moldybluecheesecurds 2

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Drug companies and patent law, part 2

Thanks to G$ and Rick for their comments on my drug patent law post. Their thoughts were provoking enough to get me to write on the subject again, no doubt to the dismay of my two other readers...

I think the point of patent law revision is that the public good is served by developing drugs that treat the most prevalent illnesses or diseases that post the greatest threat. Repackaging an antacid drug to treat a stomachache by varying the dosage, on the other hand, doesn't really represent the innovation that patent law exists to protect. Nor does developing drugs for "restless legs" or erectile dysfunction serve the public in the same way that an AIDS vaccine, a malaria vaccine, or a staph antibiotic could.

In other words, the public policy should reflect (as Rick noted), the desired public outcome.

The problem presented by the GAO study is that drug companies are a) making money hand over fist b) pouring money into R&D, but c) not developing these new molecular entities (NMEs) that can provide the substantial human benefit.

One solution is to amend patent law so that there's less of an incentive to focus on modified or marginal drug improvements. I'm not suggesting that patent terms on new drugs be reduced, but that companies be sent the message that we value (legally) developments of new drugs, not repackaging of old ones.

Another solution is to (as G$ recommends) increase federal R&D budgets. This is undeniably a good thing, because the results of federal research are public, adding to the body of general scientific knowledge. Additionally, the kind of general research done with federal dollars often serves several scientific disciplines and not just the goals of a particular industry.

My final thought is this: drug companies are constantly researching new or modified therapies and are still making profits, so their research costs are part of their bottom line. Yet they are still making record profits. To me, this makes the argument about recouping research costs inane. They're doing research and making millions!

Maybe they're paying down debt from 20 years ago when they started developing the drugs that are paying off today. But that's all the more reason to make sure patent law offers advantages for companies seeking the most promising and novel drugs, to keep the health benefits (and profits) flowing.

No comments: