Let us summarize the main points of the proposal:
So: compared to today's system the government's cost would be 20% (for research) plus 30% (for the substances). A total of 50% of today's costs, and still more money than today for research.
- In Europe it is already the government that provides most of the revenues for the pharmaceutical industry, thanks to universal medical coverage. (In Nederland worden veel medicijnen door zorgverzekeraars vergoed, hier betaal je zelf een premie voor, dure behandelingen worden door door de overheid vergoed aan de zorgverzekeraar, en hier betaal je belasting voor).
- The pharmaceutical companies spend 15% of their revenues on research, according to their own numbers. The remaining 85 are spent on other things (mostly marketing and profits).
- If the government would instead take 20% of what it currently spends on drugs, and allocate that money directly to pharmaceutical research, there would be more money for research. The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have do do any research themselves, so there would be no need for pharmaceutical patents, as they would have no research costs to recoup.
- Without patents the price of the actual substances drop by at least 70% when they are manufactured on a free market with competition, instead of by a monopolist.
related reads (gratis full version):
Excess in the pharmaceutical industry
CMAJ • December 7, 2004; 171 (12). doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041594.
Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues?
September 2004, Dean Baker
Rising prescription drug prices are taking a toll on American families and on the greater economy. This paper explores four alternatives to patent-financed prescription drug research and compares their efficiency. (IB200409D)
http://www.cepr.net/...rty_2004_09.pdf (directe pdf link)
Edited by mind, 20 June 2009 - 08:44 PM.