Prize System for Inventions

From edegan.com
Revision as of 16:31, 9 June 2016 by MarcelaInteriano (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Category:Internal =Problems & Considerations Surrounding the Prize System= There is lack of empirical evidence supporting the benefits of a prize system over a patent sys...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problems & Considerations Surrounding the Prize System

There is lack of empirical evidence supporting the benefits of a prize system over a patent system, but several factors may be considered if a prize system is to be implemented need to be (BU):

Valuation Problems What is the criteria for awarding a prize and how much prize money is each innovative drug worth? This is one of the biggest problems in establishing a prize system. Prize payments that are too low won’t provide enough incentive, while payments that are too high may incur resource duplication costs. The prize payment amount also has to be individually tailored to the benefit of the drug. People suggest the value of the payment be dependent on the ‘social value’ of a drug, but how is that social value determined? Will a distinction be made between medically necessary drug inventions and lifestyle improvement drugs (e.g. acne medication)? Additionally, private investors such as Bill and Melinda Gates are able to supply similar prize systems for pharmaceuticals discoveries, but the government may struggle to find adequate resources for funding.

Timing of Prize Payments The timing of the prize payment has to be timed well; if awarded too early other companies may not be incentivized to produce a drug that would’ve been higher quality than the drug that won the prize. After the prize is awarded, incentive to commercialize the drug is reduced since there is no patent system. One potential solution is to defer prize payment until there has been a certain degree of commercialization.

Administrative Problems The MIPF creates a board of trustees that has the responsibility of awarding prize payments. Though the board of 13 members is designed to be unbiased, it is unlikely that they will not be subject to political and external pressures, leading to a distorted allocation of resources. An appropriate screening mechanism to confirm the reported benefits of the invented drug has not been designed either and may be needed to preserve the safety of the consumer.