Dec 7 (Reuters) - The Biden Administration on Thursday announced it is setting new policy that will allow it to seize patents for medicines developed with government funding if it believes their prices are too high.

The policy creates a roadmap for the government’s so-called march-in rights, which have never been used before. They would allow the government to grant additional licenses to third parties for products developed using federal funds if the original patent holder does not make them available to the public on reasonable terms.

Under the draft roadmap, seen by Reuters, the government will consider factors including whether only a narrow set of patients can afford the drug, and whether drugmakers are exploiting a health or safety issue by hiking prices.

“We’ll make it clear that 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 adviser Lael Brainard said on a press call.

  • random65837@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then they were be no drugs. Nobody is going to spend billions in R&D just so others can make it for nothing. Not how real life works. There is real price gouging haopening, nobody can deny that, but a huge chunk of that happening in the US is thanks to the astronomical amount of money it takes to deal with the FDA to bring a drug to market.

    Look at how many of our drugs by US Pharma that sells in other countries for near nothing, people are quick to give credit to that to regulation forcing it, and sometimes it is, but in many cases is countries that allow them to get their drugs on the shelves much quicker and cheaper, and that’s how they get their money back. If a drug is locked up in prescriptions, most can’t get it, they have a hard time making their money back. If they could stick it on a shelf and anybody that wanted them could get them, the money keeps coming in.

    A million years ago I used to install auto glass. When a customer had a claim for a windshield, wed charge an insurance conan average of $400 to replace it, when a customer paid us directly without insurance, it was like $250. We were forced to do a ton at bullshit rates because insurance companies work and dictate pricing they’ll pay, so the glass companies pass the loss down the chain. Same way every business works. When stores have constant theft they can’t stop, process go up to couter it.

        • kurwa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I mean this posts title literally says government funded drugs. We gotta pay for the research with our taxes and then out of pocket for the damn thing.

            • kurwa@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s what I said? And I don’t doubt there’s research going on right now that is funded by the US tax payers.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This would be a perfect slogan. We’re asking that government subsidized medical research be free to the public. We aren’t asking companies to research complex medications without any compensation. Make it so the subsidy results in a net profit for the company (which it probably already does) and remove the private sales. Everyone wins, and we aren’t stupidly paying twice.

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a lot of words to say you’re very narrow minded or are drinking too much kool aid.

      There’s many ways to solve this that don’t involve us handing exclusivity to mega corporations.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then they were be no drugs.

      Good thing there are no patents on the wheel, huh? I guess we should be lucky any human invented anything for the millenia humans have been doing so before billionaire parasites came around to save us from ourselves, eh?

      Does bootlicking come naturally to you or did something happen to make you like this?

      • random65837@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Theres no bootlicking you socialist cunt, only seeing how it actually works. In the countries where they don’t make it nearly impossible to bring a drug to market, people can afford them. Not hard to grasp.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you socialist cunt,

          Flattery isn’t going to help you here, Clyde.

          Your glorious “free market” has been exposed - and no amount of luxury shoe polish you can pack onto your tongue will reverse that.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the headline again… this is talking about government-funded patents.

      If the pharmaceutical companies are using government funding to pay for their research, the government and the people it represents should reap some of the benefits. Stop being a shill for billion dollar companies that lobby hard in corrupt efforts to get government $s to fund their record profits.

    • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh honey. Have you never heard of Jonas Salk? Do you think the pyramids were built for profit? Humans have done things for reasons other than profit. You’ve been brainwashed or are just making ridiculous statements.

      • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uh, weren’t the pyramids built explicitly for the profit/benefit in the afterlife for those few rulers set to be entombed in them, at the cost of many human lives? I’m having a hard time thinking of something more self centered/personal profit focused right now.

        • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can certainly take that interpretation, but it had nothing to do with hitting quarterly profit goals. My point is humans create, build and make things and have for millennia before capitalism and profit existed as a motive. The idea that humans wouldn’t do anything if not for the invisible hand of the market is a modern fiction. The idea that we wouldn’t invent life saving drugs without the incentive to make a buck is absurd.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just because quarterly profit goals are a modern invention doesn’t mean personal interest and self-aggrandizement are. Humans, mostly, created, built, and made things for their own self-interest for millennia. Not saying that’s how it has to be, not saying we should base our civilization on that, but pretending that greed was invented with modern capitalism is silly.

            • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              yeah and I provided a range of behaviors from a literal pharaoh to Jonas Salk. What the fuck is up with everyone’s need to jump in with their WELL ACKTUALLY shit

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Cool? Dunno how the existence of an altruistic person, or multiple altruistic people, disproves the prevalence of greed in human history. No one said that literally every human to ever exist was exclusively greedy. Talking about trends here.