Cassier Maurice
Cermes3, 7 rue Guy Moquet, 94801 Villejuif Cedex, Paris, France.
Biosocieties. 2021;16(3):323-341. doi: 10.1057/s41292-020-00214-4. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
The idea of this paper is to draw a parallel between two diametrically opposed political economies of medicine that coexist today. The first is embodied in the invention, appropriation, and distribution of antivirals for hepatitis C, particularly sofosbuvir, which was commercialized at an initial price of $85,000 in the United States, €56,000 in France, and $8000 in Brazil. These prices destabilized payers in both the North and the South. The second economy encompasses the invention, industrialization and distribution of new therapeutic combinations for malaria that were commercialized by Sanofi from 2007 onwards at a price of $1 per treatment for public markets. This price was set by a contract negotiated with Médecins sans Frontières. In this paper, I examine the pricing of these 2 classes of drugs, and I argue that the prices synthesize these political economies: they summarize the policy of appropriation of these molecules, aimed at their monopolization or a model of common good; they are referred to economic value regimes designed to optimize the profitability of advanced capital or to increase the accessibility of drugs for public payers and patients; and they are justified or contested by moral economies.
本文的主旨是对当今并存的两种截然不同的医学政治经济学进行对比。第一种体现在丙型肝炎抗病毒药物的发明、专利获取及销售方面,尤其是索非布韦,其在美国的初始售价为8.5万美元,在法国为5.6万欧元,在巴西为8000美元。这些价格令南北两方的支付方都感到不安。第二种经济模式涵盖了疟疾新治疗组合的发明、产业化及销售,赛诺菲自2007年起将其推向公共市场,每次治疗收费1美元。这个价格是通过与无国界医生组织协商的合同确定的。在本文中,我研究了这两类药物的定价,并认为价格综合了这些政治经济学因素:它们总结了对这些药物分子的专利获取政策,旨在实现垄断或追求公益模式;它们参考了旨在优化先进资本盈利能力或提高公共支付方及患者药物可及性的经济价值体系;它们基于道德经济而得到正当性辩护或受到质疑。