Are Patents Impeding Medical Care and Innovation?

English version České info

Background to the debate:
Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers argue that the current patent system is crucial for stimulating research and development (R&D), leading to new products that improve medical care. The financial return on their investments that is afforded by patent protection, they claim, is an incentive toward innovation and reinvestment into further R&D. But this view has been challenged in recent years. Many commentators argue that patents are stifling biomedical research, for example by preventing researchers from accessing patented materials or methods they need for their studies. Patents have also been blamed for impeding medical care by raising prices of essential medicines, such as antiretroviral drugs, in poor countries. This debate examines whether and how patents are impeding health care and innovation.

Vyšlo v časopise: Are Patents Impeding Medical Care and Innovation?. PLoS Med 7(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000208
Kategorie: The PLoS Medicine Debate
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000208

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. SahaA

GrabowskiH

BirnbaumH

GreenbergP

BizanO

2006 Generic Competition in the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Int J Econ Bus 13 15 38

2. Cook-DeeganR

ChandrasekharanS

AngristM

2009 The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature 458 405 406

3. GoldER

PiperT

MorinJ-F

DurellLK

CarboneJ

2007 A Preliminary Legal Review of Proposed Medicines Patent Pool Montreal The Innovation Partnership 161 Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/documents/00000003-1.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2009

4. AttaranA

2004 How Do Patents And Economic Policies Affect Access To Essential Medicines In Developing Countries? Health Aff 23 155 166

5. GrabowskiH

2002 Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals. J Int Econ Law 5 849 860

6. KieffFS

2008 On the Economics of Patent Law and Policy.

TakenakaT

Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research Northampton Edward Elgar Publishing 3 65

7. GagnonMA

LexchinJ

2008 The cost of pushing pills: A new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med 5 e1 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001

8. LanjouwJO

2005 Patents, price controls and access to new drugs: How policy affects global market entry. NBER Working Paper 11321. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11321.pdf

9. MunosBH

ChinWC

2009 A Call for Sharing: Adapting Pharmaceutical Research to New Realities. Sci Transl Med 1 9cm8 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3000155

10. HallB

2007 Patents and patent policy. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 23 568 587

11. LoveJ

HubbardT

2007 The Big Idea: Prizes to stimulate R&D for new medicines. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82 1519 1554

12. PenroseE

1951 The Economics of the International Patent System Baltimore Johns Hopkins Press 247

13. MachlupF

1958 An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No.15 of Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 85th Cong., 2d Sess Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office

14. Canadian Institute for Health Information 2009 Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985–2008 Ottawa Canadian Institute for Health Information 147

15. DiMasiJA

HansenRW

GrabowskiH

2003 The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22 151 185

16. GagnonM-A

2009 The Nature of Capital in the Knowledge-Based Economy: The Case of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry. PhD Dissertation in Political Science, York University

17. EdwardsAM

BountraC

KerrTJ

WillsonTM

2009 Open access chemical and clinical probes to support drug discovery. Na Chem Biol 5 436 440

18. HopeJ

2008 BioBazaar: The Open Source Revoluation and Biotechnology Cambridge Harvard University Press 448

19. GoldER

AdamsWA

BernierL

BubelaT

CassiviL

2008 Toward a New Era of Intellectual Property: From Confrontation to Negotiation. 44 Montreal: The Innovation Partnership: Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ieg/documents/report/TIP_Report_E.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2009

20. t'HoenEFM

2009 The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power: Drug patents, access innovation and the application of the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health Diemen-The Netherlands AMB Publishers Available: http://www.msfaccess.org. Accessed 21 September 2009

21. World Health Organization 2004 Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Health (CIPIH), Geneva, Switzerland. Available: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/. Accessed 18 September 2009

22. ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org (11 June 2009) “Concerns voiced at TRIPS Council over seizure of drugs”

23. SevillaC

Julian-ReynierC

EisingerF

Stoppa-LyonnetD

Bressac-de PailleretsB

2003 Impact of gene patents on the cost-effective delivery of care: The case of BRCA1 Genetic Testing. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 19 287 300

24. Department of Health and Human Services 2009 Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests (SACCHS). Available: http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/SACGHS%20Patents%20Consultation%20Draft%203%209%202009.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009

25. StottM

ValentineJ

2003 Impact of gene patenting on R&D and commerce. Nature Biotechno 21 729 731

26. GoldER

CarboneJ

2008 Myriad Genetics: In the Eye of the Policy Storm, International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property. Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ieg/documents/cases/TIP_Myriad_Report.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009

27. Patent Docs [Blog] 2009 Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. 1:09-cv-04515; filed May 12, 2009 in the Southern District of New York (exclusive rights to human BRCA genes violate Constitutionally-protected speech by restricting research). Available: http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/05/court-1.html. Accessed 21 September 2009

28. ChoMK

IllangasakareS

WeaverMA

LeonardDGB

MerzJF

2003 Effects of Patents and Licenses on the Provision of Clinical Genetic Testing Services. J Mol Diagnostics 5 3 8

29. HellerMA

EisenbergRS

1998 Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280 698 701 Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698. Accessed 21 September 2009

30. LhuilleryS

PfisterE

2009 French CIS R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Res Policy 38 45 57

31. NicolD

NielsenJ

2003 Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry. Center for Law and Genetics. Occasional Paper 6, page 255, University of Tasmania. Available: http://www.lawgenecentre.org/pub.php. Accessed 21 September 2009

32. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2007 International Intellectual Property Experiences - A report of four countries Washington, D. C. Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest Available: http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009

33. WalshJP

CohenWM

ChoC

2007 Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 36 1184 1203

34. WalshJP

AroraA

CohenWM

2003 Science and the Law: Working Through the Patent Problem. Science 299 1021 Summary available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1021. Accessed 21 September 2009

35. MeurerSM

2006 Inside the Anticommons: Academic scientists' struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human mutations database, 1999–2001. Res Policy 35 839 853

36. LeiZ

JunejaR

WrightBD

2009 Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology 27 36 40

37. University of California, Berkeley, Sponsored Projects Office 2009 A Quick Guide to Material Transfer Agreements at UC Berkeley Available: http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/guide/mtaquick.html. Accessed 21 September 2009

38. RodriguezV

2008 Governance of material transfer agreements. Technol Soc 30 122 128

39. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2002 Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009

40. The Royal Society 2003 Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of Science. Available: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=1374

41. United Nations Development Program 1999 Human Development Report 1999. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1999_en.pdf

42. World Bank 2007 Poverty Analysis – Overview. Available: http://go.worldbank.org/K7LWQUT9L0

43. Médecins Sans Frontières 2007 Untangling the Web of Price Reductions: A Pricing Guide for Developing Countries. 10th ed Geneva Médecins Sans Frontières Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines

44. KimJY

FarmerP

2006 AIDS in 2006 – moving toward one world, one hope? N Engl J Med 355 645 647

45. AgovinoT

20 April 2001 Companies fear precedent as they cut AIDS drug prices for Africa. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Available: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/ap_042001.html

46. DOHA WTO Ministerial 2001 TRIPS. Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health. Adopted on 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/Dec/2/ Available: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm

47. PoggeT

2007 Could Globalisation be Good For World Health? Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. Available: www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/1_pogge.pdf

48. OrbinskiJ

2008 Creating a World of Possibility: The Fight for Essential Medicines. An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action for the 21st Century New York Walker & Company 366

49. SavioliL

EngelsE

DaumerieD

JanninJ

AlvarJ

2006 Response from World Health Organization [reader response]. PLoS Med Available: http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F8e288736-efdf-4ded-8854-7785bee8401b&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F8e288736-efdf-4ded-8854-7785bee8401b

50. ChiracP

TorreeleE

2006 Global framework on essential health R&D. Lancet 367 1560 1561

51. 'T HoenE

2009 Rationale for the Pharmaceutical Patent System.

'T HoenE

The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power Diemen AMB Publishers

52. KapczynskiA

CroneTE

MersonM

2003 Global Health and University Patents. Science 301 1629

53. Universities Allies for Essential Medicines 2009 Our Proposals. Available: http://www.essentialmedicine.org/our-proposals

54. Médecins Sans Frontières 2008 MSF Welcomes UNITAID patent pool endorsement. Available: http://www.msfaccess.org/media-room/press-releases/msf-welcomes-unitaid-patent-pool-endorsement/. Accessed 12 November 2009

55. World Health Assembly 24 May 2008 Global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property. Agenda item 11.6; whA61.62. http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A61/A61_R21-en.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2009

56. HollisA

2008 The Health Impact Fund: A Useful Supplement to the Patent System? Public Health Ethics 1 124 133

57. MoranM

RoparsA-L

GuzmanJ

DiazJ

GarrisonC

2005 The New Landscape of Neglected Diseases Drug Development London, UK Pharmaceutical R&D Policy Project, London School of Economics Available: http://www.bvgh.org/documents/MMoranTheNewLandscape.pdf

58. N-MarandiS

2009 Framing and Reframing of Global Patent Policy: Implications on Access to Medicine in Developing Countries. Public Policy and Governance Review 1(1), Autumn 2009