The idea of this paper is to draw a parallel between two diametrically opposed political economies of medicine that coexist today. The first is embodied in the invention, appropriation, and distribution of antivirals for hepatitis C, particularly sofosbuvir, which was commercialized at an initial price of $85,000 in the United States, €56,000 in France, and $8000 in Brazil. These prices destabilized payers in both the North and the South. The second economy encompasses the invention, industrialization and distribution of new therapeutic combinations for malaria that were commercialized by Sanofi from 2007 onwards at a price of $1 per treatment for public markets. This price was set by a contract negotiated with Médecins sans Frontières. In this paper, I examine the pricing of these 2 classes of drugs, and I argue that the prices synthesize these political economies: they summarize the policy of appropriation of these molecules, aimed at their monopolization or a model of common good; they are referred to economic value regimes designed to optimize the profitability of advanced capital or to increase the accessibility of drugs for public payers and patients; and they are justified or contested by moral economies.

中文翻译：

---

制药行业的价值体系和定价：金融资本膨胀（丙型肝炎）与疟疾药物的创新和生产资本节约

本文的想法是在当今并存的两种截然相反的医学政治经济学之间进行比较。第一个体现在丙型肝炎抗病毒药物的发明、拨款和分销中，特别是索非布韦，其在美国的初始价格为 85,000 美元，在法国为 56,000 欧元，在巴西为 8000 美元。这些价格动摇了北方和南方的付款人。第二个经济体包括新的疟疾治疗组合的发明、产业化和分销，赛诺菲从 2007 年开始以每治疗 1 美元的价格在公共市场上商业化。这个价格是根据与无国界医生协商的合同确定的。在本文中，我研究了这两类药物的定价，我认为价格综合了这些政治经济：它们总结了这些分子的占有政策，旨在垄断它们或共同利益的模式；它们被称为经济价值体系，旨在优化先进资本的盈利能力或增加公共支付者和患者获得药物的机会；它们被道德经济证明或质疑。