Against patents

The case against patents

Some months ago, a WP blog hightlighted a paper by Boldrin and Levine with a straightforward title. Now you can read it at the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The summary is in the first paragraph:

The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. This disconnect is at the root of what is called the “patent puzzle”: in spite of the enormous increase in the number of patents and in the strength of their legal protection, the US economy has seen neither a dramatic acceleration in the rate of technological progress nor a major increase in the levels of research and development expenditure.

A risky statement unless there is a clear support from research. However, once you continue reading you'll have arguments to be convinced about it. The impact on pharmaceutical industry is analysed in detail:

There are four things that should be born in mind in thinking about the role of patents in the pharmaceutical industry. First, patents are just one piece of a set of complicated regulations that include requirements for clinical testing and disclosure, along with grants of market exclusivity that function alongside patents. Second, it is widely believed that in the absence of legal protections, generics would hit the market side by side with the originals. This  assumption is presumably based on the observation that when patents expire, generics enter immediately. However, this overlooks the fact that the generic manufacturers have had more  than a decade to reverse-engineer the product, study the market, and set up production lines. Lanjouw’s (1998) study of India prior to the recent introduction of pharmaceutical patents there indicates that it takes closer to four years to bring a product to market after the original is introduced—in other words, the fifi rst-mover advantage in  pharmaceuticals is larger than is ordinarily imagined. Third, much development of pharmaceutical products is done outside the private sector; in Boldrin and Levine (2008b), we provide some details. Finally, the current system is not working well: as Grootendorst, Hollis, Levine, Pogge, and Edwards (2011) point out, the most notable current feature of pharmaceutical innovation is the huge “drought” in the development of new products.

And the proposal is a controversial one:

we could either treat Stage II and III clinical trials as public goods (where the task would be financed by National Institutes of Health, who would accept bids from firms to carry out this work) or by allowing the commercialization of new drugs—at regulated prices equal to the economic costs of drugs—if they satisfy the Food and Drug Administration requirements for safety even if they do not yet satisfy the current (overly demanding) requisites for proving efficacy.

The last sentence sounds far from what should be a "fair" regulatory process in pharmaceuticals. Anyway, it seems that we have entered in a new perspective on patents and more scholars will be supporting it in the future.  I'm close to this perspective, but the details are important, as usual.

La financialització com a determinant de la salut

The Financialization of Health in the United States 

Més d'una vegada he confrontat el professionalisme amb l'ineficàcia de l'Estat i els desequilibris del mercat al sector salut. El que es coneix com a tercera lògica que va dir Freidson. Les tres peces clau del professionalisme són: l'hegemonia del benestar del pacient, el principi d'autonomia del pacient i el principi de justícia social. La dinàmica dels incentius porta a conflictes d'interès on l'objectiu de benefici es contraposa als criteris anteriors, i especialment al primer.

A un article recent del NEJM podem veure com el professionalisme va de baixa als USA i es veu minoritzat fruit de la financialització de la salut, entesa com el procés d'influència dels mercats financers i les seves elits sobre el sector. La financialització implica la transformació d'empreses i productes sanitaris  en actius comercialitzables i transmissibles pels quals el sector financer pot acumular capital. La financialització representa una nova forma de propietat i control dels actius del sector sanitari en la mesura que els mercats financers demanen l'obtenció de beneficis a curt termini i la seva distribució a agents financers allunyats del sector salut.

Les dades que conté l'article demostren que la tendència ha estat i és creixent a hores d'ara. La financialització de la salut s'estén com una taca d'oli al USA. I alhora, això significa que hospitals, asseguradores i empreses farmacèutiques i biomèdiques es comporten com entitats financeres. Tal com vaig explicar, la teranyina que envolta la indústria farmacèutica ha convertit la innovació en noves molècules en actius financers, preocupa més l'extracció de valor que la seva creació. Allò que l'enyorat Uwe Reinhardt ja va apuntar sota el nom de "value shifting", quan el valor s'extrau dels membres d'una societat i és apropiat pels tenidors del capital.

Ho exemplificava amb aquest gràfic:

i ho explicava així:

In this exhibit, we assume that Acme Inc., possibly a pharmaceutical company, has developed a new product that is highly valued by the rest of society. Let us call that value “social value.” Measuring it is a methodological challenge. At the conceptual level, however, we may think of it as follows: Acme, Inc. can sell the new product to each individual, prospective customer at that individual’s maximum bid price – the monetary expression of the value that individual puts upon a unit of the product. That bid price naturally varies among individuals, because their income and wealth varies and also because their desire for the product—economists call it “taste” for the product—varies.

If we added up these maximum bid prices across all individuals potentially interested in the new product, we might call that sum the product’s “social value.” In the exhibit, it is shown as the value-flow in pipe A. In many instances, the true social value might even be higher, if there are spill-over effects from the individual user of the new product to other members of society. That would be the case, for example, if the products cured an infectious disease.

Usually, in the real world, firms cannot extract from society all of the social value their products create. Even drug companies with government-granted monopolies usually capture only a fraction of total social value in the form of the firms’ sales revenue. That captured value is shown in pipe B of the chart. The firm distributes that captured value to its employees (pipe C), to its suppliers of other productive inputs and of credit (pipe D), and to government in the form of taxes (pipe E). The residual that is left over accrues to the firm’s shareholders (pipe F). It is the source of the wealth the firm bestows on them.

A major point to take away from the preceding discussion and the accompanying exhibit is that a firm adds net social value to society as a whole only through pipe A. If a firm’s policies do not add net social value, but its shareholders nevertheless are enriched by the firm’s decisions, the firm merely has redistributed already existing value from some members of society (for examples, customers or employees) to its shareholders.

Normally, neither politicians, nor the media, nor the general public pay much attention to the fraction of total social value (pipe A) that firms can capture as revenue (pipe B). In health care, however, that fraction can be quite controversial, as was seen in the public’s reaction to the pricing of high-value specialty drugs such as Gilead Sciences Inc.’s new drugs Solvadi and Harvoni.

En Reinhardt ja apuntava el 2016 a que els preus excessius dels medicaments representaven una extracció de valor. Malgrat no citava el terme financialització com a causa, a hores d'ara podem afegir i confirmar que la financialització també és un determinant de la salut. Una financialització que esvaeix el professionalisme en la medicina. Cal estar-ne atent, entendre com actua i tractar de moderar el seu impacte. Malauradament, en sabem encara poca cosa del que passa per aquí a prop. Caldria una anàlisi en profunditat, i crec que ens trobaríem amb més d'una sorpresa.

PS. Aquí podeu trobar un exemple d'avui de com els lobbys treballen per la financialització de la salut.

Efficient health insurance as a first best

 Sick Insurance: Adverse Selection and Regulation of Health Insurance Markets

When heterogeneity in consumer tastes and needs, and in cost and quality of products, are publically observable, markets can price, sort, and match these variations, and product choices made by consumers yield demand signals that foster efficient resource allocation. These conditions hold, roughly, for a broad swath of economic activity, allowing lightly regulated private markets to successfully approximate allocative efficiency. However, in health care systems around the globe today, participants do not necessarily see the big picture of lifetime health costs and quality of life, and in many systems the incentives that consumers and providers face do not promote efficient allocation of health care resources. Information asymmetries are the fundamental source of difficulties in health insurance markets and in efficient provision of health services. Additional factors contributing to poor performance of health markets include (1) government regulation that is intended to protect the disadvantaged and promote equity, but creates incentives antagonistic to allocative efficiency, (2) inefficient provider organizations and non-competitive conduct, sometimes sheltered by government policies, and (3) behavioral shortcomings of consumers in promoting their own self-interest, including inconsistent beliefs regarding low-probability future events, myopia, and inconsistent risk assessment.

The seminal contributions to economic analysis of Kenneth Arrow, George Akerlof, Joe Stiglitz, Mike Spence, Mike Rothschild, and John Riley establish that when there are information asymmetries between buyers and sellers, adverse selection, moral hazard, and counter-party risk can result, causing markets to operate inefficiently or unravel. Asymmetric information between buyers and sellers, or market regulations that restrict competitive underwriting and force common prices for disparate products, can induce adverse selection. Moral hazard occurs when effort to avoid risks cannot be observed by sellers and stipulated in insurance contracts, and buyers have less incentive for risk-reducing effort when some of their potential losses are covered. When the productivity and cost of medical interventions is not known to all parties, then buyers and third-party-payers may not make informed decisions on therapies. Counter-party risk occurs when sellers evade payment of benefits for losses, or fail as agents to respect the interests of the consumers who are their principals. Adverse selection of buyers with high latent risk or low risk-reducing effort, or sellers with high counter-party risk, make insurance less attractive to buyers, and may cause insurance markets to unravel. Administrative overhead will induce less than full insurance. By itself, this does not make insurance market outcomes inefficient, but increasing returns to scale in administrative costs may lead to an inefficient concentrated market.

In principle, the problems of asymmetric information can be overcome by government operation or regulation of health services; in practice, there remains a major mechanism design problem of designing incentives that handle the asymmetries; e.g., “single payer” systems permit additional levers of control, but information asymmetries cause principal-agent problems even in command organizations. Legal mandates and regulations can make adverse selection worse. Government policy on private health insurance markets often reflects a social ethic that individuals should not be denied health care because of inability to pay, expressed for example in requirements that hospitals admit uninsured patients with life-threatening conditions, and a social ethic that insurance contract underwriting should not be based on risk factors such as gender, race, and pre-existing conditions. When these requirements are not publically financed, they are implicit taxes on insurers and providers that are at least in part passed through to consumers as higher premiums that increase the effective load for low-risk consumers. Both the higher loads and the prospect of public assistance as a last resort reduce the incentive for consumers to buy insurance and to pay (or copay) for preventative care.

The United States has, more than any other developed country, relied on private markets for health insurance and health care delivery. These markets have performed poorly. Denials and cancellations, exclusion of pre-existing conditions, and actuarially unattractive premiums have left many Americans with no insurance or financially risky gaps in coverage. Administrative costs for health insurance in the United States are seven times the OECD average. These are symptoms of adverse selection. Delayed and inconsistent preventative and chronic care, arguably induced by incomplete coverage, have had substantial health consequences: the United States ranks 25th among nations in the survival rate from age 15 to age 60. This impacts the population of workers and young parents whose loss is a substantial cost to families and to the economy. If the U.S. could raise its survival rate for this group to that of Switzerland, a country that has mandatory standardized coverage offered by private insurers, this would prevent more than 190,000 deaths per year.

Given the damage that information asymmetries can inflict on private market allocation mechanisms, the obvious next question is what regulatory mechanisms can be used to blunt or eliminate these problems. This involves examining closely the action of adverse selection and moral hazard, and the tools from principal-agent theory and from regulatory theory that can blunt these actions. There is an extensive literature relevant to this analysis that can be focused on the regulatory design question. Less well investigated are the impacts of consumer behavior, particularly mistaken beliefs. This paper examines these issues, and studies the impacts of regulations intended to promote equity and efficiency. More practically, this paper investigates these issues with reference to the private market in the United States for prescription drug coverage for seniors, introduced in 2006 and subsidized and regulated as part of Medicare.

The efficient regulatory design is mandatory universal insurance, this is the answer. But it has to be eficient, otherwise appears duplicate insurance, paying twice for the same. This is the worst second best, a combined failure of mandatory and private coverage.

Reference pricing entering into terra incognita

If the regulatory reform proposal for drug reference pricing really succeeds, we can confirm that the end of reference pricing as we have known, has started. From this moment on, we enter in terra incognita.
I would suggest a look at the non-binding report by the Antitrust Commission. Two issues emerge: (1) a minimum threshold for reference pricing updating, and (2) only drugs with  monthly discount beyond 10% will be taken into account for minor prices.
Forget technicalities, the general issue is about competition. The concerns of the report are related to anticompetitive effects, if government doesn't ammend it, it will be another example of poor quality regulation.