The Edwards campaign has evidently concluded that, in order to compete with Hillary, its candidate needs to be very aggressive in promoting health care initiatives. Thus, John Edwards has unveiled another feature of his health care plan. This time, he proposes overhauling the drug patent process:
Edwards’ plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.
Edwards claims this change will drive down pharmaceutical prices:
He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices.
I must admit that, like some members of the “reality-based community,” I initially liked the sound of this idea. It appeals to my inner Libertarian. Then “reality,” as we experience it here on Earth, set in.This plan would almost certainly kill drug industry innovation. There is no way that the federal government will ever offer “prizes” large enough to offset the decline in profits that would accompany this change.
Moreover, even if the government didn’t renege on the deal, the taxpayers would be hit with a huge bill that would almost certainly eat up any money they would save on the cheap generic drugs that the Edwards plan would allegedly produce.
So, I’m afraid this is just another bottle of Dr. Edwards’ snake oil.
Comments 13
Um . . . last I checked drug industry innovation has been dead for quite a while. Take a peak in that pipeline and shout your name . . . hear that echo?
See the Guardian’s take on a new PriceWaterhouse Cooper report (Drugs industry economics ‘not sustainable’ - report): http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2101576,00.html
Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶Actually, the Guardian piece suggests extending the patent period:
“One of his suggestions was that patent protection for drugs, set at about 20 years, could be extended to a much longer period to incentivise the companies to produce more innovative drugs and sell them at a lower cost.”
I think the response to any attempt to eliminate drug patents would be immediate shut-downs of almost all Pharmaceutical R&D departments.
Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 5:20 pm ¶Catron, how long will you carry on the “I’m a libertarian” charade?
Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 3:36 pm ¶Libertarianism doesn’t require that we impale ourselves on a policy that would do more harm than good. Besides, having the government provide artificial inducements is hardly a libertarian policy.
Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 3:55 pm ¶I think you need to spend some time here so you’ll know what you’re talking about: http://www.lp.org.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 8:03 am ¶Perhaps you’d like to tell me, in your own words, how giving taxpayer (prize) money to “Big Pharma” conforms with libertarian principles.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 10:13 am ¶I’m not suggesting that it does. I’m just chuckling at a tort “reformers” claims to be a libertarian.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 10:18 am ¶Tort reform, despite the misconceptions of many, is not inconsistent with libertarianism. Libertarian principles do not preclude the state from protecting its citizens from predators, even those who use the law to faciltate their predatory behavior.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 10:32 am ¶Actually, it’s the very antithesis of libertarianism. How arbitrarily capping the damages of people with legitimate claims based on numbers chosen by lobbyists constitutes libertarianism is beyond me. Particularly when you choose the decisions of those same lobbyists over the decisions of the individual jurors who *gasp* actually heard the evidence.
Unless you’ve completely redefined the term to suit your personal purposes. Or protection of insurer profits became part of the libertarian mantra and I missed it.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 1:50 pm ¶To say that government has no right to regulate frivolous lawsuits is like saying it has no right to protect its citizens against muggers and grifters. The key word is “legitimate.” The lawsuits regulated by tort reform are not “legitimate” by any rational standard.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 4:04 pm ¶Tort “reform” in most of its current guises, is nothing more than damage caps, which regulates lawsuits regardless of their merit. As for “frivolous” ones, there are actually quite a few regulations for those, although truly frivolous cases are most often filed pro se in small claims court.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on what the proposals you’re backing really say.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 4:08 pm ¶You still haven’t addressed my main point.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 4:12 pm ¶With regard to Edwards’ plan? I think it, and all others similar, are all just campaign rhetoric so they can say “I’ve got a healthcare plan.”
Which is one of the reasons I’m most frustrated with physicians - because instead of spending all their time on helping their liability carriers make money, they ought to be worried about a comprehensive change to their whole way of life in terms of socialized medicine/single payer/whatever term you want to use. They ought to be leading the charge for a new proposal for free market reforms that benefit all. But best I can tell, without the insurers organizing them, they’re content to sit back and bitch.
Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 4:51 pm ¶Post a Comment