..A good example is a new hepatitis C drug, developed after years of high-risk, publicly-funded, university-based scientific research. The drug is now sold under patent monopoly for $84,000 a course while the actual production costs sit at around $70-140. While it’s true the drug company invested around $500 million for clinical trials, it’s estimated this investment would have been recovered with just a few weeks of sales (patent monopolies last 20 years)…’
CrusaderRabbit
FOR LIBERTY
It looks like the affordable healthcare will be unaffordable and without healthcare.
OT http://ericpetersautos.com/
The issue of Patents is generally a difficult one. I see no difference in an owner of a product protecting it through patents than an owner of a house protecting it with a padlock. The product cited raises issues which may or may not yield unfairness, if not exploitation, but one tough instance oughtn’t be applied to the regime of protection which patents serve.
There’s a damn huge difference in those cases where much of the research has been funded by the taxpayer, Cad.
Michael Crichton’s book “Next” explains the unethical, greedy and at times downright criminal stuff surrounding gene therapy research. The setting is fiction, but the facts are real.
I see quite a simple solution.
The vast majority of drugs are not under patent, yes?
You simply tell the company to sell it at a reasonable price or all their products will be banned from your market.
Oh wait… TPP. Guess that option goes out the window.
The majority of drugs not under patent are being manufactured in India, etc. and are being bought by Pharmac for reasonable prices. What the TPP has done is allowed the Big Pharma to extend the period under which they are under patent and get the big payout for longer. It also allows them to sue Pharmac, etc. if they go off to India and buy cheap before the patent expires.
This is why Big Pharma, Hollywood, etc. donated large amounts of money to Obama’s election campaign.
Yup.
The article doesn’t tell the full story-
http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20140414/high-cost-hepatitis-c-drugs
Two points:
Firstly, the pharmaceutical company has to cover the cost of research for the hundreds of drugs that turn out to be useless, as well as the cost of the successful one.
Secondly, the drug often takes a dozen or more years to make it from the lab, through clinical trials and finally through the FDA. This often leaves a sales window of considerably less than half of the patent period. FDA delays, where more information is sought, can leave companies with a patent window of only 2 or 3 years. This is why the US routinely extends drug patents.
I have not seen the wording of the TPPA but it sounds like we have only agreed to CONSIDER extending patents in those sorts of circumstances (unlike in the US, where patent extension is, essentially, routinely rubber-stamped).
Having said all that, there is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies use their monopolies to gouge extreme profits. The bigger ones all have very healthy annual accounts.
Yep. Viagra earns Pfizer more than £1bn a year and has been doing so since 1998.
….with small side effects like blindness, insanity and heart attacks – but the patient dies with a smile on his face – You come as you go!
Modern science – you gotta love it to DEATH!