Comment by throwanem
1 year ago
The argument in essence is that only permitting pharmaceutical companies these outrageous profits will induce them to continue investing the likewise outrageous costs of new drug development now that all the low-hanging fruit like antibiotics, and sildenafil and other antihypertensives, has been picked. This extends (usually by implication) to trivial variations in molecular chemistry which have no functional effect on a medication but which are used to extend patent protections solely on the basis of a structural change - a practice also visible in the history of one family of drugs I have mentioned, and one which without some sort of justification might be taken for an example of a law's letter being abused to violate that same law's intent.
Look, I didn't say I buy it. But you asked for the basic argument advocates make in support of such practices, and here it is.
> This extends (usually by implication) to trivial variations in molecular chemistry which have no functional effect on a medication but which are used to extend patent protections solely on the basis of a structural change
How does that work? Does it extend patent protection on the original molecule? Or if not, what stops generic copies of the original version?
It doesnt. A competitor can make generics of the original.
What is does is stagger coverage with version release so that you have coverage for latest and greatest version.
Generics are extremely common following patent exclusivity. By then, patients and doctors usually want the shiny new drug.
I found a menu. https://www.obrienpatents.com/extending-life-patents-pharmac...
it's not a great argument since iirc half of pharmaceutical company spending is on marketing; far far outstripping r&d
2024 numbers -- Selling, General & Admin vs. R&D
Roche (Pharma Division): 7533 MCHF vs. 11096 MCHF
Novartis: 12566 MUSD vs. 10022 MUSD
Pfizer: 14730 MUSD vs. 10822 MUSD
Eli Lilly: 8594 MUSD vs. 10991 MUSD
AstraZeneca: 19977 MUSD vs. 13583 MUSD
Johnson & Johnson: 22869 MUSD vs. 17232 MUSD
The left side here contains more than just marketing, and already "far far outstripping" seems like a mischaracterization.
For comparison, the average R&D spend between these firms is bigger than the 2024 NSF budget (~9bn) and bigger than 1/4 of the 2024 NIH budget (~37bn).
Also worth considering that this only includes internal R&D, not R&D acquired through acquisition of smaller biotech firms (known as in process R&D). VC investment in biotech startups is, at least in part, built around the assumption that acquisition by a larger pharmaceutical company is a viable exit strategy. To take the example of Eli Lilly, I think they spent an additional 10-20% of their R&D budget on IPR&D in 2024, though this obviously can fluctuate more year to year. They acquired Morphic, which produces a pharmaceutical that treats IBS, and Scorpion Therapeutics, which produces a precision oncology treatment, this year and I'm guessing neither spent much on consumer sales.
I think you meant to say NIH for the second budget number?
1 reply →
That's part of it, but pharma is also a portfolio business, like VC or music; the winners have to pay for the losers.
(I don't know how much that matters in this case, where a tiny company lucked into a blockbuster and then used every lever in the system to protect their exclusivity).
Yeah, nobody serious is really arguing the winners shouldn't pay for the losers. How many times over, though?
3 replies →
And a lot of pharma research is based on publicly-funded research in the first place.
Sure, but that's a bit of a red herring. The largest expense in bringing a new prescription drug to market is the phase 3 clinical trial, which now costs on the order of $1B each. Those often fail, so it's a huge gamble. There is very little public funding for type of research.
34 replies →
the argument might be, the more profits the pharma's make, the more available cash to buy out poltiicians or create SuperPAC's or whatever they have at hand..
America, the land of the dollar
>America, the land of the dollar
Correction: America, the land of the rent-seeking.
This is trickle down economics for healthcare. It is stupid. No, it is worse than that, it is evil.