"The problem would not be nearly so severe if the drugs' government-granted monopolies were shorter. Once generic versions are allowed to compete, a medicine's price often drops by almost half, sometimes more than 85 percent, if enough competitors jump into the market. Yet the government tends to do the opposite, the Brigham and Women's researchers found, by extending market exclusivity via additional patents for trivial alterations -- a new coating on a pill, for example. This is nonsensical: Unless a drug is transformed in a way that affects its therapeutic value, it should not qualify for an extended patent. Drug makers often stretch their own market exclusivity by paying generics companies to delay introducing competitive medicines. The government, which is protecting these companies' monopoly rights, should demand an end to this tactic."
Issues and developments related to ethics, information, and technologies, examined in the ethics and intellectual property graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in Summer 2025. Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Showing posts with label generic versions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label generic versions. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
The Real Reason Drugs Cost Too Much; Bloomberg View, 8/23/16
Editorial Board, Bloomberg View; The Real Reason Drugs Cost Too Much:
Monday, August 29, 2016
Who is to blame for the EpiPen hike? Drug monopolies – not evil CEOs; Guardian, 8/29/16
Colin Holtz, Guardian; Who is to blame for the EpiPen hike? Drug monopolies – not evil CEOs:
"Instead of playing whack-a-mole, we need to break the monopolies themselves. Many companies have effectively outsourced their R&D to federally funded academic research. Under existing law, federal funding of R&D requires companies to offer the medicine on “reasonable terms”. If they do not, we can demand generic versions for federal programs like VA hospitals, and pay a royalty in return. Or, we can simply break the patent for everyone. In fact, we may not be limited to publicly funded pharmaceuticals. The federal government technically has the power to suspend a patent altogether. In 2003, the Bush administration threatened the maker of anthrax medicine Cipro with exactly that power. Moving forward, all new patents could include far-stricter cost protections that link prices to median income. Or, if you prefer a more flexible system, you could incentivize innovation with hefty cash prizes, but place the resulting drugs in the public domain."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)