IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijdipp/v10y2011i1p92-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Encouraging pharmaceutical innovation to meet the needs of both developed and developing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Longo

Abstract

Purpose - Current pharmaceutical global pricing strategies functionally exclude developing countries from the market for drugs to treat many diseases. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate some of the proposed patent reward models to determine their feasibility in the current environment. Design/methodology/approach - A review of a variety of proposals including special financing or tax arrangements, public‐private partnerships, and government‐funded patent purchases are briefly reviewed. A more in‐depth examination of the recently proposed health impact fund (HIF) is undertaken. Findings - In brief, the HIF requires developed countries to donate to a fund that finances the release of pharmaceutical patents. The pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed over a ten‐year period from the government donation pool based on the medicine's health impact. The expected consequence of this policy would be affordable medicines for developed and developing countries. This examination highlights deficiencies in the current HIF strategy and offers a number of suggestions mostly focused on a more balanced sharing of the inherent risks in pharmaceutical product development to improve the strategies viability. Practical implications - Although among the proposed strategies, the HIF offers the most promise, the suggested changes would result in a program viewed more favourably by the pharmaceutical industry and participating countries. Originality/value - Although it is recognized that pricing challenges are limiting the availability to essential medications in developing countries, current strategies often ignore many of the market dynamics for pharmaceuticals. This critique, focused on the HIF strategy, is presented in an effort to improve the likely success of the most promising of these strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Longo, 2011. "Encouraging pharmaceutical innovation to meet the needs of both developed and developing countries," International Journal of Development Issues, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 92-101, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijdipp:v:10:y:2011:i:1:p:92-101
    DOI: 10.1108/14468951111123346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14468951111123346/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14468951111123346/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/14468951111123346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    2. Marin C. Gemmill & Joan Costa‐Font & Alistair McGuire, 2007. "In search of a corrected prescription drug Elasticity estimate: a meta‐regression approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 627-643, June.
    3. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167.
    4. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    2. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2013. "Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 185-208, April.
    4. Paul Grootendorst, 2009. "How should we support pharmaceutical innovation?," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 246, McMaster University.
    5. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2015. "Do Firms Underinvest in Long-Term Research? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2044-2085, July.
    6. Adrian Towse & Michele Pistollato & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Zeba Khan & Satyin Kaura & Louis Garrison, 2015. "European Union Pharmaceutical Markets: A Case for Differential Pricing?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 263-275, July.
    7. Leiva Bertran, Fernando J. & Turner, John L., 2017. "Welfare-optimal patent royalties when imitation is costly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 457-475.
    8. Grinols, Earl L. & Lin, Hwan C., 2011. "Patent replacement and welfare gains," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1586-1604, September.
    9. Josh Lerner, 2002. "150 Years of Patent Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 221-225, May.
    10. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    11. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    12. Newell, Richard G. & Wilson, Nathan E., 2005. "Technology Prizes for Climate Change Mitigation," Discussion Papers 10698, Resources for the Future.
    13. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Timo Goeschl & Grischa Perino, 2017. "The Climate Policy Hold‐Up: Green Technologies, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Abatement Incentives of International Agreements," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 709-732, July.
    15. Silvia Galli, 2006. "Patents and Research Tools in a Schumpeterian Growth Model with Sequential Innovation," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 96(6), pages 63-104, November-.
    16. Lin, Hwan C., 2016. "The switch from patents to state-dependent prizes for technological innovation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 193-223.
    17. Michael Kremer & Heidi Williams, 2010. "Incentivizing Innovation: Adding to the Tool Kit," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 1-17, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Ben van Hout & Jolian McHardy & Aki Tsuchiya, 2015. "Patent Purchase as a Policy for Pharmaceuticals," Working Papers 2015007, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    19. Panle Jia & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Shubham Chaudhuri, 2006. "Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1477-1514, December.
    20. Stolpe, Michael, 2001. "Prioritäten für den globalen Aids-Fonds: eine ökonomische Analyse," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 2657, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijdipp:v:10:y:2011:i:1:p:92-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.