Reply #3: Who sets the price on the patent being purchased?

[exboyfil]

The projected income stream from the patent should be the answer. In that regard you may get efficiencies in reducing fraud and making it easier to access beneficial drugs. I wonder how we can avoid the abuse of the government buying a pig in the poke?

We you say the "free market" would define prices at $5-$10, I have to question where that number comes from. I assume it is the variable cost of manufacturing the drug plus some profit (and possibly the non-intellectual fixed cost amortized in).

I like the idea of working the patent angle, but Senator Sanders is on the right track for one potential cost containment. I don't think that the high end chemo drugs can be sourced at $5-$10 even without intellectual property, and how much of the current cost of that drug is actually reflected in the extensive interaction necessary to administer them.

I also want to see the issue of the free riders from other countries stepping up and paying for the development cost as well. Only in the U.S. do we pay what the drug companies ask (it is actually in the law that we cannot use U.S. government buying power to get a better deal). Other countries pay much less and sometimes threaten to breach our drug companys' patents if they don't get their price. We should never pay more than the Canadians, Brits, or Germans pay for drugs that have been developed in the U.S.

Lots of small companies are working on cutting edge drugs. They run through many trials and employ lots of skilled people with the hope of a payoff in the future. My brother in law works for one. My other brother in law works for a larger company also doing drug development. Lots of drug companies have gone belly up, and many of them have gotten out of the research and development game.