In the high-stakes world of biotechnology, where scientific breakthroughs promise to eradicate diseases, a provocative question lingers: Is curing patients a viable long-term business strategy? A 2018 report from Goldman Sachs thrust this debate into the spotlight, analyzing how one-time cures could disrupt recurring revenue streams in the healthcare industry. The report, titled ‘The Genome Revolution,’ highlighted the tension between societal benefits and financial sustainability for drug developers.

Drawing on examples like Gilead Sciences’ groundbreaking treatments for hepatitis C, which effectively cured over 90% of patients, the analysis pointed out a stark reality. Sales of these drugs peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015 but plummeted as the pool of treatable patients shrank. As Salveen Richter, a Goldman Sachs analyst, noted in the report, ‘The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy… However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies.’

The Financial Mechanics of Cures

Goldman Sachs’ examination delved into the economics of innovative therapies, particularly gene editing and cell therapies. These advancements, while revolutionary, challenge the traditional pharmaceutical model built on ongoing treatments for chronic conditions. The report warned that successful cures could limit sustained cash flow, especially in fields like infectious diseases where eradicating the illness reduces the market size over time.

Recent discussions on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have amplified this narrative. Posts from users such as Wide Awake Media in 2025 referenced leaked Goldman Sachs discussions, quoting Dr. Anthony Chaffee: ‘Goldman Sachs had a part of their meeting leaked, and they said: Is curing patients a sustainable business model? The answer was no because a patient cured is a customer lost.’ These sentiments echo the 2018 report’s concerns, fueling public debate on healthcare ethics and profitability.

Echoes from Gilead’s Hepatitis Triumph

Gilead’s Sovaldi and Harvoni, which transformed hepatitis C from a lifelong affliction to a curable condition, serve as a case study. According to CNBC, Goldman Sachs highlighted how these drugs’ success led to a rapid decline in sales, as fewer new patients emerged post-cure. This model contrasts with chronic disease treatments, like those for diabetes or hypertension, which generate steady income through repeated prescriptions.

Industry insiders point to the broader implications. In a September 2025 podcast from Goldman Sachs, titled ‘The Healthcare Outlook: Macro Challenges and Biotech Innovations,’ Asad Haider, head of the US Healthcare Business Unit, discussed how macro challenges are affecting the sector. He noted pockets of innovation in biotech despite market lags, emphasizing the need for balanced investment strategies that consider both cures and ongoing therapies.

Broader Industry Reactions and Ethical Debates

The report sparked widespread backlash and discussion. A 2018 article in Above the Law questioned whether such analyses might deter investments in curative research, asking, ‘Will Goldman Sachs’s question reduce investments in research and development of disease cures?’ This concern resonates in 2025, as biotech firms navigate funding landscapes amid economic pressures.

On X, posts from 2025, including one from Wall Street Mav, revisited the 2018 report with the quote: ‘There is no profit in trying to cure you. Goldman Sachs said the quiet part out loud.’ Such commentary underscores a growing public skepticism toward profit-driven healthcare models, with users like Red Pill Dispenser alleging, ‘A leaked Goldman Sachs meeting discussed the sustainability of curing patients as a business model. The conclusion was clear: A patient cured is a customer lost.’

Innovations and Market Adaptations

Despite these challenges, the biotech sector continues to innovate. Goldman Sachs’ own 2025 outlook, as detailed on their website Goldman Sachs, highlights advancements in life sciences. Amit Sinha, head of Life Sciences Investing, discussed how investors are eyeing sustainable models, such as combining cures with preventive care or expanding into rare diseases where patient pools remain consistent.

A December 2024 post on Daily Kos revisited the report, describing it as ‘a dry-eyed reality check about finances behind medical research.’ It emphasized how genome therapy’s one-shot cures might disrupt cash flows, aligning with Goldman Sachs’ original warnings.

Investor Perspectives and Future Trajectories

Investors are adapting. A 2025 article from Falix Online, published just 14 hours ago, revisited the topic, noting that Goldman Sachs analysts are still grappling with gene therapy’s business implications. The piece stressed that while cures offer immense value, they require new pricing and reimbursement models to ensure profitability.

Ethical considerations remain paramount. Bioethics discussions, as covered in a 2024 article on Bioethics.com, quote Richter: ‘While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.’ This duality continues to shape policy and investment decisions.

Global Implications and Policy Shifts

Internationally, the debate influences healthcare policy. In Europe and Asia, regulators are exploring value-based pricing for curative therapies, aiming to balance innovation with accessibility. Goldman Sachs’ insights have informed these discussions, as seen in recent Reuters coverage of the firm Reuters, which tracks ongoing developments in biotech financing.

X posts from 2025, such as those by Dr. Andrew Kaufman MD, critique the system: ‘The healthcare industry doesn’t profit from prevention or healing—it profits from keeping people trapped in a cycle of treatment.’ These views highlight a shift toward consumer-driven demands for ethical innovation.

Strategies for Sustainable Biotech Growth

To mitigate risks, companies are diversifying. Goldman Sachs recommends targeting diseases with large, renewable patient populations or developing companion diagnostics. A 2023 Reddit thread on r/interestingasfuck, referencing Reddit, captured public outrage, with users debating the morality of profit over cures.

Looking ahead, the 2025 BizToc article BizToc notes Goldman Sachs’ young multimillionaire clients investing in AI-energy and healthcare innovations, signaling confidence in adaptive models. As Haider stated in the Goldman Sachs podcast, the sector’s lag behind broader markets masks underlying opportunities in biotech.

Navigating the Ethical Tightrope

The conversation extends to broader societal impacts. A 2018 Yahoo Finance piece Yahoo Finance echoed CNBC’s reporting, warning of difficulties in maintaining sales from successful treatments. In 2025, this remains relevant as firms like CRISPR Therapeutics push gene-editing frontiers.

Ultimately, the biotech industry must reconcile profit motives with humanitarian goals. As Dr. Chaffee reiterated in multiple X posts, ‘You never go for cures—you just go for treatments.’ Yet, evolving business models may bridge this gap, fostering innovations that benefit both patients and shareholders.