Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Three Proposals for Rewarding Novel Health Technologies Benefiting People Living in Poverty. A... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Public Health Ethics Oxford University Press

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

Public Health Ethics , Volume 1 (2) – Jul 3, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/three-proposals-for-rewarding-novel-health-technologies-benefiting-tmt21ehk6l

References (48)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org
Subject
Original Article
ISSN
1754-9973
eISSN
1754-9981
DOI
10.1093/phe/phn013
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Public Health EthicsOxford University Press

Published: Jul 3, 2008

There are no references for this article.