Replacement with exclusive impact compensation – global problem

Pictures of Silvanagode from Pixabay
  • Feedback By Thomas Pogg
  • Inter Press Service

Globalized through the TRIPS agreement in 1995, the influential process of humanity to encourage innovation involves 20 years of product patents. Such temporary exclusive inventors are given exclusive rights over the production and sale of their inventions, enabling them to collect large markup from primary users.

As a result higher prices hinder the spread of innovation during their patent period. Coal-fired power plants in India were built without the latest “ultra-supercritical” green technology, as its use required a licensing fee of about 1.5 1.5 million per boiler. An excellent cure for hepatitis-C, Sophosbuvir, was launched in 2013 at a cost of 84 84,000, about x000 times the production cost. It has reached only 5 million patients worldwide; Another 66 million are infected and the disease continues to spread. During their long patent period, innovations create a small fraction of the social value that they can produce if they are competitively valued.

This access problem can be avoided by creating publicly funded funds that will reward innovations that are sold at competitive prices based on the social benefits they have gained. Like the patent system, the specific cost of the invention will largely fall on those who can afford it. Yet there is no need to exclude the rest. With socially valuable innovations rewarded from public funds, everyone can access them without exclusive markup.

Impact Rewards can work in any domain where a uniform metric of social value can be formulated, such as health benefits for pharmaceuticals, pollution reduction for green technologies, skills for education and employment, nutritional yields and low use of fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture. Such a system would work best if many states collectively supported it, which would greatly increase its social value while reducing its cost.

The pharma sector is a good domain to explore this concept. Its innovations promote and protect health, a fitting purpose for public financing. Let us imagine that a Health Impact Fund, supported by many countries, invites innovators to participate in their ten consecutive annual payments to register any of their new pharmaceuticals, divided by the health gains achieved in the previous year in each registered product.

These awards enable inventors to recoup their research and development costs and make a reasonable profit, while registrars must accept competitive pricing at the time of the award and then waive the remaining exclusive benefits. In non-contributing rich countries, however, registrars should be free to charge exclusive prices. These exceptions will attract registration by reducing their opportunity costs and give rich countries more reasons to join the funding alliance.

Some variations of quality-integrated life years (QALYs) as widely employed and refined in recent decades can be used as a general metric to compare and summarize health benefits across different diseases, therapies, demographic groups, lifestyles and cultures. To reassure funders and / or innovators, a maximum and / or minimum reward may be specified per QALY.

Assuming an initial contribution rate of 0.02% of total national income and a one-third balanced participation of states, the health impact fund could start with an annual pool of 6 6 billion কম less than 1% of the 800 800 billion spent globally worldwide by branded pharmaceuticals. The contribution of the State will be offset by savings from (a) registered pharmaceuticals and (b) other healthcare costs, as well as (c) economic productivity and (d) consequent savings by tax revenue.

With an annual pool of 6 billion, each registered pharmaceutical will participate in a distribution worth 60 60 billion over its ten-year award period. A commercial inventor will only register a product if it expects a profit on top of recovering its R&D costs. There is some debate as to what these fixed costs of innovation will be. The number of products registered with the Health Impact Fund will shed light on this question because of the fund’s self-coordinating reward rate. If it attracts about twenty products, with two entries and two exits in a typical year, it will show that the potential of $ 3 billion in ten years is seen as satisfactory – not storms or hardships. This self-adjusting feature assures the innovators / contributors that the reward rate will not decrease / rise to an unreasonable level.

The Health Impact Fund shows that we can encourage innovation in a way that avoids serious access barriers to exclusive patents. These barriers therefore constitute a human rights violation. As described by the Hepatitis-C case, millions of people suffer and die each year because generic manufacturers forbid them to sell their essentials at competitive prices. Millions more suffer and die because high markups hinder the spread of green technology in poor countries.

The Impact Fund will revolutionize. While the exclusive award turns inventors into jealous spies in search of potential infringers, the Impact Rewards actively encourages inventors to accelerate, expand, and influence their registered inventions. Registrars will subsidize even the poorest buyers as the increase in reward effect supports the cost of the subsidy.

Impact funds will also secure additional benefits for human rights. Where patent awards fail to encourage innovation that meets specific needs for the poor, impact funds will encourage such innovation by assessing the impact regardless of the economic position of the beneficiaries. In this way, pharmaceutical innovators could profitably develop and establish new treatments for the infamous tropical disease, which affects one billion people, and other major diseases concentrated among the poor, such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and pneumonia, which kill seven at once. Millions of people

While patent awards are much more indifferent to the third-party effects of an innovation, impact funds will take them into full consideration. Thus, the Health Impact Fund will reward those who have never taken the drug for a disease control with a new drug. An inventor rewarded with exclusive markup, by contrast, is rewarded only because its half-heartedness fails to control its target disease. By eradicating a disease, such an inventor would destroy its own future market.

Patent awards entice inventors to “impose profits on people” in a variety of ways. Impact funds combine profits with human needs, making the business of innovation much more equitable in terms of research priorities and access to its results: innovators do better. By guiding innovators to market their research and development and to achieve the most cost-effective social benefits, impact funds are able to triple: for potential beneficiaries of innovation, for inventors, and for governments and taxpayers.

Thomas Pug He is the Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs and the director of the Yale Global Justice Program. He co-founded the Academic Stand against Poverty and Incentives for Global Health.

© Inter Press Service (2021) – All rights reservedOriginal Source: Inter Press Service

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button