay on the drugs. above 70, 80 into their 90s? And will there be a reversion? In other words, are you just delaying the spend?

Or are you actually avoiding the spend? We don't know. What little I know about how these drugs work is that when you withdraw them, there is a negative effect from that perspective. How persistent that is and how that'll change over time, I guess, with new drugs, we'll find out.

Or are you actually avoiding the spend? We don't know. What little I know about how these drugs work is that when you withdraw them, there is a negative effect from that perspective. How persistent that is and how that'll change over time, I guess, with new drugs, we'll find out.

I go back to the notion, though, that I think it's fundamentally not the right answer to wish that nobody innovated these drugs. I think that's crazy. And again, you can get into what it costs and who paid for it and who is paying for it given the price differences between here and the rest of the world. I will also say the prices for these drugs are too high.

I go back to the notion, though, that I think it's fundamentally not the right answer to wish that nobody innovated these drugs. I think that's crazy. And again, you can get into what it costs and who paid for it and who is paying for it given the price differences between here and the rest of the world. I will also say the prices for these drugs are too high.

My view, personal view, they're too high. I also believe that they won't stay this high as the penetration grows across newer and newer indications and the population.

My view, personal view, they're too high. I also believe that they won't stay this high as the penetration grows across newer and newer indications and the population.

Well, I think the reality is that because they're so visible, they have ended up generating a lot of political attention. And I think this gets back to a lot of things in the free market culture that we live in, which is we have wide operating parameters in a free market. But at times when things go outside of those parameters, it's not entirely a free market.

Well, I think the reality is that because they're so visible, they have ended up generating a lot of political attention. And I think this gets back to a lot of things in the free market culture that we live in, which is we have wide operating parameters in a free market. But at times when things go outside of those parameters, it's not entirely a free market.

It's just a wide parameter free market. When things goes outside of those parameters, people take notice. And That leaves organizations with the choice. Do they proactively move themselves back into some acceptable parameters, or do they wait for somebody to do it to them? And by the way, the U.S.

It's just a wide parameter free market. When things goes outside of those parameters, people take notice. And That leaves organizations with the choice. Do they proactively move themselves back into some acceptable parameters, or do they wait for somebody to do it to them? And by the way, the U.S.

government, like any government, does have a history of moving things back into reasonable parameters. I mean, there's no such thing as a 100% free market economy.

government, like any government, does have a history of moving things back into reasonable parameters. I mean, there's no such thing as a 100% free market economy.

from that standpoint, especially when we've described our own healthcare system as being somewhat free market and choice driven, but the economic flows essentially shield the consumer from the actual cost of the care that they're consuming, meaning the insurance scheme and other things. So it is a difficult problem to solve.

from that standpoint, especially when we've described our own healthcare system as being somewhat free market and choice driven, but the economic flows essentially shield the consumer from the actual cost of the care that they're consuming, meaning the insurance scheme and other things. So it is a difficult problem to solve.

I understand your point about follow-ons, but I suspect that in some ways this will come back into some reasonable parameters.

I understand your point about follow-ons, but I suspect that in some ways this will come back into some reasonable parameters.

Well, they're owned by the payers.

Well, they're owned by the payers.