Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty

This paper sets out to analyse three different academic proposals for addressing the needs of the poor in relation to new, rather than ‘essential’ medicines. It focuses particularly on (1) research and development (R&D) prize funds, (2) a health impact fund (HIF) system and (3) a multilateral tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Faunce, Thomas Alured, Nasu, Hitoshi
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2008
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19461854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phe/phn013
_version_ 1782161558110994432
author Faunce, Thomas Alured
Nasu, Hitoshi
author_facet Faunce, Thomas Alured
Nasu, Hitoshi
author_sort Faunce, Thomas Alured
collection PubMed
description This paper sets out to analyse three different academic proposals for addressing the needs of the poor in relation to new, rather than ‘essential’ medicines. It focuses particularly on (1) research and development (R&D) prize funds, (2) a health impact fund (HIF) system and (3) a multilateral treaty on health technology cost-effectiveness evaluation and competitive tender. It compares the extent to which each responds to the ‘market fundamentalist’ philosophy (that we maintain forms a loose theoretical background for the patent-driven approach to pharmaceutical R&D) and begins to analyse their respective strengths and weaknesses.
format Text
id pubmed-2592690
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25926902009-02-25 Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty Faunce, Thomas Alured Nasu, Hitoshi Public Health Ethics Original Article This paper sets out to analyse three different academic proposals for addressing the needs of the poor in relation to new, rather than ‘essential’ medicines. It focuses particularly on (1) research and development (R&D) prize funds, (2) a health impact fund (HIF) system and (3) a multilateral treaty on health technology cost-effectiveness evaluation and competitive tender. It compares the extent to which each responds to the ‘market fundamentalist’ philosophy (that we maintain forms a loose theoretical background for the patent-driven approach to pharmaceutical R&D) and begins to analyse their respective strengths and weaknesses. Oxford University Press 2008-07 2008-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2592690/ /pubmed/19461854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phe/phn013 Text en © 2008 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Faunce, Thomas Alured
Nasu, Hitoshi
Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title_full Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title_fullStr Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title_full_unstemmed Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title_short Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A Comparative Analysis of Prize Funds, Health Impact Funds and a Cost-Effectiveness/Competitive Tender Treaty
title_sort three proposals for rewarding novel health technologies benefiting people living in poverty. a comparative analysis of prize funds, health impact funds and a cost-effectiveness/competitive tender treaty
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19461854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phe/phn013
work_keys_str_mv AT fauncethomasalured threeproposalsforrewardingnovelhealthtechnologiesbenefitingpeoplelivinginpovertyacomparativeanalysisofprizefundshealthimpactfundsandacosteffectivenesscompetitivetendertreaty
AT nasuhitoshi threeproposalsforrewardingnovelhealthtechnologiesbenefitingpeoplelivinginpovertyacomparativeanalysisofprizefundshealthimpactfundsandacosteffectivenesscompetitivetendertreaty

Ejemplares similares