In my prior post I cited Congress’ inability to stem health-care spending over the past two decades as the primary motivating factor in my rejection of President Obama’s effort to revamp the nation’s health insurance system. Essentially, my reasoning is “why on earth would we put the most prodigal branch of government in charge of the most expensive entitlement program in American history?” Sheer madness.
I didn’t expect to see confirmation of this so quickly – on my evening commute no less. From today’s Lex column of The Financial Times, there is an illuminating short piece on so-called biosimilars, which are the biotechnology equivalent of generic drugs. As you probably know, using generic drugs can save a lot of dough. When a health-care plan adds generics to the list of prescription medications that it will pay for, so-called formularies, it’s a win-win for everybody…except the drug companies, of course. That’s why they spend millions of dollars per year on lobbyists and patent lawyers to extend the patent life of their drugs. The biotech industry would love to extend patent life in much the same way, and it seems they have powerful friends in Congress that agree with them. As the FT has it,
“To patent large biological molecules is difficult; and because similar molecules can perform similar functions, makers of biologics tend to patent production processes instead of the drugs. The industry has called for special rules to limit generic competition for 14 years after launch of a new biotechnology drug – about the time traditional drugs enjoy before patents expire. The White House, eager to cut healthcare costs, favours seven years; industry-friendly senators last week proposed 12 years.”
It’s pretty simple, really. If you want to demonstrate your willingness to control costs – and thus put into play a health-care insurance system that is sustainable – cutting down the patent life of biologic therapies would be a great starting point. It is more than fair, particularly when you consider the legal shenanigans that drug companies engage in to extend patents long beyond their original expirations, costing the system billions of dollars in the process.
2 comments:
So what would the incentive be to develop more, better biotechnologies??
For starters, there is the matter of access to the largest drug market in the world...by a long shot. I mean, if multi-billion-dollar profits during 7 years of market exclusivity isn't enough "incentive" for drug development, I don't know what is.
That aside, though, I might be more sympathetic to drug-makers if so many of their resources weren't directed toward marketing. Big drug companies, much like big record companies, have become little more than mere distribution channels. Much of the R&D is outsourced or purchased from others. They're not so much innovators as they are curators of intellectual property (whether they developed it or not).
Go here for my more expansive view of pharma and, increasingly, biotech:
http://divagator.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-do-i-dislike-drug-companies.html
Post a Comment