> In extreme cases like this where a profit motive is the only thing keeping us from curing huge numbers of people, the US government should write a single check, take the rights, and start handing out pills.
Yeah, but, as your own link notes, courts (and the constitution) require fair market value for compensation. This doesn't save you any money at all; eminent domain can only have an impact when someone is refusing to sell at the market price. But Gilead is very very happy to sell at the market price. The issue is people upset at what that market price is.
If the US government could come up with the fair market value of the exclusive rights to manufacture Harvoni and Sovaldi, the problem wouldn't exist, because the same amount of money could also just buy all the doses of Harvoni and Sovaldi on the open market.
> As far as the company is concerned, that could even be a preferable outcome. Cash now and the marketing benefits to promote its other drugs.
Oh sure, they'd love for the US government to buy a million doses at $84k each and start handing them out. I don't think that solves any problems though.
Edit: Wait, or is your comment actually just an argument for single payer healthcare, and I'm just being obtuse? If so, my apologies for missing the joke, and I think you're right: The most obvious role for the government is funding universal catastrophic care, and I think this should be a part of that.
Yes, it amounts to single payer healthcare for drugs.
It's different from the government buying individual doses on the market because the current price is set to achieve the fair market value of the drug by treating a small subset of infected patients. Manufacturing costs are so small in comparison, we could treat everyone for nearly the same price.
Yeah, but, as your own link notes, courts (and the constitution) require fair market value for compensation. This doesn't save you any money at all; eminent domain can only have an impact when someone is refusing to sell at the market price. But Gilead is very very happy to sell at the market price. The issue is people upset at what that market price is.
If the US government could come up with the fair market value of the exclusive rights to manufacture Harvoni and Sovaldi, the problem wouldn't exist, because the same amount of money could also just buy all the doses of Harvoni and Sovaldi on the open market.
> As far as the company is concerned, that could even be a preferable outcome. Cash now and the marketing benefits to promote its other drugs.
Oh sure, they'd love for the US government to buy a million doses at $84k each and start handing them out. I don't think that solves any problems though.
Edit: Wait, or is your comment actually just an argument for single payer healthcare, and I'm just being obtuse? If so, my apologies for missing the joke, and I think you're right: The most obvious role for the government is funding universal catastrophic care, and I think this should be a part of that.