Biden administration asserts power to seize drug patents in move to slash high prices

The Biden administration on Thursday asserted its authority to seize the patents of certain costly medications in a new push to slash high drug prices and promote more pharmaceutical competition.

The administration unveiled a framework outlining the factors federal agencies should consider in deciding whether to use a controversial policy, known as march-in rights, to break the patents of drugs that were developed with federal funds but are not widely accessible to the public. For the first time, officials can now factor in a medication’s price — a change that could have big implications for drugmakers depending on how the government uses the powers.

“When drug companies won’t sell taxpayer-funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,” White House National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard said during a call with reporters Wednesday.

NABDad,

I’ve often thought that this is a perfect situation in which to invoke Eminent Domain.

If the government can decide what my home is worth, and force me to sell it at that price so that they can sell it to a developer to tear down and build something else to sell to someone else, then why can’t they decide what a patent is worth and force the patent holder to sell it at that price.

The patent holder should be compensated for whatever they paid to develop the technology. Obviously, if the patent is based on government funded research, then whatever the government already paid would be deducted from the value of the patent.

nothing,

If they are doing their R&D documentation correctly, the US tax code already allows for tax credits up to certain limits. In a lot of cases, it covers nearly 100% of qualified R&D coats.

Getawombatupya,

And now you have one step closer to negotiated price government subsidised medicine. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

nxdefiant,

Counterpoint: They took government money, the public *already" owns those drugs (in part).

If a private investor had fronted half the money for the company, they’d own half the company. The government’s role here is angel investor, and it’s insane to let these companies buy out their partner at the initial investment price. It’s my opinion that if the US government is the majority owner of any given medication, it is in the best interest of the public that those medications be made available at cost.

lolcatnip, (edited )

“Seize” is a really weird term to apply to something that only exists as an idea. Especially an idea that only has meaning because governments actively enforce it. It would make more sense to say Biden plans to end enforcement of the relevant patents.

It seems like the language of the article is designed to paint Biden’s plan in a bad light.

linuxdweeb,

“When drug companies won’t sell taxpayer-funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,”

Cue the legal bickering over what counts as “reasonable”. I think the definition is clear: the only reasonable price for medicine is the lowest possible price. And the only way to ensure that is to not award drug patents in the first place (at all, but especially if development was funded by taxpayers).

Furbag,

“Won’t someone think of the billion dollar drug corporation? They’re the real victims of this abuse of executive power!” - Republicans right now, probably.

reverendsteveii,

why shouldn’t we get what we pay for? not for a “reasonable price” out of some sense of “public private partnership”. if the people bear the cost of development the people should own the product outright.

PsychedSy,

Fuck that. We should be passing laws to reduce all patent periods over time, eventually falling either insanely low or to zero.

Coldgoron,

“You’re killing me”! - Drug Companies “Good” -Me

Chakravanti,

He does this in time, I won’t feel bad for voting for him just to stop Trump’s immenant objective of Tyrrany of Obvious Lies and Theft.

chitak166,

This is a good thing.

Copyright and patent laws need to die.

Only an idiot thinks we wouldn’t develop drugs without them.

linuxdweeb,

What’s wrong with copyright law? It definitely needs to be reformed, in particular the term lengths and the nonsense-laden DMCA. But for the most part, it’s a good thing.

Plavatos,

While outside the scope of the article I disagree with the notion patents need to go away. If privately funded, developed, and created a patent incentivizes ingenuity and has it’s place. That said, limits of some sort prevent monopolies/exploitation and are the other side of a healthy system. **If publicly funded in any way the people have a right to it.

I know Lemmy is very anti-corpo and I generally I am too. But for a personal inventor imagine spending years of your life on a project only to have your only way to seek compensation for that work taken away - unless you’re a total saint you would never want to create again (or certainly wouldn’t share it).

The counter point is that if it can save millions of people it certainly seems wrong to withhold it for personal gain, and so there must be a compromise somewhere or that’d make the person evil (which most corporations end up being).

doctorcrimson,

Hehehee, I like to imagine him talking to some of these companies on the phone about this problem and them acting all tough before he made this decision.

mindbleach,

Patents exist to encourage innovation through profit motives.

You made a metric fuckload of profit.

That’ll do.

Reverendender,

Fuck yeah Dark Brandon

Godric,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0b4a218d-6bfe-4fff-9b4e-35b63eb98247.jpeg

paddirn,

Not sure if it applies here, but I remember reading something years ago about how more patents now are either “Product Patents” (mainly used in Developed countries) vs “Process Patents” (used more in Developing countries). A Product patent protects the end result, no matter how it gets made, whereas Process patents just protect the way that it’s made and don’t forbid anyone from making the end result, they just can’t make it the same way.

Product patents almost seemed designed to stifle innovation, since it prevents anybody else from coming up with a more efficient method for creating the thing, whereas Process patents still allow for others to get into the market and come up with better/cheaper ways of making the thing.

It might be hard to protect Drugs though, since probably the bulk of the resources spent on it is going to be all that up-front research that needs to be done, then manufacturing it is probably trivial in alot of cases. Maybe there could be something done where all drugs that get Government-funding are available to anyone to produce, but anyone outside of the patent-holder that produces them must pay some sort of small “licensing fee” for the right to produce them (for X years), otherwise no one else is prevented from producing/selling the drugs. Just something that could help keep drug companies from going overboard with their insane pricing schemes, but still allows them to recoup the money they put into research.

Chr0nos1,

I’m extremely torn about this. First of all, I’ve been saying for a long time, that the biggest problem with the American health system is the costs of everything, and not the lack of insurance. Bring the costs down, and insurance is either not needed, or should be able to be procured much more cheaply, so this move will help with that, which is a good thing.

Second, patents are in place for a reason. If you invent something, you have the right to sell it, at least for a period of time, without it being ripped off by someone else. Patents are used all the time, all around the world, and are typically protected. This is a form of theft, and I think a possible slippery slope, as it sets a precedent going forward. And yes, I’m aware that they are doing this with drugs funded by the taxpayers. If they want to do this, it should be a stipulation when the company gets the government funding, and not done after the fact.

greenskye,

Doing research that is significantly funded by the government, but then you get to keep sole control of it and abuse that position to harm subjects of the government that made ‘your’ patent even exist is a problem. I’m absolutely ok with the government threatening to take that control back. If you don’t want that threat, then entirely fund it yourself. If you don’t want the government to actually execute the threat than charge reasonable prices. You still get your control and your profits, you just can’t be a dick about it.

There’s no slippery slope at all here.

joshuanozzi,

*Funded by the citizens, is a clearer way to make that point. If the citizens subsidized any significant portion of that drug’s development, the company behind it should get “royalties” for the subsidized portion, and the drug should go on a government-controlled-price list. Don’t like it? No treasury shovel-outs for you.

pizza,

youtu.be/rLXWqdry3Qc?si=LItEsEzrkK2DTL2D

RonnieB,

More consumer protections please

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

But who are going to protect the poor CEOs?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •