Drug Firms Freaking Out Over Expiring Patents

from the live-by-the-patent... dept

Glyn Moody points us to a discussion about how the big pharma firms are freaking out because their key patents are expiring, and they've failed to develop any new patentable drugs in a while. This is leading the usual patent supporters to worry and fret. Of course, the whole thing is backwards. As Moody points out, expiring patents should be a cause for celebration, not dismay. It means the public is getting access to all sorts of important medicines at much more reasonable prices. That's good news.

The real issue here is that for years patents massively distorted the healthcare market. It hasn't been about keeping people healthy at all. It's been about finding patentable drugs to extract monopoly rents (often at the expense of actually keeping people healthy). Perhaps, if we can get past this silly and short-sighted focus on patentable medicine as being the key component of healthcare, we can start seeing smarter companies develop smarter business models that actually align interests: firms that recognize there's tremendous value in actually keeping people healthy, rather than trying to sell them a tiny pill.

If you start looking at the economic research behind healthcare, you begin to realize that the economic incentives around healthcare are totally screwed up. The reports have shown that keeping people healthy for longer contributes billions, if not trillions to the economy. If firms can't figure out how to profit from keeping people healthy, they're not paying attention. But that's never been the focus of our healthcare policy, and it's a shame. If today's drug companies are felled by their overreliance on patents, perhaps we can finally move on to rethinking healthcare towards making people healthy and improving the economy at the same time... rather than the current structure that appears to do neither of those things all too often.

Filed Under: business models, drugs, health care, healthcare, patents, pharma

DailyDirt: Better Medicine

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Modern medicine has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go -- especially when it comes to figuring out whether or not drugs are even doing better than a placebo. Categorizing and quantifying the development of drugs in a more public way could speed up the progress of new treatments, so it's nice to see some folks getting around to doing just that. Here are some links about drugs and a relatively new way to diagnose brain disorders.

• The Pillbox project is organizing a huge database of various drugs and their interactions. This probably duplicates databases from pharmacies like Walmart/Walgreens, but the data will be public. [url]
• With near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), psychiatric diagnoses might be more accurately determined. Or at least, these brain scans will create a database of brain patterns to help categorize various mental conditions. [url]
• The contribution of public-sector research institutions (PSRIs) for developing FDA-approved drugs and vaccines has been quantified. "Virtually all the important, innovative vaccines that have been introduced during the past 25 years have been created by PSRIs." [url]
• LSD has a pretty interesting history. Derivatives of the drug could have a more interesting future, too. [url]
• To discover more biotech stuff, check out what's roaming around in the StumbleUpon jungle. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: drugs, lsd, near-infrared spectroscopy, pillbox, public-sector research institutions

'War' On Fake Drugs Really An Excuse To Boost Big Pharma; Putting The Poor At Risk

from the realities-of-patents dept

We've pointed out similar things before, but Oxfam has come out with a new report, claiming that the claims from developed nations about the need to fight "fake drugs," is quite frequently really just an excuse to protect big pharma firms from generic competition. No one is denying that actual fake drugs can potentially be harmful. But, the problem is that the various efforts, including ACTA, to deal with the issue often lump together actual dangerous fake pharmaceuticals with drugs that are simply cheaper but perfectly safe. Oxfam would like to see a legitimate strategy for getting the real fake drugs out of the market, but says the current strategies are all about boosting patent protections, increasing prices for the poor and developing nations and better protecting big pharma against upstart competitors.

The European Union and the United States continue to focus almost exclusively on eliminating counterfeit medicines which form only a small part of this public health problem -- but which are a serious concern for their multinational companies. They have used the crisis in medicine quality in developing countries as an excuse to push for new intellectual property rules that will boost the profits of pharmaceutical giants at the expense of affordable medicines for the poor.

Of course, this becomes important when you realize that ACTA was specifically designed to pressure developing nations into adopting these types of new, more stringent patent and copyright laws. Oxfam is hoping that those countries won't be bullied:

At a time when poor countries struggle to ensure that their populations can get affordable, quality medicines it is outrageous that rich countries and drug companies are pushing 'solutions' that will do more harm than good to patients and public health. It is critical that poor countries ignore rich-country pressure, and focus instead on solutions that will ensure both quality and affordability of medicines.

Filed Under: acta, counterfeits, drugs, generics, health
Companies: oxfam

Study Suggests Placebos Don't Have To Be Secret To Work

from the this-is-important dept

I travel an awful lot, and for a while I used to come down with a cold fairly frequently after traveling (one of the usual hazards of air travel). Somewhere along the way -- a few years back -- someone suggested that I try Airborne, the tablets you drop into some water that fizz up and put a bunch of random vitamins and whatnot into your system. From the beginning, I was pretty skeptical about it (I don't tend to believe in such things), but figured I didn't have much to lose, and started taking Airborne when I travel. Since then, I can't recall ever ending up sick during or after traveling. There have been a few times when I felt like I was coming down with something, but then I'd take an Airborne and feel fine again by the next day. It was weird.

Still, I wasn't all that surprised, two years ago, when a report came out blasting Airborne, with the FTC fining the company, saying that there was "no credible evidence" that it worked. I thought about stopping my routine, but after thinking about it, I kept doing it (and was happy to see that Airborne actually became much cheaper after this). And it still worked for me -- even though I was now more convinced than ever that it's merely a placebo. But since then I have been really curious about this idea, as to whether or not someone could take something, even believing that it was a placebo, and have it still work. I even would joke about it with people, that even though I knew it didn't work, I was going to keep taking it until I had proof it didn't work.

Since then, I've become more and more interested in the concept of the placebo effect -- not really even believing my own story (sample size of one, plus confirmation bias, makes me distrust my own evidence...). Last year, we wrote about how the pharma industry was downplaying the placebo effect, even though there was growing evidence that people taking placebos were actually getting better, and it was leading more and more drugs to fail to pass clinical trials, since they didn't outperform placebos. The general reaction to this was to assume the drugs didn't work (which could be true), but very little effort was put into figuring out how come some people taking the placebos did seem to get better. There has been some research done in this area, but a major problem is that pharmaceutical companies have been refusing to share the data from their various clinical trials that would provide much needed data about the placebo effect.

The latest bit of research on this issue (which Mike mentioned in his recent DailyDirt post), is that some researchers have done a study which at least suggests that (as I found with Airborne) even when patients know that they're taking a placebo, it can still have an actual beneficial impact on their health. Now, this is just one study, and it's rather limited, but it's an intriguing area of research that I hope will get a lot more exploration as well. Mike wrote it off to bad control experiments, but I'm wondering if there's something more here.

Again, what would be really helpful is if pharmaceutical companies would release the data they already have from various clinical trials, which would allow for a much deeper analysis of the placebo effect. But, of course, they don't see much benefit in doing that. They want monopolies on drugs -- and evidence of a working placebo effect could harm their business prospects, even if it did lead to a better understanding of how to actually make people healthy. I have no doubt that certain drugs really do make people healthier. But if we could figure out how people are made healthier in the absence of drugs -- even when they know they're getting a placebo, we might get closer to really understanding certain elements of health that could actually serve to make future drugs a lot more effective in keeping people healthy (and, potentially also get past thinking of healthcare as being drugcare, when there's a lot more to keeping people healthy than just pharmaceuticals).

Over four years ago, Andy Kessler came out with his book, called The End of Medicine, which highlights how unfortunate it is that our healthcare system is really dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, where the focus is on "what drugs can be sold," rather than "what can actually make people healthy." In Kessler's book, what suffers are unique technologies that make people healthy, but have trouble getting approval for use (or money for research) because they don't fit into the usual drug classification systems. But it seems that the same sort of thinking applies to the lack of serious effort behind understanding the placebo effect. Hopefully, that's starting to change...

Filed Under: drugs, health care, placebo effect, placebos

Drug Rep Accidentally Admits There's No Justification For Massive Markup Over Generics

from the truth-in-emailing dept

Ever wondered why brand name drugs are so much more expensive than generics? Well, so did one Reddit user, who asked what magical qualities made a branded pill worth $500 when the generic was available for $10, and got back a response he wasn't expecting (found via Consumerist), as the rep accidentally emailed him the question that the rep meant to email a superior: In other words, there's simply no good reason. Of course, the monopoly rents afforded to the branded drug maker through patents probably helps. Combine that with the amount of money dumped into highly questionable and dangerous advertising, and you get a bit closer to the answer...

Filed Under: drugs, generics, pricing

Pay-For-Delay Ban Dropped From Health Care Reform

from the of-course dept

While plenty of folks are still digging through what the new health care reform (really medical insurance reform) law really means (and it's likely not what you hear most of the TV pundits talking about), it's unfortunate to hear that the provision to ban "pay for delay" schemes from pharma companies was removed. We talked about these sneaky deals last year. Basically, big pharma companies threaten (and often sue) the makers of generic drugs, just before a drug is about to go off patent. There is no actual patent infringement as the basis of the lawsuit, but the lawsuit acts as a negotiating ploy, with part of the "settlement" being an agreement from the generic drug maker not to enter the market. It's a blatantly anti-competitive move. Basically, the pharma companies leverage their gov't granted monopoly to build up a bunch of cash, which they can then use to pay off potential competitors in order to keep that monopoly for years past the expiration of the patent.

It makes drugs much more expensive for everyone while being a clearly anti-competitive practice. So it seemed like a good thing that the health care reform bill was supposed to ban it. Until... of course... it was removed days before the bill was approved. No matter what your take is on health care reform, it's hard to see any reason to allow this kind of practice to continue, and even if it wasn't included in the the health care reform bill, and isn't included in the current patent reform bill, it seems like there's no reason the FTC can't just step in and make the point that this is blatantly anti-competitive. The FTC knows this is a problem -- and has even said that these sorts of deals have cost US citizens $3.5 billion per year in higher drug costs.

Filed Under: drugs, health care reform, patents, pay for delay, pharmaceuticals

School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre: Student In Question Was Disciplined For Eating Candy

from the mike-&-ikes dept

The story of the school district that supposedly spied on some students keeps getting odder and odder. While the school district claims that it used the secret remote webcam activation technology 42 times -- and only to track down stolen or lost laptops -- it still hasn't explained why this particular student was punished. He claims his laptop was not stolen and there was no reason to turn it on. The school claims that the assistant principal who supposedly confronted the student with an image from the webcam is being unfairly tarnished.

But here's where it gets even odder. Apparently, the "improper act" that the student was disciplined for was an accusation of either drug use or drug selling. For what? Well, the image showed the student with Mike & Ikes candies, which do have a passing resemblance to pills, but (last we checked) do not appear to be controlled substances.

Now, there certainly could be more to this story, but the school has not done a particularly good job explaining its side of things.

Filed Under: candy, drugs, privacy, schools, spying, webcams

Distributor Claims Microsoft Terminated Partnership After Reps Refused To Take Part In Sex/Drug Party

from the sex,-drugs-and-software-distribution dept

Well, here's a story you don't see every day. Roy alerts us to a report that Israeli software distributor EIM is suing Microsoft over a terminated contract. Microsoft claims the contract was terminated due to filing fraudulent sales reports, but EIM says the real reason was that EIM representatives refused to take part in a sex and drug party aboard a cruise put together by Microsoft for Turkish and Israeli distributors. EIM claims that there were women who would perform sexual services in attendance, as well as some "illegal substances," and EIM representatives were encouraged to partake of both, though they refused. Microsoft has sued back, claiming breach of contract by EIM -- though apparently refuses to comment about the cruise allegations. Of course, you would think that with other distributors on the cruise, some might be able to confirm or deny the allegations -- and if there were any others who chose not to partake, it would be worth knowing if they, too, lost their contracts. The whole thing seems pretty bizarre, frankly. Even if Microsoft apparently did throw such a party, it still seems like EIM would have a tough time proving that its contract was terminated for its representatives' failure to participate.

Filed Under: drugs, legal fight, orgy, software distribution
Companies: eim, microsoft

School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns

from the just-say-buy? dept

Forget "just say no," and say hello to "just say buy." Copycense points out that some Scottish schools seem to think that unauthorized sharing of music and movies is analogous to using drugs, and deserves a similar sort of education plan. Of course, the entertainment industry would be more than happy to provide any one of its numerous propaganda educational curricula for the task. The problem, of course, is that if you are at all familiar with the subject, you would realize that unauthorized file sharing is not a societal problem like "drug use," but is a business model issue. Of course, given how (un)successful the "war on drugs" has been, perhaps it's silly to worry about an equally ridiculous "war on piracy."

Filed Under: copyright, drugs, education, propaganda, schools, scotland

Kenya's Anti-Counterfeiting Act Challenged As Violating The Right To Health

from the confusing-generics-with-counterfeits dept

As a bunch of countries continue to negotiate ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, in secrecy, Kenya already has its own Anti-Counterfeit Act. Michael Geist points us to the news that that particular law is now being challenged in Kenya for violating peoples "right to health." The issue is worth following, because it will almost certainly become an issue assuming ACTA moves forward. Whenever we discuss ACTA, it's inevitable that someone stops by to say that anti-counterfeiting is really, really important to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs from being sold, potentially harming people. Now, I have no doubt that counterfeit drugs may be a serious problem -- but if that's the problem, we should target a narrow attack on that problem alone, not some wider "anti-counterfeiting" effort.

We've already seen that lobbyist-funded and promoted reports on the "counterfeiting problem" are widely exaggerated, and any real "problem" is much smaller than the numbers that get tossed around. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that counterfeit products quite frequently lead to purchases of the real product in the future (i.e., people aren't "fooled" into buying counterfeits -- they know they're buying counterfeits). But that's with things like luxury goods. What about drugs?

Well, we've already seen that big pharmaceutical companies conveniently like to use anti-counterfeiting laws not to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs, but to destroy legitimate generic drugs. It's not about making sure that drugs and people are safe -- but quite the opposite. It's about limiting competition so that these pharma firms can jack up prices even higher.

And that's the issue in Kenya. About 90% of the drugs in Kenya are generics -- for a very good reason. Those drugs are much cheaper and are helpful in saving many lives. The Kenyan anti-counterfeit law makes counterfeiting a criminal issue, rather than a civil one, and gives the power to police and border officials, who have no way of knowing counterfeit from generic, so often label generic drugs as being counterfeits. There are plenty of good reasons to try to stop counterfeit drugs from hitting the market, but if that's the real problem, any solution should be narrowly focused on that specific problem. Unfortunately, since it's quite often the big pharmaceutical lobbyists who help write and push through these bills, that's not how it works at all.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, drugs, generics, kenya, laws