Benefits of a Patent Drug
Jeffrey Tucker, the editorial vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an informational website that bills itself as "…advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School has an insightful article justifying the practice by the pharmaceutical industry to patent a drug. The article, first of all, doesn't seek to provide a definition of patent drug; it explores the place and importance of drug patents..
Jeffrey first acknowledges that the process of drugs making is expensive and complex, and cautions against discussing it cavalierly. For instance, he cites the cost of research and development of new drugs, and that of seeking their approval with Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) as some of the justifications for protecting drug patents. Of course none of this is a new use of drug patents; they're costs traditionally associated with research and development of new drugs that, as Jeffrey puts it, pharmaceutical companies must factor in their operations.
"…without patents, compensation for the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for jumping through FDA hoops would not be forthcoming," says Jeffrey. Warning against counterfeiting, which, in itself, has not proved to increase access to medicines in poor countries, Jeffrey cautions that if a pharmaceutical company can't patent drug, it'll be forced to make full disclosure of its drugs formulas. This, Jeffrey further warns, could encourage unscrupulous and predatory behavior from generic makers out to make a quick kill: They'll seize on the formulas to make knock-off drugs, whose safety wouldn't be guaranteed, which, in turn, could undermine genuine drug makers' efforts to recoup cost incurred while developing the new drug. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, cannot be expected to be indifferent to any incident (s) of drug company patent abuse; it'll be out in full swings to protect its interests.
Jeffrey, evidently, wades into a debate that's all too common on the need to protect intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. As Jeffrey acknowledges, pharmaceutical companies spend a fortune in research and development of new drugs, and the obvious expectation is that they jealously guard their pharmaceutical patents. This, however, doesn't indicate ambivalence on their part to help vulnerable populations access to essential medicines.
Drug companies know pretty well that an essential medicine could be a matter of life and death to a patient who has little or no resources to buy drugs. This is more so in developing countries where the World Health Organization (WHO), with support of the pharmaceutical industry, has successfully lobbied governments to develop a national essential medicines list. [A national essential medicines list is simply a localized version of the WHO's Model Essential Medicines List. Each country will have a different national essential medicines list simply due to the fact that different nations have different treatable diseases.]
A casual examination of major pharmaceutical companies shows a presence of access to medicine programs in countries where they operate. GlaxoSmithKline, for instance, acknowledges that access to medicines is "…one of the most challenging corporate responsibility issues for the pharmaceutical industry." On its part, the company has and continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on access to medicines programs in mainly developing countries. Johnson & Johnson, similarly, has its own access to medicines programs. In the last one year, for instance, the company says it has served about 2.3 million units of medicines to about 320,000 patients in the developing world.
As Jeffrey, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, puts it, drug patents are the lifeline of the pharmaceutical industry. And as Amir Attan of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in a paper on access to medicines he authored few years ago, there doesn't seem to be a link between drug patent and access to medicines.
Jeffrey first acknowledges that the process of drugs making is expensive and complex, and cautions against discussing it cavalierly. For instance, he cites the cost of research and development of new drugs, and that of seeking their approval with Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) as some of the justifications for protecting drug patents. Of course none of this is a new use of drug patents; they're costs traditionally associated with research and development of new drugs that, as Jeffrey puts it, pharmaceutical companies must factor in their operations.
"…without patents, compensation for the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for jumping through FDA hoops would not be forthcoming," says Jeffrey. Warning against counterfeiting, which, in itself, has not proved to increase access to medicines in poor countries, Jeffrey cautions that if a pharmaceutical company can't patent drug, it'll be forced to make full disclosure of its drugs formulas. This, Jeffrey further warns, could encourage unscrupulous and predatory behavior from generic makers out to make a quick kill: They'll seize on the formulas to make knock-off drugs, whose safety wouldn't be guaranteed, which, in turn, could undermine genuine drug makers' efforts to recoup cost incurred while developing the new drug. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, cannot be expected to be indifferent to any incident (s) of drug company patent abuse; it'll be out in full swings to protect its interests.
Jeffrey, evidently, wades into a debate that's all too common on the need to protect intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. As Jeffrey acknowledges, pharmaceutical companies spend a fortune in research and development of new drugs, and the obvious expectation is that they jealously guard their pharmaceutical patents. This, however, doesn't indicate ambivalence on their part to help vulnerable populations access to essential medicines.
Drug companies know pretty well that an essential medicine could be a matter of life and death to a patient who has little or no resources to buy drugs. This is more so in developing countries where the World Health Organization (WHO), with support of the pharmaceutical industry, has successfully lobbied governments to develop a national essential medicines list. [A national essential medicines list is simply a localized version of the WHO's Model Essential Medicines List. Each country will have a different national essential medicines list simply due to the fact that different nations have different treatable diseases.]
A casual examination of major pharmaceutical companies shows a presence of access to medicine programs in countries where they operate. GlaxoSmithKline, for instance, acknowledges that access to medicines is "…one of the most challenging corporate responsibility issues for the pharmaceutical industry." On its part, the company has and continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on access to medicines programs in mainly developing countries. Johnson & Johnson, similarly, has its own access to medicines programs. In the last one year, for instance, the company says it has served about 2.3 million units of medicines to about 320,000 patients in the developing world.
As Jeffrey, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, puts it, drug patents are the lifeline of the pharmaceutical industry. And as Amir Attan of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in a paper on access to medicines he authored few years ago, there doesn't seem to be a link between drug patent and access to medicines.
