Every year, millions of people die from preventable and treatable diseases, especially in poor countries. In many cases, lifesaving medicines can be cheaply mass produced, but are sold at prices that block access to those who need them. Many die simply because there are no cures or vaccines, because so little of the world’s valuable research talent and limited resources are devoted to addressing the diseases of the poor.
This state of affairs represents a failure of economics and law that urgently needs to be corrected. The good news is that there are now opportunities for change, most promisingly through an international effort headed by the WHO that would begin to fix the broken intellectual property regime that is holding back the development and availability of cheap drugs.
Two main problems limit the availability of medicines today. One is that they are very costly; or, more accurately, the price charged for them is very high, though the cost of producing them is but a fraction of that amount. Second, drug development is geared toward maximizing profit, not social benefit, which skews efforts directed at the creation of medicines that are essential to human welfare. Because the poor have so little money to spend, drug companies, under current arrangements, have little incentive to do research on the diseases that afflict them.
It does not have to be this way. Drug companies say that high prices are necessary to fund research and development. However, in the US, it is actually the government that finances most health-related research and development — directly, through public support (National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation), and indirectly, through public purchases of medicine, both in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Even the part that is not government-financed is not a conventional market; most individuals’ purchases of prescription medicines are covered by insurance.
Government finances healthcare research because improved medicines are a public good. The resulting knowledge benefits everyone by stopping epidemics and limiting the economic and human toll of widespread illness. Efficiency requires sharing research as widely as possible as soon as it is available. Thomas Jefferson compared knowledge to candles: When one is used to light another, it does not diminish the light of the first. On the contrary, everything becomes brighter.
Yet, in the US and most of the world, drug prices are still exorbitant and the spread of knowledge is tightly limited. That is because we have created a patent system that gives innovators a temporary monopoly over what they create, which encourages them to hoard their knowledge, lest they help a competitor.
While this system does provide incentives for certain kinds of research by making innovation profitable, it allows drug companies to drive up prices, and the incentives do not necessarily correspond to social returns. In the healthcare sector, it may be more profitable to devote research to a “me-too” drug than to the development of a treatment that really makes a difference. The patent system may even have adverse effects on innovation, because, while the most important input into any research is prior ideas, the patent system encourages secrecy.
A solution to both high prices and misdirected research is to replace the current model with a government-supported prize fund. With a prize system, innovators are rewarded for new knowledge, but they do not retain a monopoly on its use. That way, the power of competitive markets can ensure that, once a drug is developed, it is made available at the lowest possible price — not at an inflated monopoly price.
Fortunately, several US lawmakers are taking a strong interest in this approach. The “Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act,” a bill introduced by US Senator Bernie Sanders, is just such an initiative. His bill also contains an important provision aimed at encouraging open-source research, which would move the current research model away from secrecy toward sharing.
However, globally, our innovation system needs much bigger changes. The WHO’s efforts to encourage broad reforms at the international level are crucial. This spring, the WHO released a report that recommends solutions similar to those proposed in the US Senate bill, but on a global level.
Importantly, the report, Research and Development to Meet Health Needs in Developing Countries, recommends a comprehensive approach, including mandatory funding contributions from governments for research on developing countries’ health needs; international coordination of healthcare priorities and implementation; and a global observatory that would monitor where needs are greatest. Later this month, the international community will have a chance to begin implementing these ideas at the WHO World Health Assembly — a moment of hope for public health around the world.
Reforming our innovation system is not just a matter of economics. It is, in many cases, a matter of life and death. It is therefore essential to delink research and development incentives from drug prices and to promote greater sharing of scientific knowledge.
For the US, the Sanders bill marks important progress. For the world, the WHO’s recommendations represent a once-in-a--generation opportunity to remedy a long-standing and egregious inequity in healthcare, and, more broadly, to set a model for governance of global public goods befitting an era of globalization. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass us by.
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There will be a new presidential administration in the United States in January 2025. It will be important for the Lai (賴清德) administration and America’s next administration to get on the same page quickly and visibly in respective efforts to bolster Taiwan’s security, economic vitality, and dignity and respect on the world stage. One key measure for doing so will be whether Washington and Taipei can coalesce around a common narrative for moving US-Taiwan relations forward. In recent years, Washington and Taipei have leaned into fear as a motivator for coordinated action. For a time, both sides publicly reinforced each other’s
Recently, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published three of my articles on the US presidential election, which is to be held on Nov. 5. I would like to share my perspective on the intense and stalemated presidential election with the people of Taiwan, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese Americans in the US. The current consensus of both major US political parties is to counter China and protect Taiwan. However, I do not trust former US president Donald Trump. He has questioned the US’ commitment to defending Taiwan and explicitly stated the significant challenges involved in doing so. “Trump believes
The government is considering building a semiconductor cluster in Europe, specifically in the Czech Republic, to support Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) new fab in Dresden, Germany, and to help local companies explore new business opportunities there. Europe wants to ensure the security of its semiconductor sector, but a lack of comprehensive supply chains there could pose significant risks to semiconductor clusters. The Czech government is aggressively seeking to build its own semiconductor industry and showing strong interest in collaborating with Taiwanese companies. Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) on Friday said that Taiwan is optimistic about building a semiconductor cluster in
Embroiled in multiple scandals, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday announced that he would apply for a three-month leave of absence from his role as party leader, creating uncertainty about the future of the TPP and the “new politics” that he had promised to bring. Shortly after his announcement, Ko’s home and office were searched and he was questioned by prosecutors over his suspected involvement in a corruption case related to a real-estate development project. He was arrested early Saturday morning after he refused to be questioned at night and attempted to leave the prosecutors’ office. In
RSS