5 ms·

Please put the invisible hands of the market over your ears and wait for the drugs to trickle down. Jokes aside - while people are justifiably pointing out the

by hnzix 7y ago

Please put the invisible hands of the market over your ears and wait for the drugs to trickle down. Jokes aside - while people are justifiably pointing out the community healthcare angle, arguably this problem is exacerbated by the American FDA drug approval model, ie no corporation will fund clinical trials unless they're guaranteed a profit monopoly.

cjfd 7y ago
Actually, there is a market solution to this problem. I cannot claim to have thought this up, it was discussed in an episode of econtalk. Don't remember the person that was interviewed. The idea is that big pharma companies have to publicly post a price for each of their patents. If anyone is prepared to pay that price they get the patent for that price. Next there needs to be a tax that is a percentage of the price of the patent. The money that comes from this tax needs to be funneled back into healthcare or even better go straight to the ones who are paying for the particular medicine that the patent protects. Now the level of innovation can be set by how high the percentage of the tax is. If the tax is very low healthcare will be expensive but there can be lots of innovation. If the tax is high healthcare costs will be low but one can also not expect much innovation. Of course, there also are some other things that need to be fixed. E.g., doctors should not get all of their schooling financed by pharma companies and so on. The general idea of such taxes could be applicable to any sort of non-replacable entity, e.g., it could also apply to land. For one thing, this would make feudalism regarding land quite impossible, which would generally be considered a good thing.
- j_m_b 7y ago
  >The money that comes from this tax needs to be funneled back into healthcare or even better go straight to the ones who are paying for the particular medicine that the patent protects. Tax money is allocated for one thing is often used for other things. There is nothing preventing lawmakers from doing this, they after all, make the laws.
  - cjfd 7y ago
    I suppose that is quite possible. I still like the idea though. Like, if they are going to engage in scoundrelism it needs to be as blatant as possible. Now we are stealing from the sick. That kind of thing.
- lordnacho 7y ago
  Yeah I've read about this sort of idea as well. I guess it's some sort of auction system where you find the best or most efficient holder of an asset via the scheme you describe. In this world someone could invent a vaccine and offer it up at a price, but if they aren't good at selling it or keeping costs down, someone else could grab the patent from them and do it better. My main issue with it is risk or noise. It's not clear how we avoid a bunch of over optimistic actors from "winning" the patent based on wrong estimates and then themselves going broke. Sure, if one or two firms get in trouble they can sell the patent, but what stops a succession of overly optimistic people from holding it to the detriment of everyone? The person who bids highest at an auction could well be the person with the most wrong inputs to his model. Kinda like how there's this one building in my town that several restaurants have tried and failed in, but as a monopoly. I like the idea for land rights though. Those are not gonna hold back all of society if a bunch of people do badly at it.
- dTal 7y ago
  Why would there be lots more innovation with a low tax? In the limit, that's the system we have now (0% patent tax, companies are free to price their patents however they want).
  - AmpsterMan 7y ago
    The assumption there is that the current system is already highly innovative in the U.S., which is generally accepted as true.
    - dTal 7y ago
      But the premise of this entire thread is that "With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases".
- amelius 7y ago
  Here's another idea: let academia and government institutions develop the drugs, and if necessary outsource the clinical trials to specialized companies while not giving them any of the IP.
- bo1024 7y ago
  This is the COST (common-ownership self-assessed tax) from the recent book Radical Markets by Weyl and Posner.
boublepop 7y ago
> no corporation will fund clinical trials unless they're guaranteed a profit monopoly. Every single major pharmacy company is actively developing treatments And doing clinical trials where they are in sharp competition and don’t have a monopoly. Obvious example that’s always picked up in US is diabetes. No one has a monopoly on insulin or insulin analogies and you have several corporations constantly competing and innovating improving the treatments. The reasons for lack of development in some areas is not risk aversion from the pharma companies, it’s just that there simply isn’t a business case for investing there as oppose to other areas in the current setup.

by hnzix 7y ago

cjfd 7y ago

Actually, there is a market solution to this problem. I cannot claim to have thought this up, it was discussed in an episode of econtalk. Don't remember the person that was interviewed. The idea is that big pharma companies have to publicly post a price for each of their patents. If anyone is prepared to pay that price they get the patent for that price. Next there needs to be a tax that is a percentage of the price of the patent. The money that comes from this tax needs to be funneled back into healthcare or even better go straight to the ones who are paying for the particular medicine that the patent protects. Now the level of innovation can be set by how high the percentage of the tax is. If the tax is very low healthcare will be expensive but there can be lots of innovation. If the tax is high healthcare costs will be low but one can also not expect much innovation. Of course, there also are some other things that need to be fixed. E.g., doctors should not get all of their schooling financed by pharma companies and so on. The general idea of such taxes could be applicable to any sort of non-replacable entity, e.g., it could also apply to land. For one thing, this would make feudalism regarding land quite impossible, which would generally be considered a good thing.

j_m_b 7y ago
>The money that comes from this tax needs to be funneled back into healthcare or even better go straight to the ones who are paying for the particular medicine that the patent protects. Tax money is allocated for one thing is often used for other things. There is nothing preventing lawmakers from doing this, they after all, make the laws.
- cjfd 7y ago
  I suppose that is quite possible. I still like the idea though. Like, if they are going to engage in scoundrelism it needs to be as blatant as possible. Now we are stealing from the sick. That kind of thing.
lordnacho 7y ago
Yeah I've read about this sort of idea as well. I guess it's some sort of auction system where you find the best or most efficient holder of an asset via the scheme you describe. In this world someone could invent a vaccine and offer it up at a price, but if they aren't good at selling it or keeping costs down, someone else could grab the patent from them and do it better. My main issue with it is risk or noise. It's not clear how we avoid a bunch of over optimistic actors from "winning" the patent based on wrong estimates and then themselves going broke. Sure, if one or two firms get in trouble they can sell the patent, but what stops a succession of overly optimistic people from holding it to the detriment of everyone? The person who bids highest at an auction could well be the person with the most wrong inputs to his model. Kinda like how there's this one building in my town that several restaurants have tried and failed in, but as a monopoly. I like the idea for land rights though. Those are not gonna hold back all of society if a bunch of people do badly at it.
dTal 7y ago
Why would there be lots more innovation with a low tax? In the limit, that's the system we have now (0% patent tax, companies are free to price their patents however they want).
- AmpsterMan 7y ago
  The assumption there is that the current system is already highly innovative in the U.S., which is generally accepted as true.
  - dTal 7y ago
    But the premise of this entire thread is that "With no prospects for profits, big pharma neglects new infectious diseases".
amelius 7y ago
Here's another idea: let academia and government institutions develop the drugs, and if necessary outsource the clinical trials to specialized companies while not giving them any of the IP.
bo1024 7y ago
This is the COST (common-ownership self-assessed tax) from the recent book Radical Markets by Weyl and Posner.

boublepop 7y ago

> no corporation will fund clinical trials unless they're guaranteed a profit monopoly. Every single major pharmacy company is actively developing treatments And doing clinical trials where they are in sharp competition and don’t have a monopoly. Obvious example that’s always picked up in US is diabetes. No one has a monopoly on insulin or insulin analogies and you have several corporations constantly competing and innovating improving the treatments. The reasons for lack of development in some areas is not risk aversion from the pharma companies, it’s just that there simply isn’t a business case for investing there as oppose to other areas in the current setup.