Listening to the latest spat in the run up to the election over the costs of medicines it is worth mentioning that there is a great deal of old bollocks being spoken about patents, charges and 'generics'. I have an interest in this because of my various jobs, so feel inclined to comment.
First question - where do new medicines come from? To hear some commentators and politicians talk you'd thing that a medicine is a natural gift from God, waiting to be discovered rather like a hoard of Viking gold, in a field somewhere, using nothing more than a spade and a bit of luck.
The reality is it is a chemical that is invented by the chemists and biologists (and others) working for a pharmaceutical (drug) company. They invented it, they own it, they sell it.
So what is all this bollocks about 'patents preventing others from selling generic versions'? What is a generic version? The answer is it is a counterfeit version. Well, it would be counterfeit if it were made and sold while the inventor still had some life in their patent.
What is a patent? It is a legal arrangement that allows the inventor of something to have a monopoly on their invention. It is time limited, and the time limit varies for different products. I think that Paul McCartney still owns a patent on his records so they can't be copied and sold without him getting a royalty, more than 50 years after they were written.
With a drug you get only 10 or 12 year's patent protection. After that 'generics' can be made and sold legally. Thus Neurofen is the trade name of ibuprofen, manufactured by the inventor, whereas tesco sells 'generic' ibuprofen, manufactured in China or India and sold at a fraction of the price.
So generics are great then, no?
No. Where did the drug originally come from? It was invented, at great cost, by a drug company. What sort of great cost?
From the original idea to making the drug, testing it in animals, then in a clinical trial, doing the legal work and the marketing it costs an insane amount. The typical investment for a novel drug these days is over one billion pounds.
And the risks are massive - a drug may not work in humans because of side effects, a need to lower the dose, and the dose then being too low to provide benefit. Then there is no drug and no income from it - but the costs are the same. This is so high risk that drug companies have been merging and shrinking for decades. Pfizer shut their operation in Sandwich having invented (taken successfully to market) no new drugs in 10 years.
And to even spend these insane amounts of money you need an infrastructure - a company with premises and people. Expertise. History. (OK some times companies buy half-developed drugs off small operators, often working in academia on a small budget of 1-2 million quid, but the big company is still needed to take the idea on, and the total costs will be the same. But I digress.)
So what gives a small scale chemical synthesis lab the right to copy a new drug and flog it off cheap? That's theft, surely? They haven't spent the billion quid plus to invent the drug.
Ah, you might say, but the inventors overcharge don't they? Well, no, they don't. They charge as much as they can get, sure - that's capitalism. They may try to rig the market, just as we see in any sector. But without the income generated there would be no viable companies, no investment in inventing new drugs, no new drugs, no progress. Yes, limit profiteering by laws, but it is no different than any other sector in the main - prices are set by the market. Unless all drug companies are nationalised and internationalised (one big company and no competition) this has to be the way. (I rather like the latter and have argued it could ve a viable model, but it is as yet anathema).
So, personally, I think that only 10 years' patent protection is shitty and unfair to the companies. If the companies were given longer protection, say 50 years (like Paul McCartney who, I think, was given 56 years and has now extended via courts) they would not need to push drugs through to the market too quickly (risking failed trials), and would have longer to select the correct dosage, and recoup their investment, and - get this - they could afford to charge less (much less) per unit item. And this would make drug hunting a more stable and less bonkers activity.
So I get very irritated with all the crap in the media spouted by right and left (in this case, especially the left) about drug pricing and generics.
Much as I hate Boris, from what I gather the yanks just want to extend their patent protection - from 10 to 12 years - as part of trade discussions. This is neither immoral nor is it unreasonable. It saddens me to see labour types gobbing off as if American companies are stealing our heritage by delaying the entry of generics via patent protection. That said, the tories pay lip service to the same nonsense and could have fixed all this years ago if they had any brains or balls. They are supposed to be the party of business FFS.
Mods, please leave this thread alive for a couple of days as it is quite nuanced, before merging it with the election thread if this is you preference
First question - where do new medicines come from? To hear some commentators and politicians talk you'd thing that a medicine is a natural gift from God, waiting to be discovered rather like a hoard of Viking gold, in a field somewhere, using nothing more than a spade and a bit of luck.
The reality is it is a chemical that is invented by the chemists and biologists (and others) working for a pharmaceutical (drug) company. They invented it, they own it, they sell it.
So what is all this bollocks about 'patents preventing others from selling generic versions'? What is a generic version? The answer is it is a counterfeit version. Well, it would be counterfeit if it were made and sold while the inventor still had some life in their patent.
What is a patent? It is a legal arrangement that allows the inventor of something to have a monopoly on their invention. It is time limited, and the time limit varies for different products. I think that Paul McCartney still owns a patent on his records so they can't be copied and sold without him getting a royalty, more than 50 years after they were written.
With a drug you get only 10 or 12 year's patent protection. After that 'generics' can be made and sold legally. Thus Neurofen is the trade name of ibuprofen, manufactured by the inventor, whereas tesco sells 'generic' ibuprofen, manufactured in China or India and sold at a fraction of the price.
So generics are great then, no?
No. Where did the drug originally come from? It was invented, at great cost, by a drug company. What sort of great cost?
From the original idea to making the drug, testing it in animals, then in a clinical trial, doing the legal work and the marketing it costs an insane amount. The typical investment for a novel drug these days is over one billion pounds.
And the risks are massive - a drug may not work in humans because of side effects, a need to lower the dose, and the dose then being too low to provide benefit. Then there is no drug and no income from it - but the costs are the same. This is so high risk that drug companies have been merging and shrinking for decades. Pfizer shut their operation in Sandwich having invented (taken successfully to market) no new drugs in 10 years.
And to even spend these insane amounts of money you need an infrastructure - a company with premises and people. Expertise. History. (OK some times companies buy half-developed drugs off small operators, often working in academia on a small budget of 1-2 million quid, but the big company is still needed to take the idea on, and the total costs will be the same. But I digress.)
So what gives a small scale chemical synthesis lab the right to copy a new drug and flog it off cheap? That's theft, surely? They haven't spent the billion quid plus to invent the drug.
Ah, you might say, but the inventors overcharge don't they? Well, no, they don't. They charge as much as they can get, sure - that's capitalism. They may try to rig the market, just as we see in any sector. But without the income generated there would be no viable companies, no investment in inventing new drugs, no new drugs, no progress. Yes, limit profiteering by laws, but it is no different than any other sector in the main - prices are set by the market. Unless all drug companies are nationalised and internationalised (one big company and no competition) this has to be the way. (I rather like the latter and have argued it could ve a viable model, but it is as yet anathema).
So, personally, I think that only 10 years' patent protection is shitty and unfair to the companies. If the companies were given longer protection, say 50 years (like Paul McCartney who, I think, was given 56 years and has now extended via courts) they would not need to push drugs through to the market too quickly (risking failed trials), and would have longer to select the correct dosage, and recoup their investment, and - get this - they could afford to charge less (much less) per unit item. And this would make drug hunting a more stable and less bonkers activity.
So I get very irritated with all the crap in the media spouted by right and left (in this case, especially the left) about drug pricing and generics.
Much as I hate Boris, from what I gather the yanks just want to extend their patent protection - from 10 to 12 years - as part of trade discussions. This is neither immoral nor is it unreasonable. It saddens me to see labour types gobbing off as if American companies are stealing our heritage by delaying the entry of generics via patent protection. That said, the tories pay lip service to the same nonsense and could have fixed all this years ago if they had any brains or balls. They are supposed to be the party of business FFS.
Mods, please leave this thread alive for a couple of days as it is quite nuanced, before merging it with the election thread if this is you preference
