This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (22)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Rationale, Problems, and Potential Reforms

John H. Barton, JD; Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2005;294:2075-2082.

The pharmaceutical industry is facing substantial criticism from many directions, including financial barriers to access to drugs in both developed and developing countries, high profits, spending on advertising and marketing, and other issues. Underlying these criticisms are fundamental questions about the value of the current patent-based drug development system. Six major problems with the patent system are (1) recovery of research costs by patent monopoly reduces access to drugs; (2) market demand rather than health needs determines research priorities; (3) resources between research and marketing are misallocated; (4) the market for drugs has inherent market failures; (5) overall investment in drug research and development is too low, compared with profits; and (6) the existing system discriminates against US patients. Potential solutions fall into 3 categories: change in drug pricing through either price controls or tiered pricing; change in drug industry structure through a "buy-out" pricing system or with the public sector acting as exclusive research funder; and change in development incentives through a disease burden incentive system, orphan drug approaches, or requiring new drugs to demonstrate improvement over existing products prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval. We recommend 4 complementary reforms: (1) having no requirement to test new drug products against existing products prior to approval but requiring rigorous comparative postapproval testing; (2) international tiered pricing and systematic safeguards to prevent flow-back; (3) increased government-funded research and buy-out for select conditions; and (4) targeted experiments using other approaches for health conditions in which there has been little progress and innovation over the last few decades.

Author Affiliations: Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Mr Barton and Dr Emanuel); and Stanford University Law School, Stanford, Calif (Mr Barton).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

In Reply
Ratain and Cohen
JCO 2007;25:5334-5335.
FULL TEXT  

The Sound and the Fury: Financial Conflicts of Interest in Oncology
Djulbegovic et al.
JCO 2007;25:3567-3569.
FULL TEXT  

Economic Return of Clinical Trials Performed Under the Pediatric Exclusivity Program
Li et al.
JAMA 2007;297:480-488.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Proposal for Radical Changes in the Drug-Approval Process
Wood
NEJM 2006;355:618-623.
FULL TEXT  

An iatrogenic pandemic of panic.
Bonneux and Van Damme
BMJ 2006;332:786-788.
FULL TEXT  

Afterword: Five steps to increase the payoff of chronic pain trials
Max
Neurology 2005;65:S74-S77.
FULL TEXT