Most economists would argue that we would not have nearly as much innovation in medicine without a profit motive. Do you think those economists are wrong?
I mean it's not like it's some thought experiment, you can look at the number of NMEs that offer significant clinical benefits over existing treatments before and after Bayh Dole.
Most economists? That feels like a claim in need of a citation, or revision.
Most economists aren’t medical doctors or pharmaceutical researchers.
How many of the most useful medical breakthroughs were government funded?
> Most economists? That feels like a claim in need of a citation
The usual best place for finding out what economists think is the IGM Economics Experts Panel[1]. I mention it because it's a great resource to be aware of, but they haven't addressed this question, though it's covered in textbooks. I checked the Mankiw textbook on Principles of Microeconomics[2], which if I'm not mistaken is the world's most popular one. In the introduction, it says that people tend to supply things when the returns are high:
"Incentives are crucial to analyzing how markets work. For example, when the price of an apple rises, people decide to eat fewer apples. At the same time, apple orchards decide to hire more workers and harvest more apples. In other words, a higher price in a market provides an incentive for buyers to consume less and an incentive for sellers to produce more. As we will see, the influence of prices on the behavior of consumers and producers is crucial for how a market economy allocates scarce resources."
That becomes a background assumption for discussion of incentives in the rest of the book. For example, when talking about externalities, it notes that the patent system increases the incentive to innovate:
"Research into new technologies provides a positive externality because it creates knowledge that other people can use. Because inventors cannot capture the full benefits of their inventions, they tend to devote too few resources to research. The federal government addresses this problem partially through the patent system, which gives inventors exclusive use of their inventions for a limited time."
I don't think relying on wonderful accidents is a practical way to go about medical innovation.
Works in other systems where there is no profit motive.
I'm not sure what would be a perfectly comprehensive metric for health innovations by country. Drug patents might be sort of close[1], but maybe Cuba doesn't apply for patents on principled grounds. For Cuba, it would be helpful to know the ratio of the USA using drugs or other innovations developed in Cuba versus American ones used in Cuba. I hear that drug development can cost billions of dollars[2] so I'd be surprised if Cuba could afford it, but maybe they've done it. Anyone know of any new drugs invented in Cuba?
[1] e.g. https://www.americanactionforum.org/weekly-checkup/new-drug-...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-n...
We're talking largely about private companies operating in a global market (esp. when dealing with wealthy countries). If a US buyer is willing to buy $1000 and a UK buyer says we're not paying more than $100, should the pharmaceutical company be banned from selling to the UK at that price? No one is forcing the pharmaceutical companies to sell to UK here. If they feel it's in their interest to accept the $100 then surely they should be free to do so.