To the people of the United States
These times are times of change for the people of the United States. Big decisions about healthcare loom. The good news is that there is a way to strike a balance, if the international standard is renegotiated taking into account US interests, through the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal. The idea of establishing some sort of cap on medicine prices has been thrown around by both the Democrats and Republicans for some time now. This, although probably a coherent idea, will complicate things for the world´s pharmaceutical industry (US and foreign traded companies alike), which reap most of their well-deserved revenues of selling their innovations in the US market (where there are no caps on prices for drugs). Innovation is the pride of the US and it protects it generously, unlike some in the rest of the world, particularly developing countries. The TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal is the way to strike a balance between the developing world and the United States (this should come with the end of free riders who do not properly pay for innovation – to varying degrees -, and yet use it).
The promises of a better system for the US and developing countries alike, should come from addressing the issue at the World Trade Organization head-on. It is worth mentioning that even in the US there is a tendency towards reducing the level of protection for innovation. The US has traditionally carried more of the weight of properly protecting innovation. Now that the world has seen the rise of other super-wealthy countries (see chart), they have to properly comply as well.
The undermining attitude of international IP rules as they relate to developing countries probably comes from the unfairness of the current global system, which could be remedied with this same measure: the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal. If the Global South is properly held to the standard (with better means available at the WTO for consequences for infringements within countries, even for lack of actual in situ compliance), and if Europe and other high income per capita countries contribute by carrying their fair share of the burden of incentivizing innovation (longer periods to compensate for an eventual cap that must be imposed on prices in the US market), pharma could be willing to accept a cap on medicine prices in the US. US citizens could finally be on board since access to health innovation would be made cheaper for them due to the caps on prices.
The TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal could accomplish the balance needed for the US to be on board with generating a solution for innovative industries, the pride and joy of the US, taking into account the interest of the American people too. Europe should tune-up their system to a degree, although it is pretty effective too. The developing world has to start really complying with the system and embrace harmonization of the rules, to make it easier for innovators to access the global reward.
The reward to innovators comes from reaping the benefits of a monopolistic price from the global market. To have more years of protection for patents in the US (albeit with a cap) as well as in other developed countries, is going to mean more or equal reward overall for innovators (it should be done in a way that aims for a similar outcome to now). The US must find a system in which it can put limits on prices for medicines (in other developed countries bulk-price-negotiations are conducted by the government when they buy medicines for their public hospitals and public health sector in general, which could be difficult in a privately driven market as in the US).
NOTE: It is important to note that the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal does not advocate for strict proportionality when determining the number of years each country should reward innovation with. See the chart mentioned in this post. Some examples: From 2004 to 2013 the US would have given 23 and 24 years of exclusivity over its market to innovators, while the Euromarket 22 and 23 years. China´s contribution in this simulation, for instance, would have grown from 7 years of exclusivity over its market in 2004 to 13 years in 2013 (15 to 17 years now, and growing!). China is catching up and it is about time they strictly comply with the international standard as well. This would be convenient for them too, since they are now a central part of the game (with a lot of innovations to their name). It is interesting how a proper international management of the issue of innovation, allows for a proper policy within a given country. The US must lead in this discussion!