Analysis of the Factors Influencing Enterprise and Government Participation in the Medicines Patent Pool Based on System Dynamics Model

  • Jinjing ZENG 1. School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China 2-Library, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China
  • Wende ZHANG School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China
  • Qingming TANG Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Keywords: Medicines patent, Patent pool, Medicine accessibility, System dynamics, Intellectual property

Abstract

Abstract Background: The participation of enterprises and governments in the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) improves the disease management levels by enhancing the accessibility of medical resources. Non-participation of the stakeholders restricts the development of the MPP. Hence, systematic analysis of the key factors influencing MPP participation is necessary. Methods: A system dynamics model of the market before and after enterprises and governments join the MPP was constructed by considering the economic benefits of both stakeholders. The effects of generic drug prices, royalty rates, pooling subsidies, and enterprise scale on the relevant benefit difference were analyzed. Data from the China Medical and Economic Network for the period 2003-2016, as well as the 2017 annual report of Celgene Corporation, were used as test data. Results: The proper pooling subsidy coefficient ranges between 0.05 and 0.08 when the generic drug price ratio and royalty rate are lower than 36% and 34%, respectively. These factors could enhance the willingness of both stakeholders to join the MPP. Initial R&D investments and the relative drug patent intensity of enterprises respectively exert positive and negative impacts on their willingness to join the MPP. Conclusion: To encourage stakeholders to join the MPP, generic drug prices should be lowered, license fees and subsidies should be adjusted appropriately, and the R&D scale and strength of original drug enterprises should be taken into account. The research results provide a reference for formulating the rules of MPP and other policies aiming to facilitate the sharing and innovation of medical resources.    

References

1. Pascual F (2014). Intellectual property rights, market competition and access to affordable antiretrovi-rals. Antivir Ther, 19 (S3): 57-67.
2. Mara K (2012). The medicines patent pool: improv-ing access to ARVs and stimulating innovation for new medicines. Afr Health, 34 (2): 20-3.
3. Cox KL (2012). The medicines patent pool: promot-ing access and innovation for life-saving medi-cines through voluntary licenses. Hast Sci Technol Law J, 4 (2): 293-326.
4. Subramanian B (2016). GSK announces decision to license anti-cancer patents to Medicines Patent Pool. National Academy of Legal Studies and Re-search, India. https://spicyip.com/2016/03/17860.html
5. Hill A, Redd C, Gotham D, et al (2017). Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis. BMJ Open, 7 (1): e011965.
6. Eisenberg AR. Understanding Patent Pools for Global Health: Assessing Their Value in Promot-ing Access to Essential Medicines [PhD thesis]. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, USA; 2014.
7. Massone A, Llull D (2017). Analysis of the effect of a psychological intervention program group on quality of life of oncology patients. Rev Arg Clin Psic, 26 (2): 202-09.
8. Dionisio D (2011). A Balanced Trade Context for HIV Patent Pool. Trans Biom, 2 (1): 1-8.
9. Balasubramaniyan A (2017). The Resurgence of Pa-tent Pools in Today's Market place. Lic J, 37 (2): 4-5.
10. Bermudez J, Hoen E (2010). The UNITAID Patent Pool Initiative: Bringing Patents Together for the Common Good. Open AIDS J, 4 (1): 37-40.
11. Townsend B, Gleeson D, Lopert R (2016). The Re-gional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Intellectual Property Protection, and Access to Medicines. Asia Pac J Public Health, 28 (8): 682-93.
12. Perez-Molina AI, Gisbert-Soler V, Diaz-Garcia P (2017). Application of the regression analysis for studying Spanish producers SMEs get binding motivated reports about projects R&D&I. DYNA, 92 (3): 258-64.
13. OECD (2013). Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance International Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation. OECD Publishing, the France. Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Meeting-Global-Challenges-through-Better-Governance.pdf
14. Yap YY, Wong CP, Kah SL (2017). Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Its Impact on Acces-sibility and Affordability of Medicines: A Meta-Synthesis. Ther Inn Reg Sci, 51 (4): 446-59.
15. Sukkar E (2009). Patent Pools: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. BMJ, 338:b1630.
16. Skipper N, Vejlin R (2015). Determinants of generic vs. brand drug choice: evidence from population-wide Danish data. Soc Sci Med, 130 (35): 204-15.
17. Organization WH, Organization WIP, Organization WT (2012). Promoting access to medical technologies and in-novation: intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade. 1st ed. Geneva, Switzerland, pp.: 109-110.
18. Hytönen H, Jarimo T, Salo A (2012). Markets for standardized technologies: Patent licensing with principle of proportionality. Technovation, 32 (9): 523-35.
19. Yue XP (2017). Behavior of inter-enterprises patent portfolio for different market structure. Technol For Soc Chang, 120 (1): 24-31.
20. Layne-Farrar A, Lerner J (2011). To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules. Int J Ind Org, 29 (2): 294-303.
21. Miguel PZ (2015). Legal and policy foundations for global generic competition: Promoting affordable drug pricing in developing societies. Glob Publ Health, 10 (8): 901-25.
22. Juneja S, Gupta A, Moon S, Resch S (2017). Projected savings through public health voluntary licences of HIV drugs negotiated by the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). PloS One, 12 (5): e0177770.
23. Costa LS, Metten A, Delgado IJG (2016). Production Development Partnership in Healthcare: Public procurement within the Brazilian development agenda. Saúd Deb, 40 (111): 279-91.
24. Hoen E (2016). Private Patents and Public Health, Changing Intellectual Property Rules for Access to Medicines. 1st ed. Health Action International, Netherlands, pp.: 128-31.
25. Carausu EM, Paris S, Burlea LS (2017). The Crisis Impact on the Romanian Health System and Population Health. Rev Cerc Int Soc, 57: 120-37.
26. Paich M, Peck C, Valant J (2011). Pharmaceutical market dynamics and strategic planning: a system dynamics perspective. Syst Dyn Rev, 27 (1): 47-63.
27. Bam L, Mclaren ZM, Coetzee E (2017). Reducing stock-outs of essential tuberculosis medicines: a system dynamics modelling approach to supply chain management. Health Policy Plan, 32 (1): 1127-134.
28. Chang T (2014). Interview to the Director of Zhang Yizhuo on Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. China Network Television, China.
29. Beall RF, Attaran A (2016). Which patent and where? Why international patent transparency by compa-nies is needed for medicines. Nat Biotechnol, 34 (9): 923-26.
30. Garefalakis A, Mantalis G, Vourgourakis E (2016). Healthcare firms and the ERP systems. J Eng Sci Technol Rev, 9 (1): 139-44.
Published
2018-10-06
How to Cite
1.
ZENG J, ZHANG W, TANG Q. Analysis of the Factors Influencing Enterprise and Government Participation in the Medicines Patent Pool Based on System Dynamics Model. IJPH. 47(10):1493-50.
Section
Original Article(s)