Focusing on EpiPen, academics suggest patents on device improvements are problem. They acknowledge patents may be essential to incentivizing valuable improvements yet lament poor patient access. Yet never mention “INSURANCE” (except one footnote). How did peer review miss it?
https://twitter.com/nyulawreview/status/1428806237693497346
Must we reinvent innovation incentives to fix what are clearly failings of insurance design in America? How about proper insurance w/ low out of pocket costs. To then save $ for society AS A WHOLE, enforce genericization w/o undue delay. This is for you: nopatientleftbehind.org/about/our-vide…
But whenever patients can’t afford a drug, first thought should be whether insurance is doing what it’s supposed to. If not, propose fixing it. If you think society as a whole is overpaying for something, present evidence for why & then let’s talk about solving market failures.
Patent gaming is a problem. That some drugs too complex to ever go generic is also problem. I propose fix (contractual genericization) that wouldn’t reduce incentives to innovate. But it won’t fix affordability; only Insurance can do that. To learn more, thegreatamericandrugdeal.com
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
