← Back to context

Comment by ncallaway

5 hours ago

The government backed monopoly to ensure that supply remains artificially restricted to ensure that the market will support the higher prices is

Drug companies have a portfolio of compounds they research. Most don’t pay off, so R&D costs make their way into the pricing of those superstar and other drugs that do work. Also, timelines are pretty long.

  • Well, R&D costs are able to make their way into the pricing due to the artificial supply restriction.

    If supply was not artificially restricted (through patents), then competitors would be able to manufacture the drug, supply would expand, the price would collapse, and the original inventor would not be able to recover their R&D costs.

In that light, the entire market itself looks essentially artificial, given drug manufacturing couldn’t exist without government guaranteed property rights, which are themselves a kind of monopoly on use.

But yes, the reason brand name drugs are drugs are more expensive than generics is due to intellectual property, both the patent and the trademark.

Without temporary monopolies granted by patents, those prescription medications wouldn’t exist in the first place.

  • Okay? Does that disagree with anything I wrote?

    My point was to whether it was artificial not whether it was bad.

    We can have artificial interventions in markets, and that can be a net benefit and a good thing.

    I’m not sure why everyone is responding as if “artificial” and “bad” are the same thing

  • Salk didn't need that temporary monopoly to invent the polio vaccine, which has gone on to be one of the biggest success stories of vaccines and modern medicine general.