Case 3 Merck and River Blindness 
10/6/2014
Case 3: Merck and River Blindness
1. Why was Merck hesitant about developing a human version of Ivermectin?
Merck considered this opportunity as a high risk investment. The cost of developing the drug was estimated at $100 million. Even if it was successful to cure river blindness the victims were too poor to afford the drug. There was no way to distribute it in these rural areas were the victims were located. In addition, there was a possibility that people would misuse the drugs, which would cause negative side effects and stimulate bad press for Merck. During this time, healthcare costs were on the rise, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements were limited for companies developing drugs like Merck. Congress was also about to pass an act that would make it easier for competitors to copy and market generic drugs. All of this opposition made Merck hesitant about developing Ivermectin.
2. What were the benefits and cost of developing a human version of Ivermectin?
The case described benefits of the new drug as a low-cost, safe, and simple cure for river blindness. The current residents suffering from this parasite did not have funds to afford alternate treatments like expensive hospital visits or other drug options that are required for a cure.
As reported in the reading, the condition is caused by a worm that is passed through the bite of a black fly along the tropical areas of Africa and Latin America. The worm then burrows under the skin and continues to grow up to a length of two feet. As the worm reproduces, it releases millions of offspring that slowly wriggle underneath the skin until invading the eyes, eventually causing blindness. Victims often commit suicide due to the pain and itching that this parasite causes. The development of this drug would relieve victims from immense suffering and potential blindness. It would also lead to a possibility of brand marketing for Merck the area of treatment.
Foreseen costs include a potential $100 million to
Case 3: Merck and River Blindness
1. Why was Merck hesitant about developing a human version of Ivermectin?
Merck considered this opportunity as a high risk investment. The cost of developing the drug was estimated at $100 million. Even if it was successful to cure river blindness the victims were too poor to afford the drug. There was no way to distribute it in these rural areas were the victims were located. In addition, there was a possibility that people would misuse the drugs, which would cause negative side effects and stimulate bad press for Merck. During this time, healthcare costs were on the rise, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements were limited for companies developing drugs like Merck. Congress was also about to pass an act that would make it easier for competitors to copy and market generic drugs. All of this opposition made Merck hesitant about developing Ivermectin.
2. What were the benefits and cost of developing a human version of Ivermectin?
The case described benefits of the new drug as a low-cost, safe, and simple cure for river blindness. The current residents suffering from this parasite did not have funds to afford alternate treatments like expensive hospital visits or other drug options that are required for a cure.
As reported in the reading, the condition is caused by a worm that is passed through the bite of a black fly along the tropical areas of Africa and Latin America. The worm then burrows under the skin and continues to grow up to a length of two feet. As the worm reproduces, it releases millions of offspring that slowly wriggle underneath the skin until invading the eyes, eventually causing blindness. Victims often commit suicide due to the pain and itching that this parasite causes. The development of this drug would relieve victims from immense suffering and potential blindness. It would also lead to a possibility of brand marketing for Merck the area of treatment.
Foreseen costs include a potential $100 million to