In late June, generic drug maker Teva Pharmaceuticals launched a generic version of Victoza, a blockbuster diabetes drug, in the United States.
Victoza is one of the first GLP-1 drugs — the class of wildly popular diabetes and obesity treatments that includes Ozempic and Wegovy — to go off-patent.
Within just a couple of years, GLP-1 drugs have rewritten the rules of diabetes and obesity treatment, offering patients the kind of sustained weight loss and glycemic control that was once the stuff of infomercial fantasy.
With the first low-cost GLP-1 generics entering the market, we're about to change and save lives on an unprecedented scale.
But that's not good enough for some. Senator Bernie Sanders has led a charge against the price tags on brand-name versions of these medications, calling them "unacceptable." More dangerously, he's suggested that weakening drug patent protections is the solution.
It's a seductive narrative if you don't think carefully: Patents give inventors the exclusive right to sell their inventions for a set period of time. During that window, drug prices are generally higher as developers seek to recoup expenses and turn a profit. Weaken the patents, Sanders argues, and drug prices will fall.
But this argument ignores the fact that a drug's price will fall anyway, as patents expire and generic manufacturers race to enter the market and compete with each other. The fact is, without robust patent protections, we wouldn't have these life-changing drugs at all, let alone be on the cusp of cheap generic alternatives.
Bringing a single new drug to market costs billions of dollars in private investment, requires years of clinical trials, and takes no small amount of luck. For every successful medication, dozens of promising candidates flame out at enormous expense.
Patents provide a crucial incentive for companies to take on these risks. Yes, when companies successfully develop a drug, patents shield that medicine from generic competition for a limited time. But they also fuel the innovation that delivers ever-improving treatments and enables generics to enter the market on patent expiration.
We've seen this play out with GLP-1 drugs. The first generation required daily injections, a significant burden for patients. However, because of intellectual property protections, companies had both the resources and the motivation to keep researching and testing new versions. As a result, we now have GLP-1 drugs that require only weekly shots or can be taken orally — changes that improve quality of life and increase adherence to treatment plans.
Today it's Victoza. Within a few years, we could see multiple generic options for a number of different GLP-1 drugs. Today's cutting-edge treatments become tomorrow's generics, fueling a cycle of innovation that has consistently delivered medical breakthroughs at costs that decrease over time. Those who rail against our current model of drug development are advocating for a future with fewer breakthrough treatments.
The choice between innovation and affordability is a false one — because our current system, when allowed to work, delivers both.
David Kappos served as the undersecretary of Commerce for intellectual property and director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013. He currently serves as board co-chair of the Council for Innovation Promotion. This first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and SFChronicle.com.
