量化基于专利的知识产权的人类死亡成本:有多少过早死亡是由于专利?

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Joshua M Pearce
{"title":"量化基于专利的知识产权的人类死亡成本:有多少过早死亡是由于专利?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

基于专利的知识产权(IP)在同行评议的文献中受到了越来越多的实质性攻击,因为许多研究表明它阻碍了创新。此外,垄断期不再适合创新周期。尽管绝大多数专利是无用的,但专利支持者认为,以垄断为基础的经济激励对于资助医疗技术是特别必要的。人们还建议将人类死亡人数量化作为指导公共政策的一种手段,而不是使用简单的经济学方法。这种方法可以通过调查专利所挽救的生命以及在当前知识产权制度中失去的生命来应用于专利。这项研究首次提供了这样一种理论方法来量化基于专利的知识产权制度的人类死亡成本。为了说明专利导致过早死亡的机制,本文提供了一个关于胰岛素百年创新的案例研究。之所以选择美国和加拿大进行比较,是因为这两个国家的药品成本方法允许对知识产权额外成本的一小部分进行量化。通过比较美国和加拿大糖尿病患者的不同死亡率,发现胰岛素相关专利每年导致超过94,000名美国人过早死亡(2021年)。研究结果还清楚地表明,由于目前的垄断知识产权制度,许多人的死亡与价格上涨和无法获得所需药物有关。这些发现要求专利支持者捍卫专利在医疗创新领域的继续存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying the Human Mortality Costs of Patent-based Intellectual Property: How Many Premature Deaths are due to Patents?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信