3 ms·
One of the issues here is how intellectual property works for pharmaceuticals. A new drug is patentable. An old drug already has generic competitors. We allow d
by youainti 4y ago
One of the issues here is how intellectual property works for pharmaceuticals. A new drug is patentable. An old drug already has generic competitors. We allow doctors to prescribe a drug for just about any reason (off-label use is legal), but only the new ones get investigated for effectiveness (because they are the most profitable as there is less competition).
No idea what the best approach would be.
- ggm 4y agoNo idea what the best approach would be. Recognition of the massive IPR imbalances, and adoption of national-strategic funding for drug development with no IPR. If the corporates are now gaming the system, then return it to a public utility function, and pay for drug development out of the state. It is arguably true that we'd plateau at "good enough" drugs and for things like Insulin, maybe not push hard for the increadible advances rapid-action Insulin has, over reliable, understood, cheap ubiquitous insulin. So I can see there are downsides, but its fundamentally health-economics: If you want to argue for the IPR justifying $1000+ per month Insulin shots to motivate making the best insulin out there, I think you're also arguing for a really bad outcome, like my former Hypertension drug which was an isomer twist of a well understood Cox inhibitor, to get the IPR renewed. Somebody really had to work hard on that one.
- yuliyp 4y agoI wonder why we don't see more insurance companies banding together to fund that kind of research.