For decades, drug companies have argued that patents are critical to bringing new drugs

to market.

Today, my colleague Rebecca Robbins, on a case that suggests they can also create perverse

incentives to hold new drugs back.

It's Thursday, September 7.

So Rebecca, you report on the pharmaceutical industry and you've been reporting on a case

involving a big name American drug company.

Tell me about that reporting.

Yeah, Sabrina.

So we all know that prices are really high for many drugs in the United States.

And in some respects, that is by design.

So the way the system works is we rely on for profit companies to spend a lot of money

to develop and bring to market new drugs.

And in return for spending that money for taking all those risks, they get to have a monopoly

the last few years.

And that allows them to sell their medications for lots of money and keep those prices high.

And there are actually laws and regulations that protect that monopoly.

And part of the rationale for this system is that the promise of these profits creates incentives

for the company to produce new and better drugs to help more people.

But recently, my colleague Cheryl Gastelberg and I came across a case that I think raises

serious questions about whether the system is always getting the best medications to patients

as quickly as possible.

...