Techdirt Podcast Episode 119: Does Pharma Really Need Patents?
from the let's-dig-in dept
It doesn't take many stories of people suffering due to unaffordable medicine to make you question the state of pharmaceutical patents, but the arguments in their defense are loud and frequent. Most are variations on the same theme: without the promise of a monopoly, important drugs would never be researched and developed. But does this argument truly hold up? It's come up as a tangent in previous episodes of the podcast, but this week we're dedicating a full episode to questioning the popular defenses of pharma patents and looking for a better way forward.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Keep tilting at windmills, TD. Nobody hates innovation more than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the very patented drugs you despise will literally save your life.
Hey, can you point out where I said I despise patents drugs? Because I've never suggested that ever at all.
Is there a reason you just make up shit? Is it because you can't actually respond to our arguments, or that you can't comprehend them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where's the "Ooooo, snap!" button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in coming up with this new model (which hasn't been brought up in the podcast) it's worth considering that governments generally do invest in drug discovery (I don't know whether the US does though), but they generally don't currently have anywhere near funds to invest in the safety funds. So if the government's involved, that may need to be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before I listen to cast I have to say -- extending lifespan?
I'm just listing the medical industries, I mean health care insurance top money payouts. I'm saying 1 & 2 don't cure,just manage. I have ben told that HEP-C treatment is so high that the 3rd world may as well not know it exists. My spouse deals with the cost of Self-Insured business and the cost of continued research is kinda built onto the system; Cost shifting-- (buyers of insurance get charged big $ but hospitals pay to fix anyone) to the patent Rx to market; ROI is a fiction when a 10 year span of research is factored in.
The reason for me saying what i know now? I won't be distracted later. Somebody will say I'm just a tool of Big-Rx. Well, bummer. Nobody gets off this rock alive.
Note:Late 1990's etanercept [trademark name here] was $3000 a month forever. Today $ per month is lower, lab work is same [doctor stuff] Public doesn't see the overall savings in reduced damage to body, quality of life, and so on unless it is happening to them. It's not the patent that is broken, policy in Washington DC is. {see flu vaccine manufacturing support).
Rx trade in North America is shameful; Canada won't poison buyers, buying from website in southeast asia might. Manufacturing under license = oversight.
/some opinions may vary
Remember that viruses are the only thing never to suffer extinction. Useful little critters-- loading mp3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listening to the 'cast twice and I'm maybe half right
WWII put pharma on center stage. The well known manufactures of medical compounds grew to big for regulators to sit and do nothing. Must-Be-Effective money pit created by FDA was the spark that lit up patent debate.
I still stand on "policy" is the problem -- Trade agreements and giving generic manufacturing rights to Africa without fees is a start. The only sure bet in making medicine is the research will go on no matter what -- The big names own everything thanks to FDA.
Still a better system than Elixir method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review
I mean health care insurance top money payouts. I'm saying 1 & 2 don't cure,just manage. I have ben told that HEP-C treatment is so high that the 3rd world may as well not know it exists. My spouse deals with the cost of Self-Insured business and the cost of continued research is kinda built onto the system; Cost shifting-- (buyers of insurance get charged big $ but hospitals pay to fix anyone) to the patent Rx to market; ROI is a fiction when a 10 year span of research is factored in. https://www.dgcustomerfirst.page/
The reason for me saying what i know now? I won't be distracted later. Somebody will say I'm just a tool of Big-Rx. Well, bummer. Nobody gets off this rock alive.
Note:Late 1990's etanercept [trademark name here] was $3000 a month forever. Today $ per month is lower, lab work is same [doctor stuff] Public doesn't see the overall savings in reduced damage to body, quality of life, and so on unless it is happening to them. It's not the patent that is broken, policy in Washington DC is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]