3 ms·
"I think there's a non-trivial possibility that the gov't would take that drug for its own uses." Is there precedent for such a thing?
by burgerbrain 15y ago
"I think there's a non-trivial possibility that the gov't would take that drug for its own uses."
Is there precedent for such a thing?
- r00fus 15y agonot in the US, AFAIK, but Brazil broke an AIDS treatment patent license to generically deliver drugs to it's poor: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18490388/ns/health-aids/t/brazil-break-merck-aids-drug-patent/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18490388/ns/health-aids/t/brazil... Apparently when the negotiations broke down (Brazil wanted the same rate as Thailand but Merck wanted to charge them more), Brazil declared sovereign property rights in the good of it's citizens.
- kenjackson 15y agoWe've come close in the US: http://www.fool.com/news/2001/bayzf011025.htm http://www.fool.com/news/2001/bayzf011025.htm This was for Cipro for Anthrax. Bayer, at the last minute, gave in to some pricing concessions. There's also been talks about it happening during some H1N1 and avian flu scares. A $100k pill that cures cancer? I'm not saying it would be taken by the gov't, but I think you'd have to seriously consider it.
- ars 15y agoDialysis was in the same position long ago. A miracle cure, but few could afford it. Today it is the one treatment that is fully covered by the government for everyone. I would imagine something similar would occur here.