The problem is not the drugs, themselves, but rather what they are used to treat: short-term infections. Compare this to things like statins (cholesterol drugs), which are almost always used for the remaining lifespan of the patient. Then consider the primary affected populations. Poor populations (with poor sanitation, access to clean drinking water, and regular health care) that have little disposable income are going to be the major consumers of antibiotics. High cholesterol, on the other hand, is a disease of the affluent.
So I think the article is wrong that extended patent protection will lead to more antibiotic abuse. Pretty much any short-term market approach to antibiotics will lead either to their over-use for marginally reasonable purposes, or simply result in less investment overall (compare the number of new antibiotics to the number of new statins over the last 2 decades).
No, antibiotics (and bacterial countermeasures in general) seem to me to be more amenable to an insurance approach. Most people don't expect to die in a fire, but they do spend money on the possibility. Most people, similarly, don't expect to die from a bacterial infection. Today, that means they don't spend any money on the possibility. That needs to change.
The challenge, of course, is that when the shit hits the fan, good luck justifying not providing antibiotics to people who didn't pay their "premiums". So, really, you need something like car insurance, where everyone (and here I also mean every country) is required to buy in.
A step in the right direction, but the challenge gets even more interesting: usually, the way insurance remains profitable (or even possible) in a market economy is that those with the highest risk pay the largest premiums. Except, when it comes to antibiotics, those at greatest risk (third-world countries) are also those least able to pay their fair share, let alone a correspondingly larger portion.
So I think the article is wrong that extended patent protection will lead to more antibiotic abuse. Pretty much any short-term market approach to antibiotics will lead either to their over-use for marginally reasonable purposes, or simply result in less investment overall (compare the number of new antibiotics to the number of new statins over the last 2 decades).
No, antibiotics (and bacterial countermeasures in general) seem to me to be more amenable to an insurance approach. Most people don't expect to die in a fire, but they do spend money on the possibility. Most people, similarly, don't expect to die from a bacterial infection. Today, that means they don't spend any money on the possibility. That needs to change.
The challenge, of course, is that when the shit hits the fan, good luck justifying not providing antibiotics to people who didn't pay their "premiums". So, really, you need something like car insurance, where everyone (and here I also mean every country) is required to buy in.