[Politics] The price of medicines

[Acker79]

This is neither immoral nor is it unreasonable.

That's arguable. There is a lot of truth in what you say, it reminds me of a quote in west wing:

TOBY The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

But what all that 'rah rah capitalism'/'let's not ignore the cost of invention' argument ignores, is that these medicines can be the difference between someone living and someone dying a needless death. The capitalist interest becomes akin to blackmail, holding the health of a loved one hostage for as much as they can charge.

I think it is a very easy to argue that wanting longer to charge higher prices when people's lives are on the line is immoral.

 

[knocky1]

is monopoly power the same has holding the patent? What was the issue with neurofen?

The Pharmaceuticals have monopoly power prior patent, during patent and post patent. As HWT the costs of research require that. They abuse that position, as big companies do.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

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

Spot on, in 2017 Roche spent $11.4 billion on R&D. It's a business with a huge conscience, but it is a business, so also allowed to make a profit.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

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.

I am going to have to take you up on this - anywhere between 30%-40% of the medicines produced (depending on which meta analysis you accept) come from academia - not from drug companies - and it is the drug companies that get these drugs on the cheap before making a financial killing on them (you briefly gloss over this in your comments).

Drug companies generate less than 20% of healthcare revenue - yet haul in over 50% of the profits (in the USA it is 63% of the profits) - Pfizer made about $16billion last year in profit - Novartis more than $12billion - Merck made about $9billion last year in profit - Eli Lilly make about $8billion last year in profit - 4 pharma companies made more than $45billion in profit last year (and there are a lot more).

A demonstration of the nature of private pharma - in 2015 a hedge fund bought the marketing rights to a drug called Daraprim - overnight the price of a tablet in the US went from $13.50 to $750 (in the UK this drug costs £13 for 30 tablets - in Brazil it costs 1p).

Novartis recently announced that a new drug to treat spinal muscular atrophy will cost $2.1million for a one-time treatment.

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).

As they say in my part of the world - now your're sucking diesel - why should drug companies be allowed to make billions in profits from people being sick? Letting the 'market' decide whether people live or die based on whether they can afford a drug or can afford private medical insurance demonstrates the obscene nature of capitalism.

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.

No - what Boris wants to do is to carve up the NHS so that big pharma and big healthcare conglomerates can pad their bank accounts at the expense of working class people. People in Britain have not experienced the nature of private healthcare because of the NHS (despite the fact that the Tories, the LibDems and the Blairites have been engaged in creeping privatisation of the NHS for 3 decades). I live in Ireland and we have private healthcare - in October there were 11,432 people admitted to hospital in Ireland without a bed for them (and remember Ireland has a population of just over 4million - less than half the size of London). Over 30 women have died in Ireland in the past 18 months becuse the government privatised examination of cervical smear tests and the private company (a big US company) f*cked up the tests and told these women they had negative test results - the government were warned in 2008 when they privatised the testing that it would cost lives - the numbers will continue to grow because there are many women who are now terminally ill and will die over the coming period. My daughter had an operation on her ankle about 6 months ago - cost - over €9,000. Consultants in the NHS make about £80K a year - in Ireland some can make up to €1million from private healthcare - indeed large numbers have a public position but are allowed bring their private patients into public hospitals and charge them large sums to treat them there.

This is the type of stuff you will face if you let Boris and the Trumper loose on the NHS.

The British electorate have an opportunity to send a message to the neo-liberal healthcare conglomerates and big pharma - hands off the NHS (and you do that by voting for Corbyn).

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Spot on, in 2017 Roche spent $11.4 billion on R&D. It's a business with a huge conscience, but it is a business, so also allowed to make a profit.

Roche made $10.65billion in profit last year - some 'huge conscience' (and they recently shut a plant about 6 miles from where I am sitting costing 255 workers their jobs).

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Roche made $10.65billion in profit last year - some 'huge conscience' (and they recently shut a plant about 6 miles from where I am sitting costing 255 workers their jobs).

They are one of the world's biggest R&D investors, and their research has led to more cancer cures than any other company.

Your outrage is misplaced.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am going to have to take you up on this - anywhere between 30%-40% of the medicines produced (depending on which meta analysis you accept) come from academia - not from drug companies - and it is the drug companies that get these drugs on the cheap before making a financial killing on them (you briefly gloss over this in your comments).

Drug companies generate less than 20% of healthcare revenue - yet haul in over 50% of the profits (in the USA it is 63% of the profits) - Pfizer made about $16billion last year in profit - Novartis more than $12billion - Merck made about $9billion last year in profit - Eli Lilly make about $8billion last year in profit - 4 pharma companies made more than $45billion in profit last year (and there are a lot more).

A demonstration of the nature of private pharma - in 2015 a hedge fund bought the marketing rights to a drug called Daraprim - overnight the price of a tablet in the US went from $13.50 to $750 (in the UK this drug costs £13 for 30 tablets - in Brazil it costs 1p).

Novartis recently announced that a new drug to treat spinal muscular atrophy will cost $2.1million for a one-time treatment.


As they say in my part of the world - now your're sucking diesel - why should drug companies be allowed to make billions in profits from people being sick? Letting the 'market' decide whether people live or die based on whether they can afford a drug or can afford private medical insurance demonstrates the obscene nature of capitalism.


No - what Boris wants to do is to carve up the NHS so that big pharma and big healthcare conglomerates can pad their bank accounts at the expense of working class people. People in Britain have not experienced the nature of private healthcare because of the NHS (despite the fact that the Tories, the LibDems and the Blairites have been engaged in creeping privatisation of the NHS for 3 decades). I live in Ireland and we have private healthcare - in October there were 11,432 people admitted to hospital in Ireland without a bed for them (and remember Ireland has a population of just over 4million - less than half the size of London). Over 30 women have died in Ireland in the past 18 months becuse the government privatised examination of cervical smear tests and the private company (a big US company) f*cked up the tests and told these women they had negative test results - the government were warned in 2008 when they privatised the testing that it would cost lives - the numbers will continue to grow because there are many women who are now terminally ill and will die over the coming period. My daughter had an operation on her ankle about 6 months ago - cost - over €9,000. Consultants in the NHS make about £80K a year - in Ireland some can make up to €1million from private healthcare - indeed large numbers have a public position but are allowed bring their private patients into public hospitals and charge them large sums to treat them there.

This is the type of stuff you will face if you let Boris and the Trumper loose on the NHS.

The British electorate have an opportunity to send a message to the neo-liberal healthcare conglomerates and big pharma - hands off the NHS (and you do that by voting for Corbyn).

I am in favour of a global, nationalised single 'drug company'. I have argued for it in the scientific literature. For all the reasons you outline.

I think big pharm is an inefficient shambles, run by chancers and psychos. I have met a few of them.

Whether change ever comes to pass, however....

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

They are one of the world's biggest R&D investors, and their research has led to more cancer cures than any other company.

Your outrage is misplaced.

Roche have one objective - make profits - if it wasn't cancer drugs it would be nuclear weapons or coca cola or something else that flows the money - to think they are making £10billion a year in profits as a result of altruistic endeavour is nonsense. Cancer treatment is a rapidly growing business. Their newest cancer drug is Rozlytrek - and the cost is $204,560 a year. By the way - Bayer have a similar drug - Vitrakvi - the cost of that one $32,800 a month.

One of the biggest problems with private big pharma R&D is the fact that the drug companies are all researching - not what is needed - but what is potentially most profitable - and they end up with the likes of the two similar drugs above - combining research and making it available based on need would dramatically improve results and reduce costs.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's arguable. There is a lot of truth in what you say, it reminds me of a quote in west wing:

TOBY The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

But what all that 'rah rah capitalism'/'let's not ignore the cost of invention' argument ignores, is that these medicines can be the difference between someone living and someone dying a needless death. The capitalist interest becomes akin to blackmail, holding the health of a loved one hostage for as much as they can charge.

I think it is a very easy to argue that wanting longer to charge higher prices when people's lives are on the line is immoral.

As I have said, the only solution to a capitalist drug hunt is a global 'nationalised' effort.

I favour that but some will say it needs to be properly incentivised or it will end up like the Gas Board, with most employees sitting on their arses, collecting their salary.

I am a communist at heart (the prancing ninny can cut and paste this - I don't care because he's on ignore) but for anything to work it has to work in the real world, subjuct to the global rubric.

I guess we need to change the global rubric. But how?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But people don’t buy £3.85 Nurofen gel caps over 18p Boots Ibuprofen because it tastes better. They buy it because of the massive marketing spend and the sexy purpley silver packaging. It is functionally identical. Which isn’t the case for food / condiments / clothing. Some people swear by Levi jeans, others are happy with Asda‘a George brand.

Have you ever looked at the price the pharma forms charge for Diabetes drugs? People in the US literally dying because they can’t afford it on their insurance. Others fly to Mexico to buy the exact same thing for a fraction of the price. Modern insulin prices have gone through the roof, especially in the US. A $700 box of insulin pens in the States would be less than $50 in Taiwan. Same brand, same thing.

Our lives are their profits.

Back to my original point - how do we make drug discovery work? We need new drugs. Who will invent them? Who will finance the invention.

Our global system is simple. The costs of the invention are paid by sales. If the ability to sell is undercut (by allowing generics a free run) there will be no incentive, indeed no mechanism to fund discovery.

Perhaps this might be an issue that does eventually globalise planet earth - some things can't be left to competition and market forces.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I get what you are saying HWT, but I don’t think they are the beacons of virtue that they (and you) might suggest.

In the first half of this financial year, Pfizer have made about $26 billion in sales, earning roughly $9 billion in profit. In HALF a year!
They are estimating to spend a total of $8 billion on research across the whole year, but much more on marketing - $13.5 billion. And this represents a bad year for Pfizer. In 2017 their profits were double 2018 (lower due to tax implications).

They closed Sandwich as a cost cutting measure, and for no other reason. They discovered viagra there For Christ’s sake. Whilst I appreciate the face of pharma was changing, but they didn’t try that hard to keep it open did they - despite mental profits. Rather ironic that a few short years after leaving the U.K. they tried to buy Glaxo. Blatantly to save tax and not for much else. They were promising not to cut jobs or move sites (but wouldn’t legally promise that of course... just like Cadbury’s).
Speaking of tax, let’s not forget the significant tax benefits from the R&D they so graciously perform.

Full disclosure; I used to work for Pfizer, at Sandwich. Although I moved on long before the closure.

Let’s not pick on Pfizer. The top 20 pharma companies worldwide have revenues of over $600 billion each year. SIX HUNDRED BILLION. EVERY YEAR. And many of them are MORE profitable (%) than Pfizer

You’ll understand I’m sure why our hearts are not quite bleeding

Never said that. They are grubbing for money like any business. That is a problem.

But making it almost impossible to develop new drugs by limitig the patent life ain't the answer. And politicians suggesting it is are disingenuous or thicck or both.

Behaviour is dictated by the structure of the market. I was marvelling again at the 'best of times' BT ad while watchig footy tonight. Why was Dickens so wordy, though? The answer is he was paid by the word. I'm not saying that is ideal, or even right.

All the while we live in a capitalist world all our activities are prescribed by what is possible in that world.

Perhaps it is time for a revolution......

 

[FatSuperman]

Never said that. They are grubbing for money like any business. That is a problem.

But making it almost impossible to develop new drugs by limitig the patent life ain't the answer. And politicians suggesting it is are disingenuous or thicck or both.
......

But the thread was started on the premise that they should be allowed a patent for a set period. I agree with this, and whilst it MIGHT be possible one giant, nationalised company could do better, that feels like a huge risk to me. I’m simply pointing out that the pharma companies are absolutely ROLLING IN CASH under the current model. They clearly do not need yet more protectionism. The only industry with higher profit margins is the banking industry.

Frankly, I’m surprised big pharma just don’t keep quiet and gleefully carry on raking it in.

Another anecdote, my mates ex worked for Novartis. As a sales rep. She had a huge budget for basically bribing GPs to switch to Novartis for various supply. The ridiculous stories she would tell. One GP correctly pointed out he was not able to be influenced by gifts and cash etc, it’s highly improper. So he suggested that Louise pay for his food shopping FOR A YEAR and he would happily switch over.

So not about the best deal or the best option for the patient. It’s about getting Sainsburys online deliveries for nothing. Good one.

Honestly, it feels like we are just like Zimbabwe but MUCH better at hiding the corruption. What the peasants don’t know...

 

[FatSuperman]

A demonstration of the nature of private pharma - in 2015 a hedge fund bought the marketing rights to a drug called Daraprim - overnight the price of a tablet in the US went from $13.50 to $750 (in the UK this drug costs £13 for 30 tablets - in Brazil it costs 1p).

Ah yes. That happened to the NHS not that long ago. A supplier, which to be fair may have been a wholesaler, increased the price of a generic drug by 7,000%. For no reason. I think one of the newspapers exposed this one, or a similar story.

Abusing the lack of transparency and profiting from the NHS like that should be a criminal offence

Just imagine how inefficient the NHS is due to this sort of thing, and the corruption etc. Imagine using that money to pay the nurses for example?! My wife is an A&E nurse and could earn more in a bar than doing what she does now. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Boils my piss

 

[Blue3]

Simple solution. Nationalise the drug companies.

This to me makes a lot more sence a drug company owned in part or full by the UK and linked to the requirements of the NHS from the research of UK Universities a not for profit organisation poring any income back into research and development no need for advertising as its customer is also it's supplier and designer.

As an aside it would be great if it developed a preventative vaccine for Marella and gave it design free to the world just think of the hundreads of millions of lives it could save, it's always been do able but the drug companies have not been that interested as the profit margins are low when selling drugs to the poorest 90%

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Never said that. They are grubbing for money like any business. That is a problem.

But making it almost impossible to develop new drugs by limitig the patent life ain't the answer. And politicians suggesting it is are disingenuous or thicck or both.

Behaviour is dictated by the structure of the market. I was marvelling again at the 'best of times' BT ad while watchig footy tonight. Why was Dickens so wordy, though? The answer is he was paid by the word. I'm not saying that is ideal, or even right.

All the while we live in a capitalist world all our activities are prescribed by what is possible in that world.

Perhaps it is time for a revolution......

But the alternative is nationalised pharma, which would be a disaster. It would just be an ineffective arse covering home for middle managers bringing little innovation, that would stagnate the huge advances we have seen in recent years.

I agree however that once a drugs patent expires, the generic market could be nationalised, creating jobs and offering the drugs to market at next to cost price.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But the thread was started on the premise that they should be allowed a patent for a set period. I agree with this, and whilst it MIGHT be possible one giant, nationalised company could do better, that feels like a huge risk to me. I’m simply pointing out that the pharma companies are absolutely ROLLING IN CASH under the current model. They clearly do not need yet more protectionism. The only industry with higher profit margins is the banking industry.

Frankly, I’m surprised big pharma just don’t keep quiet and gleefully carry on raking it in.

Another anecdote, my mates ex worked for Novartis. As a sales rep. She had a huge budget for basically bribing GPs to switch to Novartis for various supply. The ridiculous stories she would tell. One GP correctly pointed out he was not able to be influenced by gifts and cash etc, it’s highly improper. So he suggested that Louise pay for his food shopping FOR A YEAR and he would happily switch over.

So not about the best deal or the best option for the patient. It’s about getting Sainsburys online deliveries for nothing. Good one.

Honestly, it feels like we are just like Zimbabwe but MUCH better at hiding the corruption. What the peasants don’t know...

I know what you are saying but if this is all there is to it (big pharma making amazing profits) then we would have a healthy pipeline of new drugs. The fact is, compnies make masses of money for the short life of the patent then, if they can, they cash in again if the drug gets over the counter status - which is where brand name promotion becomes key.

Yes, it is possible for company to ride high on the hog for a decade on the back of one drug. But this is not a stable model for long term drug discovery. Giving companies longer patent protection, reducing unit costs, lowering the high octane high risk aspect and short termism makes sense to me.

And my other beef is with people who talk about pharma as if the companies are simply exploiting God's gifts and should make their discoveries virtually free.

Allen and Hanbury
Smith Kline and French
Astra
Haessler
Knoll
Beecham
Syntex
Rhone-Poulenc

How many of these companies now exist as independents? They merge and merge, losing staff, closing centres....why? Because it is too expensive and high risk to do it properly. Some companies now do pretty much all their discovery by buying start-ups. The expertise is gone and has not been replaced. All because of short termism that directly results from the short life of patents. Will we ever see the likes of Jim Black and Paul Janssen evere again? Not the way things are set up now...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But the alternative is nationalised pharma, which would be a disaster. It would just be an ineffective arse covering home for middle managers bringing little innovation, that would stagnate the huge advances we have seen in recent years.

I agree however that once a drugs patent expires, the generic market could be nationalised, creating jobs and offering the drugs to market at next to cost price.

Yes. That's the problem. I'm not sure how my global communistic solution would work. Which is why extending the patent life of prescription drugs seems like the best option for now.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Yes. That's the problem. I'm not sure how my global communistic solution would work. Which is why extending the patent life of prescription drugs seems like the best option for now.

Perhaps an extended local patent thats related to NICE approval? Only once a drug is approved does the clock start, thus making it easier to forecast the return on investment.

Drug companies could then determine prices that have a predetermined ceiling, if the drug is more efficacious or more patients require it than forecast, they give the additional amount away for free. No additional unforseen cost to the NHS, and patients get quicker access.

 

[lost in london]

I know what you are saying but if this is all there is to it (big pharma making amazing profits) then we would have a healthy pipeline of new drugs. The fact is, compnies make masses of money for the short life of the patent then, if they can, they cash in again if the drug gets over the counter status - which is where brand name promotion becomes key.

Yes, it is possible for company to ride high on the hog for a decade on the back of one drug. But this is not a stable model for long term drug discovery. Giving companies longer patent protection, reducing unit costs, lowering the high octane high risk aspect and short termism makes sense to me.

And my other beef is with people who talk about pharma as if the companies are simply exploiting God's gifts and should make their discoveries virtually free.

Allen and Hanbury
Smith Kline and French
Astra
Haessler
Knoll
Beecham
Syntex
Rhone-Poulenc

How many of these companies now exist as independents? They merge and merge, losing staff, closing centres....why? Because it is too expensive and high risk to do it properly. Some companies now do pretty much all their discovery by buying start-ups. The expertise is gone and has not been replaced. All because of short termism that directly results from the short life of patents. Will we ever see the likes of Jim Black and Paul Janssen evere again? Not the way things are set up now...

Are you sure they're not merging just to make even more profit, benefit from economies of scale and poach the best staff (like in most other industries)? No company survives by standing still, they survive by gobbling up competition and expanding.

And you say above "But making it almost impossible to develop new drugs by limitig the patent life ain't the answer." - is there any suggestion that the patent life is being limited as against the current period? I thought the proposal is to extend it? It seems to me that the drug companies are doing just fine even with the UK's current rules and making colossal profits with things as they are. I can't see why we would need to extend it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Perhaps an extended local patent thats related to NICE approval? Only once a drug is approved does the clock start, thus making it easier to forecast the return on investment.

nice try but overlooking patents apply globally. what you suggest is a local UK market regulation to prohibit generics for a fixed term after approval, extending the protection of the drug here but not elsewhere. the pharma companies would bite your hand off for that, not so helpful for us. what Harry Wilson's tackle is suggesting is two years extension for new drugs, which would have limited impact as would only to recent and new drugs (no effect on existing off-patent drugs)