(Sanders') ‘Radical’ bill seeks to reduce cost of AIDS drugs by awarding prizes instead of patents

[alp227]

Source: washington post

Treating AIDS costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient annually in the United States, and more and more patients are unable to afford the life-saving drugs, according to figures from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. The waiting list for the program, which is jointly funded by federal and state governments and provides medicines to low-income patients, now stands at 2,759, up from 361 in 2010. 

Academics have been saying for more than a decade that one way to lower drug costs would be to offer pharmaceutical companies a share of a multi-billion-dollar prize pool, instead of the current system of patents that give a company exclusive rights to newly developed drugs.

The notion surfaced in Congress last week at a hearing called by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who has introduced a bill to establish a prize system for the development of anti-AIDS drugs.

“It simply blew me away — and would blow anyone’s mind away — that one drug, Atripla, costs $25,000 per year” in the United States, Sanders said at the hearing of the subcommittee on primary health and aging.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-bill-seeks-to-reduce-cost-of-aids-drugs-by-awarding-prizes-instead-of-patents/2012/05/19/gIQAEGfabU_singlePage.html

[pinto]

1. There's two interesting ideas being discussed - all around R&D funding and patents.

One is the prize, mentioned here. The other is an upfront federal purchase of a patent. Both, iirc, would result in putting the pharmaceutical in the public domain - i.e. opening an avenue for less expensive generic versions - while still providing some funding for the research, development and trials required to develop a safe, effective drug.

[harmonicon]

2. Both still seem very backward to me.

That a world has come into being where corporations profit from the ownership of patents to life-saving drugs is mind-boggling, if you only take a small step back.

For me, the question becomes about why these researchers - who do, I imagine, genuinely care about the work they're doing - are working for these drug companies instead of for public or non-profit groups. How has the allocation of resources for this work become so skewed towards private enterprise? Why have we, as a society, allowed this to happen?

... Yes, of course I know this is a pipe-dream, but it's one worth having.

[jerseyjack]

4. Drug compannies have the money to fund research. They get some of it from non-profits.

But how much of non-pro money goes into overhead, salaries of executives. I did volunteer and paid work for a non-profit. It achieved 99.8% of its stated goals. Then the question became how to keep its status as a money generating entity that paid $200k to its president.

Answer: Change its name to reflect an expansion of its purpose. It has done little or nothing since the name change to justify no more than 10% of its funding. The president still gets 200k.

I believe many of the disease based non-pros also have the problem of justifying their existence if a cure were found.

Komen, anyone?

[crunch60]

6. I question all non profits that pay their executives these enormous saleries. I have

been aware of Komen/Nancy Brinker shenanigans for many years, never walked a step for this rich corporate shill, friend of Dumbo Bush. You are correct, they really aren't interested in a cure. We have some very caring doctors out there make no mistake, but in the long run, as things are now, anyone with a serious illness and no insurance, is screwed!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/01/1060885/-Behind-the-Pink-Curtain-Komen-s-Political-Agenda

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[Overseas]

5. K&R. Glad to hear it.