Thought I was talking about something MSNBC said about Trump, right?

Nah.

The perp is kindly, transparent, defender of democracy POTATUS.

Brother Bingley was kind enough to alert me to this peculiar development, but, as he used somewhat incendiary language, I’ll not be sharing the email.

It surely seems no authoritarian move’s too big for The Big Guy. Why, 10%’s nothing when you can snatch up the whole enchilada.

The Biden administration on Thursday opened the door to seizing the patents of certain costly medications from drugmakers in a new push to slash high drug prices and promote more pharmaceutical competition.

The administration unveiled a framework outlining the factors federal agencies should consider in deciding whether to use a controversial policy, known as march-in rights, to take patents for drugs developed with taxpayer funds and share them with other pharmaceutical companies if the public cannot “reasonably” access the medications. Doing so could lead to the development of lower-priced generic alternatives, which could cut into key drug companies’ profits and reduce costs for patients.

For the first time, officials can now factor in a medication’s price in deciding to break a patent.

In a blatant, pandering, election year imperial pronunciamento, the Biden administration declared that drugs which were developed with government funding and determined to be too expensive when finally available to the public, would have their patents seized by the feds if they did not reduce those prices to levels “reasonable” to the federal government. Once the patent was taken by the government, it would be shared with other drug manufacturers so that those companies could use that formula (and research) to manufacture that drug for sale at prices the government felt were acceptable.

In other words, manufacture a product the government had just handed them the keys to for free, lock, stock, and barrel, without any of the investment that came with developing said wonder drug.

Like progressive Christmas, or something. POTATUS tells the developer of a blockbuster, “You didn’t build that,” takes it away, and lets everyone else have it.

I love the “promote more pharmaceutical competition.” Like what ‘competition’? Men in ladies’ swim meets or cycling contests ‘competition’? That’s about what it boils down to when you take all the work, research, and drug trials that go into a valid patent FDA approved patent, and hand it to someone else to profit from. It’s like dropping a 6’3″ guy who still has his naughty bits in the pool with Riley Gaines and telling her she had her chance – now she should be reasonable, or else.

I mean, HOLY CRAP, COMMODUS

Well, what about this is legal, less mind constitutional? I’m absolutely positive someone will want to get that clarified.

Biden Drug Patent Seizures Would Test Scope of Government Power

…The administration on Thursday floated a framework on how it could take over some drug patents if their prices are determined to be too high. It’s the first time the US government has looked to use so-called “march-in rights” for patents on drugs developed with federal funding to license them to other manufacturers, administration officials said.

If a plan is finalized, an all-but-certain legal challenge to the administration’s exercise of march-in rights would force courts to weigh in on a long-running debate among lawmakers and scholars about whether the rights can be used to influence prices.

…The fact that march-in rights for drug patents have “never been tested in court and the boundaries haven’t been defined makes it more challenging for the first attempt,” Feldman said.

…Established under 1980’s Bayh Dole Act, march-in authority can be triggered when a taxpayer-funded product isn’t available to the public on “reasonable terms.”

Biden administration officials told reporters Wednesday that price can be considered in exercising the right. Pharmaceutical prices have never been a target of that authority, and opponents say the law can’t be used for that purpose.

…“Under the Bayh Dole Act, march-in was never supposed to be exercised for price controls. And the original drafters, Senators Bayh and Dole, have rejected that concept publicly,” Iancu said. “It’s a novel, incorrect interpretation. And, if implemented, I’m sure it’ll be challenged in court.”

Besides the obvious legal questions and mind-blowing arrogance of the move, it lends itself to asking – as Steve Forbes does in the video I included above – what happens to research, development, and innovation if these kleptocrats get away with this? What company in their right mind would spend years developing a drug to treat a rare disease or condition, even with government grants, if there’s even a shadow of doubt that it could all be snatched away at bureaucratic whim? Where is the protection of intellectual property and the expectation of being about to recoup losses in developing some of these miracle drugs?

…The new proposed framework is currently up for public comment, where stakeholders are expected to outline their reasons for and against it. Beyond that, Knievel said he anticipates “a robust lobbying effort” from the drug industry to counter the Biden administration’s plan.

The move “would be yet another loss for American patients who rely on public-private sector collaboration to advance new treatments and cures,” PhRMA, an association representing drugmakers, said in a statement Wednesday.

“The administration is sending us back to a time when government research sat on a shelf, not benefiting anyone,” PhRMA spokesperson Megan Van Etten said in the statement.

The US Chamber of Commerce “will use every tool at our disposal to stop the administration from destroying America’s ability to discover the next breakthrough treatment or cure,” the organization said in a statement.

Hell, yeah, they’re expensive, but at least they’re there. I know many of the drug companies themselves have been making many of their medications available or more affordable for more patients.

But they have to be available or they save no one.

BEEGE UPDATE: Let me just add a couple things for folks who are under the impression that the government literally “funds” as in “pays for all” of this R&D.

No. They don’t. They’re like a stakeholder – some stakes are bigger than others, but companies big or small bear the burden – and the risk – of bringing a drug to market.

Do pharmaceutical companies unfairly bilk American patients when they charge exorbitant prices for drugs developed based on publicly funded research? In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in January, 2019, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York argued that “the public is acting as early investor, putting tons of money into the development of drugs that then become privatized, and then they receive no return on the investment that they have made” (see video recording from Twitter).

Embedded in this “pay twice” argument are three key questions. First, to what extent is public funding responsible for the invention of most new drugs? Second, are U.S. taxpayers inadequately rewarded for their contribution to new drug development? And third, how are these claims salient to the national debate over drug prices?

In this piece, we summarize the available evidence regarding each of these questions as follows: First, although public funds support a significant amount of important biomedical research, the vast majority of the credit for translating this research into new therapies is due to private companies. Second, the contention that taxpayers receive “no return” on their research investment is incorrect, as it fails to account for the massive health and wealth benefits that Americans receive from new drugs. And finally, the pay twice claim distracts attention from far more impactful and feasible efforts to balance innovation and access across the entire pharmaceutical sector.

As well, thanks to stalworth sleuth Watt in the comments, this action is targeted at non-profits and the smaller drug manufacturers. You’re not hurting Eli Lily or Pfizer. The “March in Rights” section of the bill under which they’re supposedly taking this action says:

(a)With respect to any subject invention in which a small business firm or nonprofit organization has acquired title under this chapter, the Federal agency under whose funding agreement the subject invention was made shall have the right, in accordance with such procedures as are provided in regulations promulgated hereunder to require the contractor, an assignee or exclusive licensee of a subject invention to grant a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license in any field of use to a responsible applicant or applicants, upon terms that are reasonable under the circumstances, and if the contractor, assignee, or exclusive licensee refuses such request, to grant such a license itself, if the Federal agency determines that such—

Seems pretty clear cut, and should terrify anyone who has a loved one, family member, friend or whoever who has an aggressive disease, obscure cancer or rare condition, genetic or otherwise that has no cure yet.

There won’t be, because this will kill R&D.