Breathing fresh air into the debate: Ventilators and the United States' intellectual property problem

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Open Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100069
Theora W. Tiffney , Robert Cook-Deegan , Heather M. Ross
{"title":"Breathing fresh air into the debate: Ventilators and the United States' intellectual property problem","authors":"Theora W. Tiffney ,&nbsp;Robert Cook-Deegan ,&nbsp;Heather M. Ross","doi":"10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In 2006, the U.S. federal government launched a project to create a cheap, easily produced, and easy to use ventilator that could be stored for long periods of time for pandemic response. Despite successful funding and contracts with two separate medical device companies, not a single ventilator had been added to the stockpile by 2020. The company currently under federal contract for these ventilators is selling its product to private parties, rather than supplying it to the federal government. In the current crisis, government has instead turned to the Defense Production Act to supply ventilators.</p><p>Inaccessibility of medical equipment is a detriment to Americans’ health, particularly during a public health emergency like COVID-19. This persists despite the central role of the federal government in the funding of healthcare innovation. We place the shortage of ventilators in context of the ongoing debate about the federal government’s intellectual property powers, as well as the legal recourses available, then discuss why this situation is a strong argument for expanding compulsory licensing powers as a component of federal policy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34527,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/07/4d/main.PMC10297820.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590229622000041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2006, the U.S. federal government launched a project to create a cheap, easily produced, and easy to use ventilator that could be stored for long periods of time for pandemic response. Despite successful funding and contracts with two separate medical device companies, not a single ventilator had been added to the stockpile by 2020. The company currently under federal contract for these ventilators is selling its product to private parties, rather than supplying it to the federal government. In the current crisis, government has instead turned to the Defense Production Act to supply ventilators.

Inaccessibility of medical equipment is a detriment to Americans’ health, particularly during a public health emergency like COVID-19. This persists despite the central role of the federal government in the funding of healthcare innovation. We place the shortage of ventilators in context of the ongoing debate about the federal government’s intellectual property powers, as well as the legal recourses available, then discuss why this situation is a strong argument for expanding compulsory licensing powers as a component of federal policy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为辩论带来新鲜空气:呼吸机与美国知识产权问题
2006年,美国联邦政府启动了一个项目,旨在制造一种廉价、易于生产、易于使用的呼吸机,这种呼吸机可以长期储存,以应对大流行。尽管与两家独立的医疗设备公司成功融资并签订了合同,但到2020年,库存中没有增加一台呼吸机。目前根据联邦合同生产这些呼吸机的公司将其产品出售给私人团体,而不是提供给联邦政府。在目前的危机中,政府转而求助于《国防生产法》(Defense Production Act)来供应呼吸机。无法获得医疗设备对美国人的健康有害,特别是在COVID-19这样的公共卫生紧急情况下。尽管联邦政府在资助医疗创新方面发挥着核心作用,但这种情况依然存在。我们把呼吸机的短缺放在正在进行的关于联邦政府知识产权权力的辩论的背景下,以及可用的法律资源,然后讨论为什么这种情况是扩大强制许可权力作为联邦政策组成部分的有力论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy Open
Health Policy Open Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
Closing the equity gap: A call for policy and programmatic reforms to ensure inclusive and effective HIV prevention, treatment and care for persons with disabilities in Eastern and Southern Africa Patient’s willingness to pay for improved community health insurance in Tanzania Improving antibiotic prescribing – Recommendations for funding and pricing policies to enhance use of point-of-care tests From theory to practice: Harmonizing taxonomies of trustworthy AI How firearm legislation impacts firearm mortality internationally: A scoping review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1