Pediatric endocrinologists were the only physicians interested in the arcana of GH metabolism and childrens growth, but their previously academic arguments took on new practical significance with major financial implications. The major scientific arguments dated back to the days of GH scarcity:
Everyone agrees on the nature and diagnosis of severe GH deficiency, but what are the edges and variations? How should marked constitutional delay be distinguished from partial GH deficiency? To what extent is "normal shortness" a matter of short children naturally making less growth hormone? Can a child make GH in response to a stimulation test but fail to make enough in "daily life" to grow normally? If a stimulation test is used to define deficiency, what GH cutoff should be used to define normal?It was the ethical questions that were new. Is GH not a wise use of finite healthcare resources, or is the physicians primary responsibility to the patient? If GH is given to most extremely short children to make them taller, will the definition of “extremely short” simply rise, negating the expected social benefit? If GH is given to short children whose parents can afford it, will shortness become a permanent mark of lower social origins? More of these issues are outlined in the ethics section. Whole meetings were devoted to these questions; pediatric endocrinology had become a specialty with its own bioethics issues. Despite the price, the 1990s became an era of experimentation to see what else growth hormone could help.
Although this previously scarce commodity was suddenly available in "bucketfuls", the price of treatment (US$10,000–30,000 per year) was the highest at the time. Genentech justified it by the prolonged research and development investment, orphan drug status, and a pioneering post-marketing surveillance registry for tracking safety and effectiveness (National Cooperative Growth Study).Within a few years, GH treatment had become more common and competitors entered the market. Eli Lilly launched a competing natural sequence growth hormone (Humatrope). Pharmacia (formerly Kabi, now Pfizer) introduced Genotropin. Novo Nordisk introduced Norditropin. Serono (now EMD Serono) introduced Saizen and Serostim. Ferring has introduced Zomacton. Genentech eventually introduced another HGH product, Nutropin, and stopped making Protropin in 2004. Price competition had begun. Teva, which is primarily a generics company, has introduced Tev-tropin. Chinese companies have entered the market as well and have introduced more pricing competition: NeoGenica BioScience Ltd. introduced Hypertropin, GeneScience introduced Jintropin, Anhui Anke Biotechnology introduced Ansomone, Shanghai United Kefei Biotechnology introduced Kefei HGH, and Hygene BioPharm introduced Hygetropin. These are all recombinant human growth hormone products and they have competed with various marketing strategies. Most children with severe deficiency in the developed world are now likely to have access to a pediatric endocrinologist and be diagnosed and offered treatment.Pediatric endocrinology became a recognizable specialty in the 1950s, but did not reach board status in the U.S. until the late 1970s. Even 10 years later, as a cognitive, procedureless specialty dealing with mostly rare diseases, it was one of the smallest, lowest-paid, and more obscure of the medical specialities.