Publications

Some forms of monopoly power are not the products of corporate giants trying to eliminate competition, but are granted by the federal government to achieve a social good for society as a whole. That is the case with patents, under which the federal government grants to inventors an exclusive right to make and sell a product or process as a reward to induce and encourage their creative efforts.

Although people often can get free use of someone’s intellectual property, that doesn’t make it right—or legal. Does it really hurt anyone? Is intellectual property really all that important?

Groups such as Business for Affordable Medicine (BAM) wants to reform the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act in order to get access sooner to cheaper generic drugs. However, those efforts could weaken drug manufacturers’ patents. Interestingly, BAM members also have patents, and they defend those patents if another company tries to infringe them. In particular, GM complains that it has to spend money fighting the expansion of imitation parts — just like the drug manufacturers. Is the intellectual property of pharmaceutical companies less important than the intellectual property of member companies of Business for Affordable Medicine?

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) analyzes healthcare options in the individual marketplace in this Issues & Answers publication. 

General Motors and thousands of other companies do it, but many want to prohibit drug manufactures from advertising direct-to-consumer (DTC) because it increases costs. However, GM is the top advertiser in the country and its cars are still competitively priced. DTC advertising reaches out to people with medical conditions encouraging them to see their doctor, which leads to healthier and more informed patients.

From Congress Daily (4/5):
". . . a sharp critique of a bill offered by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., concerning corporate obligations to report stock options on tax returns. The bill is designed to make sure a company's earnings reports match tax deductions it claims to the IRS. But a paper written by analyst Alan Reynolds contends the bill would violate the principle that income should not be taxed twice. He explained that employee taxes are based on the actual earnings from stock options. Employers, on the other hand, would be forced to base deductions on the estimated value of stock options, years in advance. He challenged what he described as Levin's assertion that the costs of stock options never actually show up on a company's earnings report under current law."

Remember the old radio payola scam? Some states are doing the same thing with prescription drugs, telling drug manufacturers they must pay a "supplemental rebate" to get their drugs on the state’s Medicaid formulary. Supplemental rebates reduce the poor’s access to prescription drugs, hurting minorities most. Rebates are just one more way for politicians to extract money for government programs.

Advocates for tax reform must confront the current tax subsidy for employer-based health insurance, which distorts the market for private health insurance and penalizes those who do not obtain health insurance through an employer. The current scheme should be changed to a straightforward system of credits to empower individuals to make their own health care choices. This would eliminate the current discrimination and tear down this barrier to fundamental tax reform.

Tax reform should encourage investment in physical capital through expensing, and it should encourage investment in human capital through expensing as well. Tax reform will also remedy other areas of the tax code such as high marginal tax rates and progressive taxation that discourage people from acquiring extra skills and punish them as they deploy their talents and abilities—their human capital.