4 ms·

If these things really boost life expectancy that much, this sounds like a textbook case for eminent domain.

eru 1y ago
I'm no fan of the patent system, but "patent system promises spoils for coming up with great new drug, companies comes up with great new drug, companies gets spoils" is exactly how it's supposed to work. Yes, it's sucks that you have to pay, but that's how you incentives getting the wonder drugs invented in the first place. (I have my own take on this, but if anything this is a 'textbook case' in favour of the patent system.) Eminent domain would still require fair compensation to the company, so you'd have to pay them more or less what they'd lose from not having the patent anymore. (Though I think the term you might be looking for is 'compulsory licensing' or so? Not sure.)
- LadyCailin 1y ago
  If this research was done fully via the public system in the first place, it would be an easier nut to crack. I mean, some of it is already, and that’s the absolute worst scenario: the public paid for it via taxes, and now has to pay for it privately after the fact.
  - coredog64 1y ago
    The public isn't paying for the phase 2 and phase 3 trials.
- pmyteh 1y ago
  Depending on how transformative the effects are (and the price drop possible upon genericisation) then there could be a compulsory licensing trade to do here. The drug companies are presumably pricing optimally for profit (but not for maximum public benefit, for which the optimum price is ~0). You could calculate the net present value of the drug companies' total profits attributable to the patent, add on 10% as a bonus, and pay them off. If the welfare gains of having cheap drugs are genuinely greater than the value of the patent to the holder, this would be win/win.
  - joshuacc 1y ago
    Citation needed for the idea that zero is the optimal price for public benefit. Among other issues, I expect medication compliance would be higher when the patient has to pay for the medication.
    - eru 1y ago
      I think we probably have data on that (at least in general). That is assuming people react to out-of-pocket payments, and not to how much their insurance or the NHS etc is paying.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    That is exactly what I have in mind. "Eminent domain" doesn't mean just taking things with no recompense, but I don't think the company should be entitled to profit maximization at the expense of literally billions of people worldwide.
    - eru 1y ago
      Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        It adds up to the same thing in aggregate. But also, if you change it to "millions of people", the point is no less valid.
      - loeg 1y ago
        India and China each have billions of people.
        eru 1y ago
        India and China both have about 1.4 billion each. To say 'billions', I'd assume you'd want at least 2?
refurb 1y ago
Imagine that incentive for R&D. “If you invest hundreds of millions and it turns out to be life changing, we’re going to seize it”
- int_19h 1y ago
  Eminent domain implies fair compensation. The point is that you don't get to withhold the drug from people to maximize profits.
  - loeg 1y ago
    Wouldn't fair compensation more or less be equivalent to medicaid paying for the drug? And if so, why eminent domain it?
    - int_19h 1y ago
      No. Fair compensation means that the company doesn't end up with a loss, and gets rewarded, but it doesn't mean "give them as much money as they could otherwise extract by exploiting the monopoly that the patent gives them on the market".
      - loeg 1y ago
        Doesn't seem fair to me.
        int_19h 1y ago
        And withholding access to drugs that would extend everyone's lifespan by several years to maximize profits doesn't seem fair to me either. In fact, it's outright sociopathic.
        loeg 1y ago
        These drugs are covered for the people whose lifespans would be extended by having them! They pay nothing! The situations where insurers/medicaid don't want to pay are more marginal cases. And even then, it's like, 1/5 the cost of child care in a major metro and only getting cheaper. If you're going to use an extraordinary mechanism to seize private property, it better have outsized impact -- seize surface parking lots and sell them to developers to build more housing.

eru 1y ago

I'm no fan of the patent system, but "patent system promises spoils for coming up with great new drug, companies comes up with great new drug, companies gets spoils" is exactly how it's supposed to work. Yes, it's sucks that you have to pay, but that's how you incentives getting the wonder drugs invented in the first place. (I have my own take on this, but if anything this is a 'textbook case' in favour of the patent system.) Eminent domain would still require fair compensation to the company, so you'd have to pay them more or less what they'd lose from not having the patent anymore. (Though I think the term you might be looking for is 'compulsory licensing' or so? Not sure.)

LadyCailin 1y ago
If this research was done fully via the public system in the first place, it would be an easier nut to crack. I mean, some of it is already, and that’s the absolute worst scenario: the public paid for it via taxes, and now has to pay for it privately after the fact.
- coredog64 1y ago
  The public isn't paying for the phase 2 and phase 3 trials.
pmyteh 1y ago
Depending on how transformative the effects are (and the price drop possible upon genericisation) then there could be a compulsory licensing trade to do here. The drug companies are presumably pricing optimally for profit (but not for maximum public benefit, for which the optimum price is ~0). You could calculate the net present value of the drug companies' total profits attributable to the patent, add on 10% as a bonus, and pay them off. If the welfare gains of having cheap drugs are genuinely greater than the value of the patent to the holder, this would be win/win.
- joshuacc 1y ago
  Citation needed for the idea that zero is the optimal price for public benefit. Among other issues, I expect medication compliance would be higher when the patient has to pay for the medication.
  - eru 1y ago
    I think we probably have data on that (at least in general). That is assuming people react to out-of-pocket payments, and not to how much their insurance or the NHS etc is paying.
- int_19h 1y ago
  That is exactly what I have in mind. "Eminent domain" doesn't mean just taking things with no recompense, but I don't think the company should be entitled to profit maximization at the expense of literally billions of people worldwide.
  - eru 1y ago
    Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      It adds up to the same thing in aggregate. But also, if you change it to "millions of people", the point is no less valid.
    - loeg 1y ago
      India and China each have billions of people.
      - eru 1y ago
        India and China both have about 1.4 billion each. To say 'billions', I'd assume you'd want at least 2?

refurb 1y ago

Imagine that incentive for R&D. “If you invest hundreds of millions and it turns out to be life changing, we’re going to seize it”

int_19h 1y ago
Eminent domain implies fair compensation. The point is that you don't get to withhold the drug from people to maximize profits.
- loeg 1y ago
  Wouldn't fair compensation more or less be equivalent to medicaid paying for the drug? And if so, why eminent domain it?
  - int_19h 1y ago
    No. Fair compensation means that the company doesn't end up with a loss, and gets rewarded, but it doesn't mean "give them as much money as they could otherwise extract by exploiting the monopoly that the patent gives them on the market".
    - loeg 1y ago
      Doesn't seem fair to me.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        And withholding access to drugs that would extend everyone's lifespan by several years to maximize profits doesn't seem fair to me either. In fact, it's outright sociopathic.
        loeg 1y ago
        These drugs are covered for the people whose lifespans would be extended by having them! They pay nothing! The situations where insurers/medicaid don't want to pay are more marginal cases. And even then, it's like, 1/5 the cost of child care in a major metro and only getting cheaper. If you're going to use an extraordinary mechanism to seize private property, it better have outsized impact -- seize surface parking lots and sell them to developers to build more housing.