Why are drug prices so high? Investigating the outdated US patent system | Priti Krishtel
Estimated read time: 1:20
Summary
In this TED talk, Priti Krishtel explores the outdated U.S. patent system and its role in driving high drug prices. She shares personal stories and professional insights to highlight how the current patent laws, designed to inspire innovation, are being manipulated by pharmaceutical companies to maintain monopolies. This results in exorbitant drug costs, making essential medicines unaffordable for many. Krishtel proposes a comprehensive reform to make the system more equitable and aligned with the public interest, thus ensuring that innovation benefits all.
Highlights
Priti Krishtel shares a personal connection to the pharmaceutical world through her father, a retired drug inventor. 👨🔬
The outdated patent system is a key contributor to high drug costs and inequitable access to medications. 💊
Krishtel discusses the urgent need for patents to encourage genuine innovation rather than minor drug modifications. 🔍
She explains how drug patents often extend beyond their intended time, blocking competition and keeping prices high. 🚫💲
Krishtel proposes five reforms to overhaul the patent system, focusing on public interest and transparency. ✨
Key Takeaways
Current U.S. patent laws are being manipulated, leading to high drug prices. 💸
Pharmaceutical companies extend patent protections to maintain monopolies. 🏢
Most 'new' drug patents aren't for new drugs, but tweaks on existing ones. 🏷️
Rising drug costs push families into financial hardship. 💔
Reforms are required to ensure patents serve public interest, not just corporations. 🔄
Overview
Priti Krishtel begins her TED talk by sharing a touching personal story involving her father, a pharmaceutical scientist, and Rudy, a man whose father died from a disease her father helped to treat. This connection nicely frames her argument about the importance and impact of drug patents. She explains that her family values patents for the opportunities they provided, but she also highlights the problems within the system that need addressing.
The heart of Krishtel’s talk is an exploration of the U.S. patent system, which she argues is outdated and easily manipulated by corporations. This manipulation allows companies to extend patent protections and keep drug prices artificially high. Krishtel identifies a trend of filing numerous patents for minor modifications to drugs, which doesn't align with the original intention of patents to reward true innovation.
Krishtel’s solution lies in comprehensive reform. She advocates for fewer patents, public involvement in the patent process, legal rights for citizens to challenge unfair patents, and stronger oversight of the Patent Office. By implementing these changes, she believes the system can prioritize public health and access over corporate profits, ensuring that the benefits of patents are shared more equitably.
Chapters
00:00 - 01:30: Introduction and Personal Story The chapter 'Introduction and Personal Story' begins with the speaker sharing a personal anecdote about her husband, Rudy, who experienced 'love at first sight.' At the time, Rudy was just a friend to the speaker and had been placed firmly in the 'friend zone.' The story unfolds with Rudy visiting the speaker's house, leading to an encounter with her father, a retired pharmaceutical scientist. This introduction sets the stage for a narrative likely to explore themes of love, relationships, and personal history.
01:30 - 04:00: Outdated Patent System and High Drug Prices The chapter discusses the issue of high drug prices linked to the outdated patent system. It includes a personal anecdote where the speaker's father mentions a drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), which prompts a poignant connection with someone whose father passed away from the same disease. This encounter illustrates personal and emotional stakes in the broader issue of drug pricing.
04:00 - 06:30: Exploitative Practices and Impact This chapter explores the theme of generational impact and appreciation for familial achievements. The narrator reflects on how their family's admiration and respect for their father's inventions and patents have significantly shaped their lives. Despite coming too late to save the father's own prospects, these innovations embodied a full-circle moment symbolizing opportunity and legacy for the next generation. The chapter underscores how the patents not only adorn their home but also stand as a testament to the opportunities provided by America, enabling pursuits in education and health justice.
06:30 - 11:30: Needed Reforms The chapter 'Needed Reforms' discusses the narrator meeting the director of the US Patent Office. The narrator humorously describes sending a selfie to their family, equating the director's significance to meeting a celebrity due to the overwhelming emoji responses. The narrator hints at the meeting's purpose being to address a problem, rather than mere pleasantries.
11:30 - 12:30: Conclusion and Personal Reflection The chapter discusses the impact of the outdated patent system on global healthcare, highlighting how it contributes to the high cost of medicines and limits access, particularly affecting over two billion people worldwide. It emphasizes the dire consequences, noting that even in wealthier countries like the United States, the exorbitant cost of drugs leads to unnecessary loss of life despite the availability of treatments.
Why are drug prices so high? Investigating the outdated US patent system | Priti Krishtel Transcription
00:00 - 00:30 For my husband,
it was love at first sight. (Laughter) Here's what happened. Years ago, Rudy, who I had strictly put
in the friend zone at the time, came over to my house and met my dad, a pharmaceutical scientist
who had just retired
00:30 - 01:00 after bringing a drug to market. My dad said, "Ah, you probably
wouldn't have heard of it. It's for IPF, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis." Rudy paused for a long time,
and then he said, "That's the disease that took
my father's life 15 years ago." Rudy says that this
is the moment he fell in love. (Laughter) With my father. (Laughter)
01:00 - 01:30 Even though it was too late
for my dad to save his, he felt that destiny had delivered us
this full-circle moment. In my family, we have a special love
for my father's inventions. And in particular, we have
a reverence for his patents. We have framed patents
on the wall in our house. And there's a recognition in our family
that everything I've been able to do -- college, law school,
health justice work -- all of it is because America
enabled my father
01:30 - 02:00 to fulfill his potential as an inventor. (Applause) Last year, I met the director
of the US Patent Office for the first time, and I sent my family a selfie
from that office in Virginia. (Laughter) I got so many emojis back, you would have thought I had met Beyoncé. (Laughter) But truth be told, I was actually there
to talk about a problem --
02:00 - 02:30 how our outdated patent system
is fueling the high cost of medicines and costing lives. Today, over two billion people
live without access to medicines. And against this global crisis, drug prices are skyrocketing, including in wealthier countries. Thirty-four million Americans
have lost a family member or a friend in the last five years, not because the treatment didn't exist, but because they couldn't afford it.
02:30 - 03:00 Rising drug costs are pushing
families into homelessness, seniors into bankruptcy and parents to crowdfunding treatment
for their critically ill children. There are many reasons for this crisis, but one is the outdated patent system that America tries to export
to the rest of the world. The original intention
behind the patent system was to motivate people to invent
03:00 - 03:30 by rewarding them
with a time-limited monopoly. But today, that intention
has been distorted beyond recognition. Corporations have teams
of lawyers and lobbyists whose sole job is to extend
patent protection as long as possible. And they've kept the patent office busy. It took 155 years for the US Patent Office to issue its first five million patents. It took just 27 years
for it to issue the next five million.
03:30 - 04:00 We haven't gotten
drastically more inventive. Corporations have gotten
drastically better at gaming the system. Drug patents have exploded -- between 2006 and 2016, they doubled. But consider this: The vast majority of medicines
associated with new drug patents are not new. Nearly eight out of 10
are for existing ones,
04:00 - 04:30 like insulin or aspirin. My organization,
a team of lawyers and scientists, recently conducted an investigation
into the 12 best-selling drugs in America. We found that, on average, there are 125 patents
filed on each medicine. Often for things we've known
how to do for decades, like putting two pills into one. The higher a patent wall a company builds,
04:30 - 05:00 the longer they hold on to their monopoly. And with no one to compete with, they can set prices at whim. And because these are medicines and not designer watches, we have no choice but to pay. The patent wall is a strategy
to block competition. Not for the 14 years maximum that America's founders
originally envisioned, or the 20 years allowed by law today,
05:00 - 05:30 but for 40 years or more. Meanwhile, prices on these drugs
have continued to increase -- 68 percent since 2012. That's seven times the rate of inflation. And people are struggling or even dying, because they can't afford the meds. Now I want to be really clear
about something. This isn't about making
the pharmaceutical industry the bad guy. What I'm talking about today
05:30 - 06:00 is whether the system we created
to promote progress is actually working as intended. Sure, the pharmaceutical companies
are gaming the system, but they're gaming it because they can. Because we have failed
to adapt this system to meet today's realities. The government is handing out one of the most prized
rewards in business -- the opportunity to create a product
that is protected from competition --
06:00 - 06:30 and asking for less and less
in return on our behalf. Imagine awarding 100 Pulitzer Prizes
to one author for the same book. (Murmurs) It doesn't have to be this way. We can create a modern patent system to meet the needs
of a 21st-century society. And to do that, we need to reimagine the patent system
to serve the public, not just corporations.
06:30 - 07:00 So how do we do it? Five reforms. First, we need to stop
handing out so many patents. Back under the Kennedy administration, in an effort to curb rising drug costs, a congressman from Tennessee
proposed an idea. He said, "If you want to tweak a drug, and you want to get another patent on it, the modified version has to be
significantly better, therapeutically, for patients." Because of intense lobbying,
07:00 - 07:30 this idea never saw the light of day. But a reimagined patent system would resurrect and evolve
this simple, yet elegant proposition. That to get a patent, you have to invent something
substantially better than what's already out there. This shouldn't be controversial. As a society, we reserve the big rewards
for the big ideas. We don't give Michelin stars
to chefs who just tweak a recipe --
07:30 - 08:00 we give them to chefs who change
how we think about food. And yet, we hand out patents
worth billions of dollars for minor changes. It's time to raise the bar. Second, we need to change the financial incentives
of the Patent Office. Right now, the revenue
of the Patent Office is directly linked to the number
of patents that it grants. That's like private prisons
getting paid more to hold more people --
08:00 - 08:30 it naturally leads to more incarceration, not less. The same is true for patents. Third, we need more public participation. Right now, the patent system
is like a black box. It's a two-way conversation
between the patent office and industry. You and I aren't invited to that party. But imagine if instead,
08:30 - 09:00 the Patent Office became a dynamic center
for citizen learning and ingenuity, staffed not just by technical
experts and bureaucrats, but also by great
public-health storytellers with a passion for science. Regular citizens could get
accessible information about complex technologies like artificial intelligence
or gene editing, enabling us to participate
in the policy conversations
09:00 - 09:30 that directly impact our health and lives. Fourth, we need to get the right to go to court. Right now in America,
after a patent is granted, the public has no legal standing. Only those with a commercial interest,
usually other drug companies, have that right. But I've witnessed firsthand
how lives can be saved when everyday citizens
have the right to go to court.
09:30 - 10:00 Back in 2006 in India, my organization worked
with patient advocates to challenge, legally,
unjust HIV drug patents, at a time when so many people were dying, because medicines
were priced out of reach. We were able to bring down
the prices of medicines by up to 87 percent. (Applause) On just three drugs, we were able to save health systems
half a billion dollars.
10:00 - 10:30 Now, cases like these
can save millions of lives and billions of dollars. Imagine if Americans
had the right to go to court, too. And lastly, we need stronger oversight. We need an independent unit
that can serve as a public advocate, regularly monitoring the activities
of the Patent Office
10:30 - 11:00 and reporting to Congress. If a unit like this had existed, it would have caught, for example,
the Silicon Valley company Theranos before it got so many patents
for blood testing and landed an evaluation
of nine billion dollars, when in reality, there was no invention there at all. This kind of accountability
is going to become increasingly urgent. In the age of 23andMe, important questions are being asked
11:00 - 11:30 about whether companies
can patent and sell our genetic information
and our patient data. We need to be part of those conversations before it's too late. Our information is being used
to create the new therapies. And when that moment of diagnosis
comes for me and my family, or for you and yours, are we going to have to crowdfund
to save the lives of those we love? That's not the world I want to live in.
11:30 - 12:00 It's not the world I want
for my two-year-old son. My dad is growing older now, and he is still as quietly brilliant
and morally directed as ever. Sometimes people ask us
whether things get heated between us: the patent-holding scientist and his patent-reforming lawyer daughter. It's such a profound misunderstanding
of what's at stake,
12:00 - 12:30 because this is not
about scientists versus activists, or invention versus protection. This is about people, our quest to invent and our right to live. My dad and I understand
that our ingenuity and our dignity go hand in hand. We are on the same side. It is time to reimagine a patent system that reflects that knowing. Thank you. (Applause)