Are patents impeding medical care and innovation?

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Gold, E Richard ^a   Kaplan, Warren ^b   Orbinski, James ^c   Harland Logan, Sarah ^d   N Marandi, Sevil ^e  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIRETROVIRUS AGENT; DRUG;

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; REVIEW; APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MASS COMMUNICATION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HUMANS; INVESTMENTS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 75749150877     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000208     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Saha A, Grabowski H, Birnbaum H, Greenberg P, Bizan O (2006) Generic Competition in the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Int J Econ Bus 13: 15-38.
2. Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S, Angrist M (2009) The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature 458: 405-406.
3. Gold ER, Piper T, Morin J-F, Durell LK, Carbone J, et al. (2007) A Preliminary Legal Review of Proposed Medicines Patent Pool. Montreal: The Innovation Partnership, Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ documents/00000003-1.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2009. 161 p.
4. Attaran A (2004) How Do Patents And Economic Policies Affect Access To Essential Medicines In Developing Countries? Health Aff 23: 155-166.
5. Grabowski H (2002) Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals. J Int Econ Law 5: 849-860.
6. Kieff FS (2008) On the Economics of Patent Law and Policy. In: Takenaka T, ed. Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp 3-65.
7. Gagnon MA, Lexchin J (2008) The cost of pushing pills: A new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med 5: e1. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001.
8. Lanjouw JO (2005) Patents, price controls and access to new drugs: How policy affects global market entry. NBER Working Paper 11321. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11321.pdf.
9. Munos BH, Chin WC (2009) A Call for Sharing: Adapting Pharmaceutical Research to New Realities. Sci Transl Med 1: 9cm8. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed. 3000155.
10. Hall B (2007) Patents and patent policy. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 23: 568-587.
11. Love J, Hubbard T (2007) The Big Idea: Prizes to stimulate R&D for new medicines. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82: 1519-1554.
12. Penrose E (1951) The Economics of the International Patent System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 247 p.
13. Machlup F (1958) An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No.15 of Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2009) Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985-2008. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information. 147 p.
15. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski H (2003) The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22: 151-185.
16. Gagnon M-A (2009) The Nature of Capital in the Knowledge-Based Economy: The Case of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry. PhD Dissertation in Political Science, York University.
17. Edwards AM, Bountra C, Kerr TJ, Willson TM (2009) Open access chemical and clinical probes to support drug discovery. Na Chem Biol 5: 436-440.
18. Hope J (2008) BioBazaar: The Open Source Revoluation and Biotechnology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 448 p.
19. Gold ER, Adams WA, Bernier L, Bubela T, Cassivi L, et al. (2008) Toward a New Era of Intellectual Property: From Confrontation to Negotiation. Montreal: The Innovation Partnership: Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/ data/ieg/documents/report/TIP-Report-E.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2009. 44 p.
20. t'Hoen EFM (2009) The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power: Drug patents, access innovation and the application of the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. , Diemen-The Netherlands: AMB Publishers, Available: http://www.msfaccess.org. Accessed 21 September 2009.
21. World Health Organization (2004) Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Health (CIPIH), Geneva, Switzerland. Available: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/. Accessed 18 September 2009.
22. ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org (11 June 2009) "Concerns voiced at TRIPS Council over seizure of drugs".
23. Sevilla C, Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Bressac-de Paillerets B (2003) Impact of gene patents on the cost-effective delivery of care: The case of BRCA1 Genetic Testing. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 19: 287-300.
24. Department of Health and Human Services (2009) Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests (SACCHS). Available: http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/ SACGHS%20Patents%20Consultation%20Draft%203%209%202009.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009.
25. Stott M, Valentine J (2003) Impact of gene patenting on R&D and commerce. Nature Biotechno 21: 729-731.
26. Gold ER, Carbone J (2008) Myriad Genetics: In the Eye of the Policy Storm, International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property. Available: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ieg/documents/ cases/TIP-Myriad-Report.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009.
27. Patent Docs [Blog] (2009) Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. 1:09-cv-04515; filed May 12, 2009 in the Southern District of New York (exclusive rights to human BRCA genes violate Constitutionally-protected speech by restricting research). Available: http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/05/court-1.html. Accessed 21 September 2009.
28. Cho MK, Illangasakare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DGB, Merz JF (2003) Effects of Patents and Licenses on the Provision of Clinical Genetic Testing Services. J Mol Diagnostics 5: 3-8.
29. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280: 698-701. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698. Accessed 21 September 2009.
30. Lhuillery S, Pfister E (2009) French CIS R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Res Policy 38: 45-57.
31. Nicol D, Nielsen J (2003) Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry. Center for Law and Genetics. Occasional Paper 6, page 255, University of Tasmania. Available: http://www.lawgenecentre.org/pub.php. Accessed 21 September 2009.
32. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007) International Intellectual Property Experiences - A report of four countries. Washington, D. C.: Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest, Available: http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI-Four-Country-Report.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009.
33. Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C (2007) Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 36: 1184-1203.
34. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM (2003) Science and the Law: Working Through the Patent Problem. Science 299: 1021. Summary available: http://www.sciencemag. org/cgi/content/summary/299/5609/1021. Accessed 21 September 2009.
35. Meurer SM (2006) Inside the Anticommons: Academic scientists' struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human mutations database, 1999-2001. Res Policy 35: 839-853.
36. Lei Z, Juneja R, Wright BD (2009) Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology 27: 36-40.
37. University of California, Berkeley, Sponsored Projects Office (2009) A Quick Guide to Material Transfer Agreements at UC Berkeley Available: http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/guide/mtaquick.html. Accessed 21 September 2009.
38. Rodriguez V (2008) Governance of material transfer agreements. Technol Soc 30: 122-128.
39. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2002) Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2009.
40. The Royal Society (2003) Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of Science. Available: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id = 1374.
41. United Nations Development Program (1999) Human Development Report 1999. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr-1999-en.pdf.
42. World Bank (2007) Poverty Analysis - Overview. Available: http://go.worldbank.org/K7LWQUT9L0.
43. th ed. Geneva: Médecins Sans Frontières Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines.
44. Kim JY, Farmer P (2006) AIDS in 2006 - moving toward one world, one hope? N Engl J Med 355: 645-647.
45. Agovino T (20 April 2001) Companies fear precedent as they cut AIDS drug prices for Africa. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Available: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/ap-042001.html.
46. DOHA WTO Ministerial (2001) TRIPS. Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health. Adopted on 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/Dec/2/ Available: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto-e/minist-e/min01-e/mindecl-trips-e.htm.
47. Pogge T (2007) Could Globalisation be Good For World Health? Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. Available: www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/ wp-content/uploads/1-pogge.pdf.
48. st Century. New York: Walker & Company. 366 p.
49. Savioli L, Engels E, Daumerie D, Jannin J, Alvar J, et al. (2006) Response from World HealthOrganization [reader response]. PLoS Med, Available: http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo= info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F8e288736-efdf-4ded-8854- 7785bee8401b&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F8e288736-efdf-4ded- 8854-7785bee8401b.
50. Chirac P, Torreele E (2006) Global framework on essential health R&D. Lancet 367: 1560-1561.
51. 'T Hoen E (2009) Rationale for the Pharmaceutical Patent System. In: The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power 'T Hoen E, ed. Diemen: AMB Publishers.
52. Kapczynski A, Crone TE, Merson M (2003) Global Health and University Patents. Science 301: 1629.
53. Universities Allies for Essential Medicines (2009) Our Proposals. Available: http://www.essentialmedicine.org/our-proposals.
54. Médecins Sans Frontières (2008) MSF Welcomes UNITAID patent pool endorsement. Available: http://www.msfaccess.org/media-room/press- releases/msf-welcomes-unitaid-patent-pool-endorsement/. Accessed 12 November 2009.
55. World Health Assembly (24 May 2008) Global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property. Agenda item 11.6;whA61.62. http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf-files/A61/A61-R21-en.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2009.
56. Hollis A (2008) The Health Impact Fund: A Useful Supplement to the Patent System? Public Health Ethics 1: 124-133.
57. Moran M, Ropars A-L, Guzman J, Diaz J, Garrison C (2005) The New Landscape of Neglected Diseases Drug Development. London, UK: Pharmaceutical R&D Policy Project, London School of Economics, Available: http://www.bvgh.org/documents/MMoranTheNewLandscape.pdf.
58. N-Marandi S (2009) Framing and Reframing of Global Patent Policy: Implications on Access to Medicine in Developing Countries. Public Policy and Governance Review 1(1), Autumn 2009.