Booby Prize: Why Replacing Patents With Prizes Would Harm Innovation
This article was originally published in RPM Report
Presidential candidate Senator Sanders has proposed replacing patents with a government run scheme that offers prize money to innovators who create new medicines. This approach misunderstands the vital role of patents in society especially for new medicines. Using prizes for new medicines -- rather than patents -- risks assigning to the government the role of picking winners and losers in science.
You may also be interested in...
Sen. Warren is making headlines for proposing a “swear jar” to fund NIH with payments from drug manufacturers who settle fraud cases. That idea is based on faulty facts and worse logic – and is counterproductive for the goal of increasing spending on biomedical research.
If the societal reaction to the costs to cure Hep C is any indicator, a potential cure for Alzheimer’s will surely stir controversy assuming breakthrough-level pricing. A financing solution may be the only way to reward developers for the value of the therapy and address the challenges facing insurers.
There are two ongoing debates around the impacts of innovation in medicine: to what degree are rising health care costs attributable to new technologies and are those costs worth the outcomes benefit? “New or expensive” shouldn’t be the sole criteria for judging whether we adopt new therapies as a society.