803
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cybervseas@lemmy.world 99 points 7 months ago

Drugmakers have argued that seizing the patent for a medication makes that treatment vulnerable to competition, which can reduce a company’s revenue and limit how much it can reinvest into drug development.

Or yknow, maybe spend a few billion less on marketing and TV commercials?

[-] Godnroc@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

There would be a good governmental oversight: drug companies may no longer advertise their products to the public. I don't think anyone has ever seen a drug commercial in a positive light; if the drug was effective and worked well you wouldn't need to advertise it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

Drug commercials are illegal everywhere in the world except the U.S. and New Zealand.

[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago

Moved from US to Canada and its honestly so nice not seeing or hearing ads for zoflam or whatever CONSTANTLY. You don't realize how much it's shoved in your face until it isn't anymore

[-] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

I’m in the US and generally don’t watch live TV with commercials, but when I do, good god the pharmaceutical commercials!

[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

I only usually watch TV for sports games... that being said, the new enemy is gambling commercials.

Good fucking God they're predatory

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

I eat the butterfly pills

[-] whatwhatwhatwhat@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

limit how much it can reinvest into drug development.

Also, the taxpayers are the ones who funded the drug development in the first place!

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 27 points 7 months ago

Um, not to mention this is specifically regarding TAXPAYER FUNDED drugs. We paid for them and they're price gouging and preventing people from getting access to them. It's so incredibly wrong.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The commercials should be illegal to begin with. My partner is from the EU and when we were back in the US she was horrified by the amount of pharma marketing everywhere.

[-] SevFTW@feddit.de 15 points 7 months ago

It’s legitimately insane, every other commercial is for Pharma and every other next to that is for accident attorneys or a politician or like trumpy bear lmao

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

So their argument is that they can't make enough money on their government subsidized drug development. Yeah ok, corpos, get fucked.

[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago

Drugmakers have argued that seizing the patent for a medication makes that treatment vulnerable to competition, which can reduce a company’s revenue and limit how much it can reinvest into drug development.

I like how that's supposed to be a compelling argument against it, "But if we open it up to competition someone else will do it cheaper and better than us and we'll go out of business." Good! Fuck your company lol.

Also the taxpayers are funding the development, which is why the government can do this. If the public pays for it, they should be able to access it as far as I'm concerned.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That would all be fine if they alone bore the cost for all that R&D. Clearly, thats not the case and they want to socialize the development and privatize the fruits of that development, in which case they are consequently invited to non-negotiably+kindly pound salt and go fuck themselves.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Maybe they could get more government funded money if they sold it at reasonable prices and kept coming out with new government funded drugs?

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

Or even better, ban prescription drug ads like nearly every other country (only the U.S. and New Zealand allow it).

[-] Cheems@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Does anyone really see those ads then go to a DOCTOR and ask about it? Maybe I'm in the extreme minority here but I don't have money burning a hole in my pocket to go to a doctor and if I do I want to spend the absolute least as possible

[-] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago

Yes they do, but also the doctors get advertised at too and pick medications for you that the marketers have recommended, regardless of whether it's the best treatment

this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
803 points (99.3% liked)

News

21707 readers
3687 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS