Posts Tagged: "Senator Bernie Sanders"

On March 22, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) sent a letter addressed to Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), respectively the Chair and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, regarding a Health Committee hearing held that same day on the pricing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The GIPC’s letter sought to push back on false narratives regarding the role of public funding in private pharmaceutical research & development (R&D,) and also doubled down on the Center’s criticisms of drug pricing controls in the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation requiring every agency and non-profit entity to include a “reasonable pricing” provision based on King’s formula for any life science invention made with government support. Apparently the colossal failure of a similar requirement forced on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the 1990’s which led to the collapse of industry partnerships without any reduction in drug prices is either unknown, or made no impression on Sen. Sanders. Or perhaps like his trust in socialism, he thinks that what failed in the past will somehow work by some weird magic if trotted out again.

Being an entrepreneur isn’t easy. While it is a tough road for anyone, it’s particularly tough if you’re in the public sector and threatened by politicians… Rather, the march in provision is intended to insure that good faith efforts are being made towards commercialization and that sufficient quantities of resulting products are available to meet public health or safety needs. If the government is ever pressured to misapply the law for price control, the bottom would fall out of our public technology transfer system. Such a change would not be restricted to drugs but to any product commercialized under Bayh-Dole. What company would commercialize a federally funded invention if an agency could retroactively apply a completely arbitrary standard of fair pricing to justify taking the technology away through compulsory licensing? The answer is easy to guess.

Earlier today, by a vote of 94 to 5, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the 21st Century Cures Act. Having passed in the House, the Cures Act now goes off to the White House for the President’s signature, where it will receive a warm reception. “I’ll sign it as soon as it reaches my desk, because like a lot of you I’ve lost people I’ve loved deeply to cancer,” President Obama said in his weekly address on December 3, 2016, as he called upon Congress to act swiftly to pass the legislation and send it to the White House.

As we await the decision from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the petition backed by Senator Bernie Sanders and others urging that the march in provision of the Bayh-Dole Act be used to control drug prices, it’s worthwhile to recall the time the agency followed similar advice….Note from the beginning the trigger for marching in was a failure to work towards commercialization and the word “reasonable” applied to royalty rates, not the cost of a product… To understand the original intent, recall that march in rights were designed to prevent companies from licensing federally supported inventions to suppress them. Otherwise, the government can march in. That’s how march in rights have worked since 1947.

Secretary Burwell and Director Collins are facing formidable pressure to reinterpret the Bayh-Dole Act for the compulsory licensing of costly drugs arising from federally supported research. And the pressure just increased another notch. On March 28, Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar joined the leaders of the House Democratic Task Force on Prescription Drug Pricing urging Burwell and Collins to hold a meeting “to allow the public to engage in a dialogue with the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH in order to better understand its position on the use of march-in rights to address excessive prices.” If NIH joins in pursuing the swamp gas illusion that Bayh-Dole was intended to regulate drug pricing, we’ll quickly learn that it’s a lot easier getting into this morass than getting back out.

On the Republican side, front-runner Donald Trump, whose inability to be stopped by his own rhetoric has proven to be a hallmark of his campaign, has said himself that he is “changing” on this issue, at least where skilled talent is concerned. Trump has been on both sides of the H-1B visa issue, which makes it difficult to know what he really believes and what policy might become during a Trump Administration.

Simply stated, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not deserve the F foisted on him by the Engine study or amplified by the reporting by Wired and Ars Technica. Notwithstanding the inexplicable F given to Senator Cruz, the biggest error in the “report card” related to something that never happened. Senator Marco Rubio was given a B based on his vote in favor of the America Invents Act (AIA). The problem is that Senator Rubio missed that vote on the AIA and is also on record saying that had he been present he would have voted against the AIA. Indeed, there are many other inaccuracies and misleading statements that collectively left us wondering if the scoring of this “report card” intentionally misleads the public and reinforces the stereotype that the tech community only likes Democrats.

The Medical Innovation Prize Act of 2007, submitted by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), would have effectively done away with patent rights for pharmaceutical drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill would have allowed anyone in compliance with FDA requirements “to manufacture, distribute, or sell an approved medicine.” The bill says it would have continued to spur innovation by establishing a fund for medical innovation prizes. It would have required the Board of Trustees for the newly created Fund to award prize payments of unspecified amounts for medical innovations relating to a drug, biological product, or manufacturing process. In order to be an eligible award recipient one would have to be the first person to receive market clearance or be the holder of an issued patent.

Does the Democratic Presidential contest suggest that voters think that traditional views on patents or copyrights are on the way out and that collectivism is on the rise? The so-called “Napster generation” is now definitely 30 something and kissing 40. Millennials and how they are using the Internet for work, life and politics may show us a shift in compensation for creativity that is rewarding inclusiveness, building a community and a base of customers. This contrasts with the more traditional top down, broadcast marketing coupled with enforcement of longer term royalties. Silicon Valley and Wall Street at least have embraced the former, it seems, given how much people love to value unicorns these days. But in the past as unicorns grew up the market would demand adherence to traditional top down norms – think Twitter, for example, which had few patents of their own until they purchased 900 patents from IBM shortly after going public.

Patents, intellectual property, innovation and technology policy may not decide who will become the next President of the United States, but the positions the candidates hold will greatly impact the industry, and a U.S. economy that is increasingly an innovation based digital economy.