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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS