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.

  • cybervseas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m probably going to get downvoted for this, but the Biden administration has really exceeded my expectations.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They do, it’s just that that ecosystem is owned by the same vested interests and so it churns a cacaphony of criticism aimed at making the left feel no accomplishment is good enough and no effort is far enough.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We don’t need a Fox “news” equivalent for Democrats that pumps out propaganda (your term used above) and traps Democrats into an echo chamber.

            I mean we already have some fairly biased left leaning news outlets. Nothing like Fox or OANN or Breitbart.

            Still, I would like to get rid of heavily biased propaganda outlets because – yes – they basically brainwash their listers with various techniques.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No disagreements here. I am kind of shocked by this very non neolib behavior—the above as well as well as being the first sitting president to join the UAW picket line. I was a bit miffed about the train strike, though. But his administration lobbied the companies and got them their sick days they’ve been fighting for, for ages. Really didn’t expect any of that.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So by letting a company keep their monopoly due to federally subsidized patent thus harming citizens but helping the company is… less neolib?

          Whatever it is, it seems shittier than making a move to fuck a company – if it results in reduced drug prices anyway.

    • Brokkr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do great work, but they don’t market and promote their successes well enough. I would prefer a society that favors humility more and therefore appreciate this administration’s style, but it seems that a lack of hubris is now considered a fault in the public eye, on both sides of the aisle.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.eeBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would like an administration whose flamboyant about their successes so I know what to expect in my daily life when it comes to politics aka why I see more EVs (rebates funding and a federal charging grid), lower/higher prices on things (like Biden removing patents to create competition) and even insurrectionists going to jail (if we had a working justice system)!

  • Chr0nos1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m extremely torn about this. First of all, I’ve been saying for a long time, that the biggest problem with the American health system is the costs of everything, and not the lack of insurance. Bring the costs down, and insurance is either not needed, or should be able to be procured much more cheaply, so this move will help with that, which is a good thing.

    Second, patents are in place for a reason. If you invent something, you have the right to sell it, at least for a period of time, without it being ripped off by someone else. Patents are used all the time, all around the world, and are typically protected. This is a form of theft, and I think a possible slippery slope, as it sets a precedent going forward. And yes, I’m aware that they are doing this with drugs funded by the taxpayers. If they want to do this, it should be a stipulation when the company gets the government funding, and not done after the fact.