Prizes as an alternative to patents

Last updated

Some authors advocating patent reform have proposed the use of prizes as an alternative to patents. Critics of the current patent system, such as Joseph E. Stiglitz, say that patents fail to provide incentives for innovations which are not commercially marketable. Stiglitz provides the idea of prizes instead of patents to be awarded in order to further advance solutions to global problems such as AIDS.

Contents

Background

Patents essentially provide a temporary monopoly on a product to the first inventor or firm which comes up with the product. Patents vary in length but are designed to last long enough for the innovator to make a return on investment. The nature of patents makes them an incentive so long as the product being invented is distributed to consumers through markets. While patented products are in the market, the producer can place any price on the product, regardless of the price of production which typically dictates prices in markets. If a product is not being distributed through markets then a patent cannot provide proper incentive for innovation. Patents do however provide gain through the restriction of information to others. Stiglitz identifies this as a problem of patents for the innovation of drugs and other products being distributed not with the purpose of making a profit, but to solve global problems.

Offering a prize as opposed to a patent, according to Stiglitz, would address the lack of incentive for problems such as disease in developing countries, and it would provide products immediately affordable instead of pending a patent expiration. Awarding prizes offers a fixed amount appropriate for reimbursing research into drugs. Today, many drug companies spend much of money earned through patents on marketing and advertising as opposed to the research for the actual drugs. [1]

Stiglitz goes on to assert that until generic versions of drugs reach the shelves, which occurs after a patent expires, the costs burden consumers due to prices not being dictated by the markets. [2] These burdens are overwhelming in developing countries and Stiglitz suggests they be lowered by offering prizes instead of patents. Stiglitz discusses the idea of using foreign aid assistance funds to finance prizes as it would provide greater foreign aid than what funds are being used for currently. [3]

United States

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont put forward legislation in the United States Senate in 2005 and 2007 under H.R. 417 and S.2210. [4] Sanders has been a longtime proponent of Stiglitz’ ideas, and favors a system of incentives for innovation in medicine and pharmaceuticals over a system of patents, which he asserts grant company monopolies on drugs and drive up pharmaceutical prices.

The Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act S1137 and S1138

The two bills proposed on May 26, 2011 by Senator Bernie Sanders would completely remove legal barriers to the manufacture and sale of generic drugs. The bills will give the government the right to set specific goals and direct research to certain areas of medicine. S1137 would apply to all prescription drugs, and S1138 is focused on HIV/AIDS medications. The bills call for both the government and private insurance companies to fund the "Medical Innovation Prize Fund". According to the S1137 bill, the innovation fund would create a fund of .55% of GDP, $80 billion of GDP based on 2010 numbers. S1138 calls for a .02% GDP fund for HIV/AIDS innovation prizes that amounts to about $3 billion a year. [5]

In a statement made at a subcommittee meeting, Senator Sanders said, "It simply blew me away — and would blow anyone’s mind away — that one drug, Atripla, costs $25,000 per year". He called this bill, “Fairly radical for the U.S. Congress.” According to estimates, proponents of the bill believe that the costs of the prizes would be offset by the introduction of generic drugs and the reduction of monopoly power in the pharmaceutical industry. Sanders believes that these bills will save private insurers, Medicaid, and other government assistance programs money. [6]

One of the goals of the bill is to "de-link research and development incentives from product prices" along with getting rid of patents and what the bill's author asserts to be monopoly power. It aims to free research and development by proposing a possible "Open Source Dividend" element. This means that a percentage of the prize money from the innovation funds would go to those persons or communities that allow access to knowledge, data, etc. to public domains and offer free access to patents.

Senator Sanders and other proponents of both bills[ who? ] assert that the prize funds will give incentives for manufacturers to seek innovative treatments for illnesses and diseases that are more important to society. In addition, they state that these funds will lower drugs prices, along with what they claim to be wasteful research and development costs. [5] This bill has been favored by Joseph Stiglitz.[ citation needed ]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has tried such a prize fund model. In its model, all applicants for funding from the Gates foundation must waive all claims to patents. “A World Health Organization (WHO) report, called 'Research and Development to Meet health Needs in Developing Countries', backs prize funds, saying it is a financially viable model” [7]

In 2012 the two bills were referred to the committee level in the Senate. They have not been put to a vote in either the Senate or the House. In 2009-2010 only 3% of all bills proposed in the senate were enacted. [8]

Other areas for prize models over patents

US President Barack Obama has pushed for prizes innovation sponsoring 150 contests across 40 agencies in 2010.[ citation needed ] NASA paid out $6 million in prizes to companies since 2005 for innovation.[ citation needed ] Between 2000-2007 certain groups put $250 million into technologies that range from robotic arms and tuberculosis tests, according to Brian Vastag of The Washington Post . [6]

Criticism

Criticisms of prize funds focus on the impact of prizes as limited by their size, scope, and nature. Prizes large enough to replace patents as incentives to develop innovative new products require large up-front costs for taxpayers.[ citation needed ] According to the Global Intellectual Property Center, studies show that prizes are better at proving a concept than bringing concrete, useful technologies into existence. [9] Another criticism made by the Global Intellectual Property Center is that prizes will never be enough to reward lucky breaks that have brought about the most important innovations.[ citation needed ] Also, the center argues that prizes do not create incentives to drive continuous cycle of advances and improvements because prizes are finite and limited. [9]

The Global Intellectual Property Center also believes that prizes focus narrowly on certain acts or on the "next new thing", and that prizes can act as distractions from more significant innovations. [9] They also assert that prizes do not hold researchers and inventors accountable for the findings of works or creations. [9] The center argues that prizes in turn give rights to a product to a government, who then gives rights to the entire public. In the future, if there are any problems or questions with the creation, or drug, it will be impossible to determine who is responsible for the flaw. [9]

Within the pharmaceutical industry,[ who? ] prize theory has gotten much criticism. One of the main criticisms is that giving rewards in the form of prize money to drug companies for producing innovative drugs will not be seen for many years while the drug is tested in the market,[ citation needed ] and that prize funds would not reward pharmaceuticals for producing different versions of drugs; “me-too” drugs.[ citation needed ] These variations are seen as part of the bigger problem by Senator Sanders. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Prescription drug list prices in the United States continually are among the highest in the world. The high cost of prescription drugs became a major topic of discussion in the 21st century, leading up to the American health care reform debate of 2009, and received renewed attention in 2015. One major reason for high prescription drug prices in the United States relative to other countries is the inability of government-granted monopolies in the American health care sector to use their bargaining power to negotiate lower prices, and the American payer ends up subsidizing the world's R&D spending on drugs.

An orphan drug is a pharmaceutical agent that is developed to treat certain rare medical conditions. An orphan drug would not be profitable to produce without government assistance, due to the small population of patients affected by the conditions. The conditions that orphan drugs are used to treat are referred to as orphan diseases. The assignment of orphan status to a disease and to drugs developed to treat it is a matter of public policy that depends on the legislation of the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical research</span> Wide array of research

Medical research, also known as experimental medicine, encompasses a wide array of research, extending from "basic research", – involving fundamental scientific principles that may apply to a preclinical understanding – to clinical research, which involves studies of people who may be subjects in clinical trials. Within this spectrum is applied research, or translational research, conducted to expand knowledge in the field of medicine.

Patents are legal instruments intended to encourage innovation by providing a limited monopoly to the inventor in return for the disclosure of the invention. The underlying assumption is that innovation is encouraged because an inventor can secure exclusive rights and, therefore, a higher probability of financial rewards for their product in the marketplace or the opportunity to profit from licensing the rights to others. The publication of the invention is mandatory to get a patent. Keeping the same invention as a trade secret rather than disclosing it in a patent publication, for some inventions, could prove valuable well beyond the limited time of any patent term but at the risk of unpermitted disclosure or congenial invention by a third party.

Test data exclusivity refers to protection of clinical trial data required to be submitted to a regulatory agency to prove safety and efficacy of a new drug, and prevention of generic drug manufacturers from relying on this data in their own applications. It provides a form of market exclusivity outside that provided by patent rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Love (NGO director)</span>

James Packard Love is the director of Knowledge Ecology International, formerly known as the Consumer Project on Technology, a non-governmental organization with offices in Washington, D.C., and Geneva, that works mainly on matters concerning knowledge management and governance, including intellectual property policy and practice and innovation policy, particularly as they relate to health care and access to knowledge.

Humanitarian use licenses are provisions in a license whereby inventors and technology suppliers protect in advance the possibility of sharing their technology with people in need. Thus, humanitarian use licenses set the conditions for the provision of access to innovations for people in need at a royalty free basis or at lower costs. Humanitarian use licenses assure that products of research and development stay publicly available and that at the same time the incentive function of exclusive intellectual property rights are maintained.

Pharmaceutical policy is a branch of health policy that deals with the development, provision and use of medications within a health care system. It embraces drugs, biologics, vaccines and natural health products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pharmaceutical lobby</span>

The pharmaceutical lobby refers to the representatives of pharmaceutical drug and biomedicine companies who engage in lobbying in favour of pharmaceutical companies and their products.

Evergreening is any of various legal, business, and technological strategies by which producers extend the lifetime of their patents that are about to expire in order to retain revenues from them. Often the practice includes taking out new patents, or by buying out or frustrating competitors, for longer periods of time than would normally be permissible under the law. Robin Feldman, a law professor at UC Law SF and a leading researcher in intellectual property and patents, defines evergreening as "artificially extending the life of a patent or other exclusivity by obtaining additional protections to extend the monopoly period."

Priority review is a program of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite the review process for drugs that are expected to have a particularly great impact on the treatment of a disease. The priority review voucher program is a program that grants a voucher for priority review to a drug developer as an incentive to develop treatments for disease indications with limited profitability.

Legal scholars, economists, activists, policymakers, industries, and trade organizations have held differing views on patents and engaged in contentious debates on the subject. Critical perspectives emerged in the nineteenth century that were especially based on the principles of free trade. Contemporary criticisms have echoed those arguments, claiming that patents block innovation and waste resources that could otherwise be used productively, and also block access to an increasingly important "commons" of enabling technologies, apply a "one size fits all" model to industries with differing needs, that is especially unproductive for industries other than chemicals and pharmaceuticals and especially unproductive for the software industry. Enforcement by patent trolls of poor quality patents has led to criticism of the patent office as well as the system itself. Patents on pharmaceuticals have also been a particular focus of criticism, as the high prices they enable puts life-saving drugs out of reach of many people. Alternatives to patents have been proposed, such Joseph Stiglitz's suggestion of providing "prize money" as a substitute for the lost profits associated with abstaining from the monopoly given by a patent.

Medication costs, also known as drug costs are a common health care cost for many people and health care systems. Prescription costs are the costs to the end consumer. Medication costs are influenced by multiple factors such as patents, stakeholder influence, and marketing expenses. A number of countries including Canada, parts of Europe, and Brazil use external reference pricing as a means to compare drug prices and to determine a base price for a particular medication. Other countries use pharmacoeconomics, which looks at the cost/benefit of a product in terms of quality of life, alternative treatments, and cost reduction or avoidance in other parts of the health care system. Structures like the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and to a lesser extent Canada's Common Drug Review evaluate products in this way.

The Health Impact Fund is a proposed pay-for-performance mechanism that would provide a market-based solution to problems concerning the development and distribution of medicines globally. It would incentivize the research and development of new pharmaceutical products that make substantial reductions in the global burden of disease. The Health Impact Fund is the creation of a team of researchers led by the Yale philosopher Thomas Pogge and the University of Calgary economist Aidan Hollis, and is promoted by the non-profit organization Incentives for Global Health (IGH).

Pill prizes are the idea put forth by Joseph E. Stiglitz when he wrote "Prizes, not patents", in order to address shortfalls of using patents from a pharmaceutical drug perspective. Patents are awarded to inventors and firms in order to promote innovation by providing incentives beyond traditional market incentives. Stiglitz is critical of patents and how they fail provide similar incentives to innovations which are not marketable to the normal consumer society while simply restricting information which is inefficient. Stiglitz provides the idea of prizes instead of patents to be awarded in order to further advance pharmaceutical solutions to global problems such as AIDS.

De-linkage is a proposed model for development of new pharmaceutical drugs where "de-link" refers to isolating the profitability of a drug from its volume of sales.

Access to medicines refers to the reasonable ability for people to get needed medicines required to achieve health. Such access is deemed to be part of the right to health as supported by international law since 1946.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louis Preston Garrison</span> American health economist (born 1950)

Louis Preston Garrison Jr. is an American health economist who has made significant contributions to pharmacoeconomics, pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, regulatory benefit-risk analysis, insurance, pricing, reimbursement and risk-sharing agreements. He also made numerous contributions on the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, devices, surgical procedures, and vaccines, particularly as related to organ transplantation, influenza, measles, obesity, and cancer. Garrison has published over a hundred manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals and contributed to several book chapters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economics of vaccines</span>

Vaccine development and production is economically complex and prone to market failure. Many of the diseases most demanding a vaccine, including HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, exist principally in poor countries. Pharmaceutical firms and biotechnology companies have little incentive to develop vaccines for these diseases because there is little revenue potential. Even in more affluent countries, financial returns are usually minimal and the financial and other risks are great.

The TRIPS Agreement waiver is a joint intervention communication by South Africa and India to the TRIPS council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 2 October 2020.

References

  1. Brezis M (2008). "Big pharma and health care: unsolvable conflict of interests between private enterprise and public health". Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 45 (2): 83–9; discussion 90–4.
  2. Michael Bihari, MD. "Saving Money With Generic Drugs". About.com Health. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2011-04-29.
  3. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue42/Stiglitz42.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  4. "OLPA - Legislative Updates - Medical Innovation Prize Act of 2005". nih.gov. Archived from the original on 2016-07-07. Retrieved 2012-08-13.
  5. 1 2 "Senator Sanders introduces two medical innovation prize bills in U.S. Senate to de-link R&D costs from drug prices". keionline.org.
  6. 1 2 3 Brian Vastag (19 May 2012). "'Radical' bill seeks to reduce cost of AIDS drugs by awarding prizes instead of patents". Washington Post.
  7. "Prize funds: These alternatives to patents might be the way forward to cheaper healthcare". timesofindia-economictimes.
  8. "Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act (2011; 112th Congress S. 1137) - GovTrack.us". GovTrack.us.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-13. Retrieved 2012-08-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)