New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Most Expensive U.S. Medicine Now Has an Official Sticker Price

This gene therapy for vision loss will initially cost $850,000

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The first gene therapy in the U.S., approved last month to treat a rare, inherited form of blindness, now has a price tag: $850,000.

That makes the treatment, called Luxturna and made by Spark Therapeutics, the most expensive medicine sold in the U.S., ranked by sticker price.

But Spark CEO Jeff Marrazzo says Luxturna’s ability to restore vision in a small number of people with a defective gene justifies the high cost, particularly because the gene therapy is only injected one time in each eye for a long-term benefit. Many investors expected Spark to charge $1 million or more for Luxturna, so the actual price will be considered a bargain by some.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“I feel like we made the right middle ground decision,” Marrazzo said in an interview, balancing the company’s desire to capture the economic value of Luxturna while ensuring patients will have access to the therapy.

To further smooth reimbursement—and mute the inevitable criticism about the price—Spark on Wednesday announced a commitment to offer rebates to health insurers if patients fail to meet specified vision thresholds 30-90 days and 30 months following Luxturna treatment. One-time gene therapies are meant to be curative, but patients in clinical trials have not been followed long enough to determine if treatment benefits are durable for decades.

Spark reached an agreement in principle with nonprofit health plan Harvard Pilgrim, which insures 1.2 million people across New England, for the first outcomes-based rebate arrangement. Additional rebate contracts with other commercial insurance companies are being negotiated, Spark said.

How much of the $850,000 cost of Luxturna would be returned to insurers if patients don’t benefit from treatment was not disclosed.

Harvard Pilgrim and Express Scripts, the country’s largest pharmacy benefits manager, have also agreed to a new contracting arrangement with Spark that guarantees patient access to Luxturna in exchange for reducing the financial burden and risk for treatment providers and insurers.

Under another proposal still in the conceptual stage, Spark would allow insurers to spread the payments for Luxturna over multiple years.

“As far as the price, and the structures to pay the price, I think it’s all pretty much in line with what we’re seeing in other innovative therapies,” said Dr. Stuart Orkin, a pediatric oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital. He cited CAR-T therapies for cancer, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and newfangled immuno-oncology treatments with similar price tags.

The question for Orkin, who has written extensively about how society should pay for gene therapy, will be just how Spark determines whether an individual patient treated with Luxturna has “failed” and thus merits a rebate.

“But I do applaud them for thinking through the payment schemes,” Orkin said. “It’s better than if they had just put out a price and said, you know, ‘You’re paying it.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved Luxturna in December to treat people with a type of inherited retinal disease caused by a mutation in a gene called RPE65. People born with mutated RPE65 genes suffer from severe vision problems, including night blindness. As the disease progresses, people lose all functional vision and can eventually become totally blind.

The condition is rare, affecting between 1,000 and 2,000 people in the U.S. About 10-20 babies are born each year with RPE65-mutated retinal disease, Spark estimates.

Wall Street analysts, on average, are forecasting Luxturna sales to reach $364 million by 2022, according to Evaluate. By drug industry standards, which anoint blockbuster status to products that generate $1 billion in sales, Luxturna is expected to be only modestly successful. But that’s also likely another reason why Spark is choosing not to price more aggressively.

Botching Luxturna’s commercial launch by angering insurers and providers with too high of a price won’t serve Spark well in the future when its other gene therapies—targeting larger and more commercially lucrative diseases like hemophilia—reach the market, assuming promising data seen to date lead to approvals.

Spark shares closed Tuesday at $53.31, ahead of the Luxturna pricing announcement.

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on January 3, 2017

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.

More by STAT

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe