FDA approves first monthly injectable to treat HIV infection
> The cost, however, is steep — the list, or wholesale, price is $3,960 a month, or more than $47,500 a year. The list price for the one-time initiation dose is $5,490.Median income in the US is ~$31K apparently. So even in a rich country, this is like 50% more than the income of a typical person.My understanding is the funding for the trials was partly from NIAID. This seems like yet another case where public funds are used for research, but a company ends up with the ability to dictate pricing.I'm glad that this works and that there is another, more convenient and effective treatment option. But shouldn't we have some setup where if tax dollars pay for the research, the government should own a share of the IP commensurate with their funding level, and should then be able to have some say in pricing?Or, if you think that the government itself shouldn't own IP for a product on the market, can we create an independent non-profit which receives ownership, and whose charter aligns with actually treating as many people as possible?I'm not saying that when real, innovative work happens, pharmaceutical companies shouldn't get some meaningful return on the money they put in. But when the public supports the work, we shouldn't get nothing.