Effective Biomedical Public-Private Partnerships Are About Innovation, Not Lower Drug Prices

By David Beier and John Osborn

David Beier
5 min readJun 16, 2022

Health Affairs published this article on June 15, 2022

There is fascination of late with the prospect of exercising Bayh-Dole Act “march-in rights,” primarily as a means of reducing the price of expensive drugs that have been discovered or developed with federal funds. In recently published pieces in Health Affairs Forefront and elsewhere, some contend that the intended public health benefits of biomedical public-private partnerships will be realized only if the drug prices paid by consumers are reduced prior to patent expiry.

We believe that this rather narrow characterization is wrong. It ignores both the extraordinary impact on innovation that Bayh-Dole has spurred over the four decades since its passage and the price reductions that occur with the introduction of generic drugs following a period of market exclusivity.

Before addressing the controversy over march-in rights, it is important to recognize the inherent value of biomedical public-private partnerships. These collaborations often are the best way to make meaningful scientific and clinical progress in challenging areas such as treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. But they must be structured…

--

--

David Beier

Managing Director, Bay City Capital, San Francisco, CA. Previously Chief Domestic Policy to Vice President Al Gore. Senior corporate officer DNA and Amgen