Debatable. I can see the argument here. The loss of patent protection and exclusivity limits the astronomical profits that a new drug can create. This money is necessary to pay for the hundreds of millions to multibillion dollars that are necessary to create the drug in the first place. Without that money, new drugs can’t be created.
On the other hand the development of generics provides a significant motivation to develop new drug entities. If the lifetime of exclusivity is limited, then there’s a major need to create new things to keep things running. After all, once a drug goes generic, companies like Watson or Teva can knock them out for fifty cents a pill, patch or what have you. At that point, most insurance companies and patients themselves are going to go for the cheaper option. It’s a rare situation where a generic isn’t functionally identical to the parent drug.
I’d have to say it comes down as a positive. Pharm companies are rather shortsighted, and without that constant motivation, R&D would probably suffer, and they’d spend even more ridiculous amounts on advertising.
Obviously, if pharma companies could continue selling their drugs at brand-name prices indefinitely, they’d make more money.
However, it’s a trade. They get exclusivity for a number of years and then the public benefits from the development. Generics force the pharmas to develop new products.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Debatable. I can see the argument here. The loss of patent protection and exclusivity limits the astronomical profits that a new drug can create. This money is necessary to pay for the hundreds of millions to multibillion dollars that are necessary to create the drug in the first place. Without that money, new drugs can’t be created.
On the other hand the development of generics provides a significant motivation to develop new drug entities. If the lifetime of exclusivity is limited, then there’s a major need to create new things to keep things running. After all, once a drug goes generic, companies like Watson or Teva can knock them out for fifty cents a pill, patch or what have you. At that point, most insurance companies and patients themselves are going to go for the cheaper option. It’s a rare situation where a generic isn’t functionally identical to the parent drug.
I’d have to say it comes down as a positive. Pharm companies are rather shortsighted, and without that constant motivation, R&D would probably suffer, and they’d spend even more ridiculous amounts on advertising.
Obviously, if pharma companies could continue selling their drugs at brand-name prices indefinitely, they’d make more money.
However, it’s a trade. They get exclusivity for a number of years and then the public benefits from the development. Generics force the pharmas to develop new products.
They might harm the industry, but they sure as heck benefit the patients!