Posted on 12/10/2023 7:58:36 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Biden administration has proposed a new rule that would allow federal authorities to seize the patents of costly drugs that were developed using taxpayer dollars and to let third parties use those patents to make the drugs available more cheaply.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, on Dec. 7 published a set of draft guidelines for government agencies to evaluate when it might be appropriate to invoke what are known as "march-in" rights under the legal framework of the Bayh-Dole Act.
The Bayh-Dole Act, which is shorthand for the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, grants the government the authority to suspend the patents of products of inventions that were developed with federal funding if those products or inventions are not made available to the public.
The new proposed guidelines, which were reviewed by The Epoch Times, seek to modify the Bayh-Dole Act in such a way as to make high price alone (of a product or invention developed using taxpayer dollars) a sufficient condition to trigger the government's exercise of the act's march-in provisions.
The march-in provisions—which the government has been asked to invoke in the past but never has—would let authorities seize the patents of drugs deemed too expensive (when offered for sale by the original patent holder) and grant licenses to third parties to produce those drugs to sell more cheaply.
"We'll make it clear that 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 adviser Lael Brainard said on a call with reporters.
The draft will be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 8 and is being subjected to a 60-day public comment period.
President Joe Biden hailed the draft proposal as a way to rein in "Big Pharma price gouging," while the main pharmaceutical industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said it would be a loss to American patients by causing government-funded research to sit "on a shelf, not benefiting anyone."
Under the new draft guidelines, the government would be allowed to consider "reasonableness of the price" when considering whether to invoke the march-in rights.
It gives federal agencies the power to act "if it appears that the price is extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need."
While the initial price of a given drug when it's first launched is to be considered, another possibility for triggering the use of the march-in provisions would be a "sudden, steep price increase in response to a disaster."
President Biden said in a statement that his administration is proposing that if a drug is made using taxpayers funds and it's "not reasonably available to Americans," then the government could "march in" and license that drug to a producer who can make it and sell it for less.
"It's good for competition. It's good for our economy," the president said. "And it's good for the millions of Americans who can't afford their medications—who know all too well that fine line between dignity and dependence that the price of a prescription drug can draw."
The proposal drew a critical reaction from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade group.
"This would be yet another loss for American patients who rely on public-private sector collaboration to advance new treatments and cures. The administration is sending us back to a time when government research sat on a shelf, not benefitting anyone," PhRMA said in a post on X.
The trade group argued that the reason America leads the world in medicine development is precisely because the current structure of the law enables the private sector to work with government and academic research centers "for the benefit of patients."
"This latest proposal is yet another bad policy from an administration intent on ceding our life science leadership to other countries and robbing Americans of hope that comes from new treatments and cures," the group added.
In a blog post, PhRMA said that the Bayh-Dole works well in its current form and that, over the past 25 years that it has been in effect, it has contributed $1.9 trillion to the U.S. economy and created 6.5 million jobs.
The authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, the late senators Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Robert Dole (R-Kan.), have publicly stated that the law they developed did not intend for the government to be able to set prices on products.
"The law makes no reference to a reasonable price that should be dictated by the government," the pair wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. "This omission was intentional; the primary purpose of the act was to entice the private sector to seek public-private research collaboration rather than focusing on its own proprietary research."
The two senators raised the argument that, for every single taxpayer dollar that the government spends on research of a given product or invention, private industry must spend "at least $10" to bring it to market and that the aim of their law was to "spur interaction" between public and private research so that patients could benefit from scientific innovations sooner.
"Government alone has never developed the new advances in medicines and technology that become commercial products," the pair wrote, adding that the intention of the law was newer to allow the government to revoke a licence on the basis of the pricing of the product or in some way tied to the profitability of a company that has commercialized it.
"The law we passed is about encouraging a partnership that spurs advances to help Americans," they wrote.
Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the government has the power to seize the patents of federally funded medicines but not using price as a criterion.
The proposal comes as the Democrat Party's more progressive wing has heaped criticism on drugmakers over high prices of their products and has called on the Biden administration to use march-in power to lower prices.
Maybe the pharmaceutical companies can repay the taxpayers the hundreds of billions of dollars they received first.
we pay for the research
cuz countries with socialized medicine refuse to
well it is an election year
increased donations will change their minds
If big govt and big pharma werent already playing musical chairs between themselves...
I also dont think its fair the govt demands a billion dollars of testing done by the company, then takes their govt-awarded patents away so they can’t recoup.
Its all a complete mess and its falling apart. Its falling apart because either side is looking for loopholes or changing the rules and maximizing “profit”. In the case of govt that means fees, taxes and under the table bribes.
I suspect this is an arranged ‘game’, where Big Pharma has already selected the drugs for Biden to go after, and they know the legal consequences for the gov’t....they will be forced to pay (way over 100-percent of current value) ‘damages’.
You can figure tens of billions to be paid later to the companies involved.
I can remember when they interfered with cable. Prices went through the roof.
“We’ll make it clear that 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,”
That is absolutely the dumbest idea I have heard on this young day.
You do that, idiots, and see how many new drugs get produced.
Big Pharma has a lot of bad elements but it is one of the most robust drug innovators in the world. Kill their profit incentive and they will simply not but the $$’s into new research. I sure as hell wouldn’t.
The seizure of them for political purposes is properly named Communism.
“We’ll make it clear that 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.”
I’m astonished that these drug companies were ever allowed to keep their patents in the first place if the U.S. government was funding the research to develop them.
The Druggies took the government taxpayers' money to develop their drugs, so I suspect that they’re out of luck they'll find other ways to get the taxpayers yo pay.
Government is well known for its ability to make things cheaper. /s
The principled argument is on of government per se.
If government is "investing" -- such a lie -- in EVs and such, should the EV producers have to reduce their pricing plans? Or student loan forgiveness, in which the academic entities be required to reduce their pricing? And for that matter, universities receiving grants, which by rights then also reduce their tuition further? What of the "military industrial" manufacturers, whose prices rise and rise while actual productivity falls? The list is lengthier by far than this.
That government should be involved in "thumb on the scale" anything is a problem, as I view it. And when one notices a pattern, it is likely that pattern's effects will spread far and wide.
Eisenhower in his famous speech warned not only of the "military industrial complex," but also of the effect of government monies flowing into so many other areas.
And in the ensuing years, this government cannot spend within its collection, and is putting massive sums onto "public" debt, which at this point is taxation without representation all the while many politicians becomes wealthy.
THE FEDS NEVER DO ANYTHING CHEAPER.
REMEMBER $600 toilet seats???
PFIZER used only 23 test patients for their COVID VACCINES....
COSMETIC COMPANIES USE MORE
52 different brands/types of eye drops made IN INDIA have been pulled from market-—
BACTERIA
I have worked on several research projects in my career that were funded by the U.S. government. In every case, the government retained ownership of the published materials, and the research and data were in the public domain with no restrictions on use. I’m not sure why a drug patent funded through government research should be any different.
Might I propose "big money changing hands" as a reasonable explanation?
Property rights, after all, should be subject to government seizure.
....................................
That’s already happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.