Guest Rebecca Robbins, a business reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry, discusses how drug patents can lead to perverse incentives to delay better medications. The podcast explores a case where Gilead Sciences withheld a safer HIV treatment to maximize profits on existing patents.
Patents can create perverse incentives for drug companies to delay the release of new and better drugs in order to maximize profits.
The case involving Gilead highlights the potential conflict between profit-driven motives and the timely availability of safer medications for patients.
Deep dives
Drug companies argue patents are critical to bringing new drugs to market
The pharmaceutical industry relies on for-profit companies to develop and bring new drugs to market. Monopolies created by patents protect these companies and allow them to sell medications at high prices. The promise of profits from these monopolies creates incentives for companies to produce new and better drugs.
A case suggests that patents can create perverse incentives to hold new drugs back
A case involving Gilead, a major American drug company, raises questions about whether the current system always brings the best medications to patients as quickly as possible. The case alleges that Gilead intentionally delayed the release of a newer, potentially safer version of a drug called Truvada, to maximize profits from the older version. The company's executives reportedly wanted to maintain their monopoly on the older drug and keep prices high.
The impact on patients and the allegations in the lawsuit
Patients like David Swisher, who took the older version of Truvada, experienced severe side effects such as bone and kidney issues. The lawsuit argues that Gilead had knowledge of these side effects but did not adequately warn patients, and also suggests that the newer, safer version of the drug could have been made available earlier.
Examining the motivations and strategies behind Gilead's actions
Gilead's internal documents indicate that executives were concerned about cannibalizing the market for the older drug if the newer version was released too soon. This aligned with their patent extension strategy to maintain their monopoly and maximize profits. Gilead denies intentionally withholding the safer drug for profit, stating that the safety profile of the newer drug was not sufficiently different at the time.
For decades, drugmakers have argued that patents are critical to bringing new drugs to the market. But in 2004, when a promising H.I.V. treatment emerged, Gilead Sciences decided to slow-walk its release to maximize profit on the company’s existing patents.
Rebecca Robbins, who covers the pharmaceutical industry for The Times, discusses one man’s case and how patents can create perverse incentives to delay new and better drugs.
Guest: Rebecca Robbins, a business reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode