Since the groundbreaking discovery in the early 20th century that insulin (the hormone that helps to control blood glucose levels in diabetics) could effectively manage blood sugar, diabetics around the world have been able to avoid what used to be a death sentence. However, as time progresses a vast amount of diabetics are finding themselves faced with declining health, risk of disease, amputation, and placing financial burden on family and/or society, largely due to the ever increasing price of both short and long acting insulin. Interestingly enough, this wasn't always the case, mostly due to the fact that insulin was derived from cattle and pig pancreas extract. Obtaining insulin for injection via animals was initially quite inexpensive,
…show more content…
According to Ellen ‘t Hoen, the founder of the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), the “pool” is at the center of where profit and health collide. The basic premise of the patent pool is for the pharmaceutical companies to profit, while still helping to provide low cost generics to the world’s population. For instance, the price for HIV medication in 2002 ran an average of $12,000 per patient, per year. Western drug companies holding the patents to this medication were not necessarily willing to make them available. As a result of the intellectual property rules laid out by the World Trade Organization, all companies are required to provide patents for pharmaceuticals. So, in 2010 UNITAID established the MPP, albeit for HIV meds. When patent holders develop new medicines, they make those patents available to the MPP. The MPP then licenses those out to companies seeking them. In turn, those companies sell medicine to people that need them at a much lower cost. They then “pay royalties over the sales to the patent holders, so they are remunerated for sharing their intellectual property” (Hoen, 2012). Whether or not this model could work in the manufacture and distribution of insulin remains purely hypothetical; yet curiously …show more content…
If patents on their drugs are continually allowed renewal, no competitive manufacturer with the intent of creating a more affordable product for consumers will ever enter the market. In the age of ever-present fear of being sued, the aforementioned is likely palpable. Bio-pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi, is currently in the process of updating a popular version the drug Lantus, which comes off of patent later this year. This product may be offered at a different level of concentration, which experts claim could reduce the cost to patients by 30 to 40%. However, the validity of these claims remains to be seen. Buying insulin isn’t like purchasing expensive denim. When given the choice to purchase a pair of $20 jeans from Walmart or a pair of $350 jeans from a specialty boutique, one could argue the expensive jeans are made from superior material, by hand, and will probably last longer. Whereas, the $20 may last awhile, but will likely fail sooner and be less comfortable. With insulin, there is only one material. The one with the name brand label is likely going to be no better than the hypothetical start-up companies’; both will work the same, and save lives. Stripping the ability to obtain patents on medical products that are essentially identical will ultimately bring more equality to the
According to Ellen ‘t Hoen, the founder of the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), the “pool” is at the center of where profit and health collide. The basic premise of the patent pool is for the pharmaceutical companies to profit, while still helping to provide low cost generics to the world’s population. For instance, the price for HIV medication in 2002 ran an average of $12,000 per patient, per year. Western drug companies holding the patents to this medication were not necessarily willing to make them available. As a result of the intellectual property rules laid out by the World Trade Organization, all companies are required to provide patents for pharmaceuticals. So, in 2010 UNITAID established the MPP, albeit for HIV meds. When patent holders develop new medicines, they make those patents available to the MPP. The MPP then licenses those out to companies seeking them. In turn, those companies sell medicine to people that need them at a much lower cost. They then “pay royalties over the sales to the patent holders, so they are remunerated for sharing their intellectual property” (Hoen, 2012). Whether or not this model could work in the manufacture and distribution of insulin remains purely hypothetical; yet curiously …show more content…
If patents on their drugs are continually allowed renewal, no competitive manufacturer with the intent of creating a more affordable product for consumers will ever enter the market. In the age of ever-present fear of being sued, the aforementioned is likely palpable. Bio-pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi, is currently in the process of updating a popular version the drug Lantus, which comes off of patent later this year. This product may be offered at a different level of concentration, which experts claim could reduce the cost to patients by 30 to 40%. However, the validity of these claims remains to be seen. Buying insulin isn’t like purchasing expensive denim. When given the choice to purchase a pair of $20 jeans from Walmart or a pair of $350 jeans from a specialty boutique, one could argue the expensive jeans are made from superior material, by hand, and will probably last longer. Whereas, the $20 may last awhile, but will likely fail sooner and be less comfortable. With insulin, there is only one material. The one with the name brand label is likely going to be no better than the hypothetical start-up companies’; both will work the same, and save lives. Stripping the ability to obtain patents on medical products that are essentially identical will ultimately bring more equality to the