The Biden administration unveiled a new framework outlining the factors federal agencies should consider in determining whether to use march-in rights.

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.worldEnglish
    99·
    11 months 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
      45·
      11 months 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.

      • TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        11 months ago

        Moved from US to Canada and its honestly so nice not seeing or hearing ads for zoflam or whatever CONSTANTLY. You don’t realize how much it’s shoved in your face until it isn’t anymore

        • Zink@programming.dev
          4·
          11 months ago

          I’m in the US and generally don’t watch live TV with commercials, but when I do, good god the pharmaceutical commercials!

          • TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
            8·
            11 months ago

            I only usually watch TV for sports games… that being said, the new enemy is gambling commercials.

            Good fucking God they’re predatory

    • whatwhatwhatwhat@lemmy.world
      321·
      11 months ago

      limit how much it can reinvest into drug development.

      Also, the taxpayers are the ones who funded the drug development in the first place!

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      28·
      11 months ago

      The commercials should be illegal to begin with. My partner is from the EU and when we were back in the US she was horrified by the amount of pharma marketing everywhere.

      • SevFTW@feddit.de
        15·
        11 months ago

        It’s legitimately insane, every other commercial is for Pharma and every other next to that is for accident attorneys or a politician or like trumpy bear lmao

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      281·
      11 months ago

      Um, not to mention this is specifically regarding TAXPAYER FUNDED drugs. We paid for them and they’re price gouging and preventing people from getting access to them. It’s so incredibly wrong.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      14·
      11 months ago

      That would all be fine if they alone bore the cost for all that R&D. Clearly, thats not the case and they want to socialize the development and privatize the fruits of that development, in which case they are consequently invited to non-negotiably+kindly pound salt and go fuck themselves.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      14·
      11 months 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.

      I like how that’s supposed to be a compelling argument against it, “But if we open it up to competition someone else will do it cheaper and better than us and we’ll go out of business.” Good! Fuck your company lol.

      Also the taxpayers are funding the development, which is why the government can do this. If the public pays for it, they should be able to access it as far as I’m concerned.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      11 months ago

      So their argument is that they can’t make enough money on their government subsidized drug development. Yeah ok, corpos, get fucked.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      9·
      11 months ago

      Maybe they could get more government funded money if they sold it at reasonable prices and kept coming out with new government funded drugs?

    • kool_newt@lemm.eeEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      Or even better, ban prescription drug ads like nearly every other country (only the U.S. and New Zealand allow it).

    • Cheems@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 months ago

      Does anyone really see those ads then go to a DOCTOR and ask about it? Maybe I’m in the extreme minority here but I don’t have money burning a hole in my pocket to go to a doctor and if I do I want to spend the absolute least as possible

      • psud@aussie.zone
        2·
        11 months ago

        Yes they do, but also the doctors get advertised at too and pick medications for you that the marketers have recommended, regardless of whether it’s the best treatment