🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

PUBPOL 201 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Compulsory License, Patent Office, Evergreening

34 views5 pages
salmonkoala862
3 Dec 2017
School
U of M
Department
Public Policy
Course
PUBPOL 201
Professor
Richard Hall

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Initially, drugs were left off the who"s essential medicines list if they were too expensive. It was a list of medicines saying they"re essential to people if you have these diseases . They initially left off drugs because they were too expensive. Hiv crisis made it so these expensive drugs are necessary to be on the list even if they"re expensive, going with the right to health movement. This is a turning point for this movement, which is just emerging at that stage, but now we have a list of drugs that say these are the kinds of drugs that require compulsory licensing, patent holder, etc . The hiv crisis changed the function of this policy framework. The weighing up test is a test used by european parliament to decide if they should give a patent to a gmo or animal. It weighs up the benefits versus costs for hurting the animal.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

PUBPOL 201 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Public Policy Doctrine, Patent Act Of 1836, Potential Space
lavendergoldfish366
PUBPOL 201 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: European Patent Law, Genetically Modified Organism, Patent Office
salmonkoala862
PUBPOL 201 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Bioprospecting, Civil Society
salmonkoala862

Related Questions

Poor may suffer as India caps drug prices

India this week announced a policy to cap the prices of essential drugs, including ones for HIV and cancer, to make medicines more affordable for the poor. But observers of the pharmaceutical industry suggest that parts of the legislation may actually have the opposite effect and a challenge has already been filed at the Supreme Court.

Tapan Ray, director-general of the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India in Mumbai, says that although the industry will face some immediate losses, the updated policy is prudent for India in the longer term. Patient advocates argue that holes in the law will allow nimble pharmaceutical companies to sidestep the price restriction. They warn that the new policy could actually increase the price of medicines favored by the poor.

In India, drugs with the same underlying formulations are sold at a range of prices. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, sells an antibiotic combination under the brand name Augmentin for US$4.85 per 6 tablets. Competitors sell the same formulation for $1.20. The price difference matters in a country where 69% of the population earns less than $2 a day. Under the updated policy, Augmentin will become cheaper. But if its price comes down to only a few tens of rupees more than its lesser-known equivalent, say, observers, people may opt to spend extra money for the recognizable brand. If this happens, other companies will lose the incentive to keep their prices lower than the price restriction.

The policy also specifies the exact dosage of the drug that will come under price control. So pharmaceutical companies may switch their marketing practices to promote sales of alternate dosages exempt from regulation, predicts Gulhati. This practice is not unusual: Indian doctors routinely prescribe patients tablets that need to be split up to deliver the right dose.

Patient advocates are wary of experience. Studies have shown that doctors who are given information about certain drugs by pharmaceutical representatives tend to prescribe those drugs more frequently, so the promotion of alternate versions of a drug may mean that the price-capped drug is no longer prescribed.

A study published this year found that the most popular medicines prescribed for fungal infections in 2010 were not on the price-cap list. Some price-controlled anti-fungal drugs had become unavailable in pharmacies as promotion of more expensive drugs led to a fall in demand for the cheaper option. In fact, only 6.5% of doctors polled even knew which medicines were controlled, suggesting that the price control had become largely irrelevant.

Is the new policy meant to control prices at all? This is all to mislead the people of India, says Gulhati.

Adapted from Nature.com (December 2012)

Answer the following questions:

a) Identify the type of restriction being proposed. Use the Extract to justify your choice. (5 marks)

b) Do you agree with the challenge filed in the Supreme Court? Use your knowledge of price restrictions to carefully advise the Government of India by examining the pros and cons of the policy. (15 marks)

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA*

Steven, a junior at Northeast State, just started working part-time at a local fast food restaurant chain. Although not his dream job, it paid for tuition and books, and the restaurant gave him the flexible schedule he needed for school. After a few months, Steven found he got along well with all of his coworkers, but it was apparent they did not respect the company or the management. The employees made fun of their bosses and treated the work area like a playground. In some respects, Steven thought it was a fun environment to work in, especially after hours when management was gone for the day. They played their music loudly, laughed, and talked with one another during the down times instead of cleaning up their work areas like they were supposed to. Despite the fact there were ethical policies telling employees how they were expected to act in the workplace, these policies never seemed to be enforced. One day, while working with his coworker Julie on the food assembly table, Steven saw Julie accidentally drop a meat patty on the floor. Without so much as a flinch, she bent down, picked up the patty, stuck it back on the bun, and wrapped it up. It happened so fast that Steven wasn’t even sure he had seen right—especially since Julie had done it so casually. Steven watched in dismay as another worker took the hamburger out to the customer. Over the next few weeks, Steven saw others, including the shift supervisor, do the same thing with burgers and other products. Once, an entire cheeseburger hit the greasy floor, was picked up, and was taken to the customer. This time the customer complained the burger tasted funny and sent it back. Steven noticed other unsanitary practices such as employees not washing their hands between handling meat and vegetables and not washing utensils between uses. Obviously, such practices were against company policies and, if reported, the supervisors in charge could get in trouble and the restaurant would face investigations from the health department. However, there was ample opportunity for things like this to occur. There was no one watching them, and the shift supervisor also engaged in these activities. Steven felt it was the company’s responsibility to hire good people, so they were to blame if these things happened. One day, Steven approached Julie and asked, “Why do so many people here serve food that has fallen on the floor to customers?” Julie thought about it briefly as though she had never considered it before and replied, “I guess it’s because it would take too much time to get another beef patty out of the freezer, cook it, and serve it to the customer. This is a fast food restaurant, after all, and I’m not interested in hearing customers complain about the time it takes for them to get their food. Besides, the restaurants with the fastest service get a bonus from corporate headquarters. Last year the supervisors rewarded us with some extra money for doing our jobs so quickly.” Steven was somewhat taken aback by the honest reply and asked, “Wouldn’t you be disgusted if you were served dirty food at a restaurant?” This time Julie’s response was quick. She said, “What I don’t know won’t hurt me.” She walked off. Several weeks went by and the same practices continued. Steven became more and more concerned about the consequences that could happen in an environment so laid back and unconcerned about safety and health. It seemed like the more time that passed, the worse everyone’s attitude became. One day, at the beginning of his shift, Steven noticed the walk-in freezer had been left open. As he went to shut the door, he discovered a smell of rotten meat. It almost made him vomit. “How could this happen?” he wondered. He threw away the rotten meat without asking anyone because he was afraid of what the answer might be. After Steven threw out the spoiled meat, he began to wonder how the culture of the restaurant got to the point of supporting such practices. He realized the seemingly minor unsanitary practices allowed major issues to arise that could possibly hurt someone. Steven felt he should say or do something, but to whom? He sat down and pondered what he should do.

QUESTIONS | EXERCISES

1. Describe the nature of the organizational culture in the restaurant. What kind of opportunities are there for unethical behavior to occur? Are there any opportunities for ethical behavior?

2. What are some of the incentives employees might have to engage in this type of behavior?

3. If the organizational culture of the restaurant does not change, what are some likely outcomes and consequences?

You have just completed your undergraduate degree, and one of your favorite courses was "Today's Entrepreneurs." In fact, you enjoyed it so much you have decided you want to "be your own boss." While you were in the program, your grandfather died and left you $300,000 to do with as you please. You are not an inventor, and you do not have a trade skill that you can market; however, you have decided that you would like to purchase at least one established franchise in the fast foods area, maybe two (if profitable). The problem is that you have never been one to stay with any project for too long, so you figure that your time frame is three years. After three years you will sell off your investment and go on to something else. You have narrowed your selection down to two choices; (1) Franchise L: Lisa's Soups, Salads, & Stuff and (2) Franchise S: Sam's Fabulous Fried Chicken. The net cash flows shown below include the price you would receive for selling the franchise in Year 3 and the forecast of how each franchise will do over the three-year period.

Franchise L's cash flows will start off slowly but will increase rather quickly as people become more health conscious, while Franchise S's cash flows will start off high but will trail off as other chicken competitors enter the marketplace and as people become more health conscious and avoid fried foods. Franchise L serves breakfast and lunch, while Franchise S serves only dinner, so it is possible for you to invest in both franchises. You see these franchises as perfect complements to one another: you could attract both the lunch and dinner crowds and the health conscious and not so health conscious crowds without the franchises' directly competing against one another. Here are the net cash flows (in thousands of dollars):

Expected

net cash flows

Year

Franchise S

Franchise L

0

($100)

($100)

1

70

10

2

50

60

3

20

80

Depreciation, salvage values, net working capital requirements, and tax effects are all included in these cash flows.

You also have made subjective risk assessments of each franchise, and concluded that both franchises have risk characteristics that require a return of 10 percent. You must now determine whether one or both of the projects should be accepted.

In order to do so please answer the following questions fully. Make sure to show a time line, the formula to be used, the steps taken to solve the problem (calculator or excel) and the final numerical answer when appropriate.

Questions:

Define the term net present value (NPV).

What is each franchise's NPV? Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

Based on your answer which franchise would you select? Why?

Would your answer be different if the projects are independent or mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

Would the NPVs change, and therefore your answer, if the cost of capital changed? Why or why not?

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – you may use a financial calculator or excel. (Worth 8 points)

What is the logic/idea behind the IRR method?

Calculate the IRR for each project. Make sure to show the formula, calculator or excel steps and final answer.

According to IRR, which franchise should be accepted if they are independent? Mutually exclusive? Why?

Would the franchises' IRRs change if the cost of capital changed? Why or why not?

Define the term modified IRR (MIRR).

Find the MIRRs for Franchise L and S. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

What are the MIRR's advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis the regular IRR? What are the MIRR's advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis the NPV?

What is the rationale for the payback method?

Calculate the payback period for each franchise. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

Calculate the discounted payback period for each franchise. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

According to the payback criterion, which franchise or franchises should be accepted if the firm's maximum acceptable payback is 2 years, and if Franchise L and S are independent? If they are mutually exclusive? Why?

What is the difference between the regular and discounted payback periods? Make sure to mention the advantage and disadvantage of each.

Based on the results obtained and everything that you have described above, which franchise would you ultimately choose if the projects are mutually exclusive? Explain in detail your decision and why you chose the model you did to make your final decision.