{"title":"Quantifying the Human Mortality Costs of Patent-based Intellectual Property: How Many Premature Deaths are due to Patents?","authors":"Joshua M Pearce","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00516-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patent-based intellectual property (IP) has come under progressively substantiative attack in the peer-reviewed literature as many studies have shown it retards innovation. In addition, the monopoly period no longer fits the innovation cycle. Although the vast majority of patents are not useful, patent proponents argue monopoly-based economic incentives are specifically necessary to fund medical technologies. Rather than use simple economics, quantifying human deaths has also been proposed as a means to guide public policies. Such an approach can be applied to patents by investigating the lives saved by patents as well as those lost in the current IP systems. This study is the first to provide such a theoretical approach to quantifying human mortality costs of patent-based IP systems. To illustrate the mechanism by which patents are responsible for premature deaths, a case study of the 100-year-old innovation of insulin is provided. The U.S. and Canada were selected to compare because the approach to drug costs in the two countries allows for a fraction of the additional costs of IP to be quantified. By comparing the different death rates of diabetics in U.S. and Canada, it was found that insulin-related patents result in over 94,000 American premature deaths annually (in 2021). The results also make it clear that many human deaths are related to price increases and lack of accessibility to needed medications due to the current monopolistic IP system. These findings require patent proponents to defend the continued existence of patents in the medical innovation space.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00516-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Patent-based intellectual property (IP) has come under progressively substantiative attack in the peer-reviewed literature as many studies have shown it retards innovation. In addition, the monopoly period no longer fits the innovation cycle. Although the vast majority of patents are not useful, patent proponents argue monopoly-based economic incentives are specifically necessary to fund medical technologies. Rather than use simple economics, quantifying human deaths has also been proposed as a means to guide public policies. Such an approach can be applied to patents by investigating the lives saved by patents as well as those lost in the current IP systems. This study is the first to provide such a theoretical approach to quantifying human mortality costs of patent-based IP systems. To illustrate the mechanism by which patents are responsible for premature deaths, a case study of the 100-year-old innovation of insulin is provided. The U.S. and Canada were selected to compare because the approach to drug costs in the two countries allows for a fraction of the additional costs of IP to be quantified. By comparing the different death rates of diabetics in U.S. and Canada, it was found that insulin-related patents result in over 94,000 American premature deaths annually (in 2021). The results also make it clear that many human deaths are related to price increases and lack of accessibility to needed medications due to the current monopolistic IP system. These findings require patent proponents to defend the continued existence of patents in the medical innovation space.
期刊介绍:
Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.