“Just Rules for Innovative Pharmaceuticals,” Philosophies, Vol. 7, No. 4, 79, published online 12 July 2022.
“Pharma Can Shine Even More,” authored with Aidan Hollis, G20 Digest, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 2021), 17–26.
“Zika virus and the need for pharmaceutical preparedness,” authored with Abraar Karan, THE LANCET Global Health Blog, 26th May 2017.
“Improving the Incentives of the FDA Voucher Program for Neglected Tropical Diseases,” authored with Cameron Graham Arnold, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, XXI/II (Spring/Summer 2015), 223–234.
“The Health Impact Fund” in Julio Frenk and Steven Hoffman, eds.: “To Save Humanity”: What Matters Most for a Healthy Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015), 277–279.
“Developing drugs as if children mattered,” authored with Narmeen Haider and Zain Rizvi, UNICEF The State of the World’s Children 2015: Reimagine the future.
“The Health Impact Fund: How Might It Work for Novel Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation?,” authored with Amitava Banerjee, in Global Heart Volume 9, Issue 2 (June 2014), Pages 255–261.
“Ethical and Economic Perspectives on Global Health Interventions,” authored with Sonia Bhalotra, in Garrett W. Brown, Gavin Yamey, and Sarah Wamala, eds.: The Handbook of Global Health Policy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell 2014), 209–227.
“Beyond Benefit Sharing: Steps Towards Realizing the Human Right to Health,” authored with Aidan Hollis and Doris Schroeder, in Doris Schroeder and Julie Cook Lucas, eds.: Benefit Sharing: From Biodiversity to Human Genetics (Dordrecht: Springer 2013), 203–216.
“The Health Impact Fund: Enhancing Justice and Efficiency in Global Health,” (the 2011 Mahbub ul Haq Memorial Lecture of the Human Development and Capability Association) in Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13/4 (November 2012), 537–559 (published online July 16, 2012); reprinted as “The Health Impact Fund: Aligning Incentives” in Jeroen van den Hoven, Seumas Miller and Thomas Pogge, eds.: Designing in Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017), 95–118; and in Abraar Karan and Geeta Sodhi, eds.: Protecting the Health of the Poor: Social Movements in the South (London: ZED Books 2015), 249–276. Comment on the lecture by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Proochista Ariana “Health Impact Fund – Raising Issues Of Distribution, IP Rights And Alliances” in Intellectual Property Watch, September 26, 2011; “A Response From The Authors Of The Health Impact Fund” in Intellectual Property Watch, October 3, 2011.
“Results Based Financing: The ‘Health Impact Fund’ as an example for smart pro-poor innovations,” in Meinungsforum Entwicklungspolitik, No 1, 16 January 2012. German
“The Health Impact Fund: More justice and efficiency in global health” in Development Policy Centre discussion paper (pdf) August 2011, Crawford School of Economics & Government, Australian National University.
“Getting the Incentives Right: The Health Impact Fund – A Concrete Contribution to Global Justice and an Innovation in Global Health,” in International Policy Analysis (Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung | Global Policy and Development 2011). German
“Combating Antibiotic Resistance Through the Health Impact Fund,” authored with Kevin Outterson and Aidan Hollis, in Boston University School of Law, Law & Economics Research Paper No. 11-30, June 21, 2011; and in I. Glenn Cohen ed.: The Globalization of Health Care: Legal and Ethical Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013), 318–338.
“The Health Impact Fund: How to Make New Medicines Accessible to All” in Solomon Benatar and Gillian Brock, eds.: Global Health and Global Health Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011), 241–250; updated version in Solomon Benatar and Gillian Brock, eds.: Global Health and Ethical Challenges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2021), 394–405. Spanish Korean
“Access to Life-Saving Medicines,” authored with Doris Schroeder and Peter Singer, in Michael Boylan, ed.: The Morality and Global Justice Reader (Boulder: Westview Press 2011), 229–255.
“New approaches to rewarding pharmaceutical innovation,” authored with Paul Grootendorst, Aidan Hollis, David K. Levine and Aled M. Edwards, in Canadian Medical Association Journal 183 (2011), 681–85.
“Epilogue — New Drugs for Neglected Diseases,” authored with Aidan Hollis, in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20/2 (Spring 2011), 329–334.
“P1-9 The health impact fund-meeting the challenge of health impact assessment,” authored with Amitava Banerjee and Aidan Hollis, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, August 2011 Vol 65 Suppl 1, A69-A70.
“New drug development,” authored with Steven J Hoffman and Aidan Hollis, in the Lancet, Volume 377, No. 9769, p901–902, 12 March 2011.
“Revitalizing Pharmaceutical Innovation For Global Health,” authored with Steven J. Hoffman, Health Affairs, 30/2 (February 2011), 367.
“The Health Impact Fund: enduring innovation incentives for cost-effective health gains” in Social Europe Journal 5/2 (Winter/Spring 2011), 5–9.
“Product-Development Partnerships and the Health Impact Fund,” authored with Aidan Hollis, IGH Discussion Paper No. 9, December 4, 2010.
“TRIPS, Human Rights, and the Health Impact Fund” in Yonsei Law Journal 1/2 (2010), 286–312.
“How Not to Exclude the Poor from Advanced Medicines: a plea for the Health Impact Fund,” authored with Meena Krishnamurthy, in Rights and Development Bulletin 1/18 (2010), 5–13.
“The Health Impact Fund: a potential solution to inequity in global drug access,” authored with Amitava Banerjee, in Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 7/4 (2010), 240–243.
“A Critique in Need of Critique,” authored with Matt Peterson and Aidan Hollis, in Public Health Ethics 3/2 (2010), 178–185.
“Foreword” in Rebecca Shah, ed.: The International Migration of Health Workers: Ethics, Rights and Justice (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan 2010), x–xi.
“The Health Impact Fund: incentives for improving access to medicines,” authored with Amitava Banerjee and Aidan Hollis, in the Lancet 375 (2010), 166–169; reprinted in Ronald Labonte, Katia Mohindra, Ted Schrecker and Kirsten Stoebenau: Global Health, volume 4 Global Health Ethics, Public Policy and Challenges for the Future (London: Sage 2011).
“Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research: Must They Exclude the Poor from Advanced Medicines?” in Roland Pierik and Wouter Werner, eds.: Cosmopolitanism in Context: Perspectives from International Law and Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010), 106–126.
“The Health Impact Fund: Better Pharmaceutical Innovations at Much Lower Prices” in Thomas Pogge, Matt Rimmer, and Kim Rubenstein, eds.: Incentives for Global Public Health: Patent Law and Access to Essential Medicines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010), 135–154. Spanish
“The Health Impact Fund and Its Justification by Appeal to Human Rights” in Human Rights: Normative Requirements and Institutional Constraints, special issue edited by Andreas Follesdal, Thomas Pogge, and Carol C. Gould of Journal of Social Philosophy 40/4 (2009), 542–569. German Chinese Portuguese
Abstract: Strong patent protections violate human rights when they foreseeably and avoidably lead to high prices that put important new medicines beyond the reach of many poor patients. To become human rights compliant, our recently globalized patent regime must be complemented by an enduring institutional mechanism that effectively incentivizes the development and distribution of high-impact medicines that meet the health needs of poor people and are accessible to them. The Health Impact Fund (HIF) is designed to be such a complement. Three popular counter-arguments — claiming that no such complement is needed because high prices for vital patented medicines, backed by the legal suppression of cheaper generic substitutes, do no injustice to poor people — can be decisively refuted.
“Der Health Impact Fund – Wie Pharmaforschung wirklich allen zugute kommen kann” in Gerechte Gesundheit: Das Portal zur Verteilungsdebatte, September 2009.
Abstract: The existing patent regime provides incentives for the development and distribution of new medicines; but it also leaves gaps, especially in poor regions. The Health Impact Fund (HIF) is a mechanism intended to fill these gaps and to improve access to new medicines worldwide. Funded mainly by governments, the HIF provides incentives to develop new medicines and to distribute them with the aim of reducing the global disease burden in an effective way. This essay introduces the idea (section 1), discusses its implementation, funding, and economic viability (section 2), and explains its advantages for firms as well as the benefits for the health and welfare of affluent and poor countries (section 3). The final section outlines a moral justification of the HIF (section 4).
“Health Care Reform that Works for the U.S. and for the World’s Poor” in Global Health Governance 2/2 (2009), special issue, guest edited by Devi Sridhar and Larry Gostin.
“Why We Need A New Approach to Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Pragmatic Answer to a Moral Question,” authored with Doris Schroeder, in Marleen Wynants, ed.: In Sickness and in Health: The Future of Medicine: Added Value and Global Access (Brussels: Crosstalks 2009), 197–211.
“The Health Impact Fund: Boosting Pharmaceutical Innovation Without Obstructing Free Access” in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18/1 (Winter 2009), 78–86.
“Testing Our Drugs on the Poor Abroad” in Jennifer S. Hawkins and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, eds.: Exploitation and Developing Countries: The Ethics of Clinical Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2008), 105–141. Spanish
“Access to Medicines,” introduction to Access to Medicines, special issue edited by Thomas Pogge of Public Health Ethics, 1/2 (2008), 73–82.
“Pharmaceutical Innovation: Must We Exclude the Poor?” in Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms, second, expanded edition (Cambridge: Polity Press 2008). Spanish German
“Medicines for the World: Boosting Innovation without Obstructing Free Access” in Sur: International Journal of Human Rights 8 (2008), English edition, 116–141; reprinted with revisions in Absolute Poverty and Global Justice as chapter 15, and in Health Rights as chapter 20. Portuguese Spanish
“Moral Constraints on Permissible Genetic Design” in Veikko Launis and Juha Räikkä, eds.: Genetic Democracy (Dordrecht: Springer 2008), 133–146.
“Montréal Statement on the Human Right to Essential Medicines” in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16/1 (2007), 97–108.
“Sharing the benefits of medical innovation: Ensuring fair access to essential medicines,” authored with Mira Johri, Stephen P. Marks, James J. Orbinski, and Daniel Wikler, University of Southern California, USC Gould School of Law: Runner-up of the 2006 Mark S. Ehrenreich Prize in Healthcare Ethics Research.
“Just Rules for Incentivizing Pharmaceutical Research,” speech at the Normative and Empirical Evaluation of Global Governance Conference, The Center for Globalization & Governance, Princeton University, February 2006; reprinted in Manoj Kumar Pattanaik, ed.: Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press 2008), 187–195.
“Harnessing the Power of Pharmaceutical Innovation” in Jillian Claire Cohen, Patricia Illingworth, and Udo Schuklenk, eds.: The Power of Pills: Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues in Drug Development, Marketing, and Pricing (London: Pluto Press 2006), 142–149.
“Human Rights and Global Health: A Research Program” in Metaphilosophy 36/1–2 (2005), 182–209, and in Christian Barry and Thomas Pogge, eds.: Global Institutions and Responsibilities: Achieving Global Justice (Oxford: Blackwell 2005), 190–217; reprinted in Michael J. Selgelid, Margaret P. Battin and Charles B. Smith, eds.: Ethics and Infectious Disease (Oxford: Blackwell 2006), 285–314.
Abstract: One-third of all human lives end in early death from poverty-related causes. Most of these premature deaths are avoidable through global institutional reforms that would eradicate extreme poverty. Many are also avoidable through global health system reform that would make medical knowledge freely available as a global public good. The rules should be redesigned so that the development of any new essential drug is rewarded in proportion to its impact on the global disease burden (not through monopoly rents). This reform would bring down drug prices worldwide close to their marginal cost of production and would powerfully stimulate pharmaceutical research into currently neglected diseases concentrated among the poor. Its feasibility shows that the existing medical-patent regime (TRIPS as supplemented by bilateral agreements) is severely unjust — and its imposition a human rights violation on account of the avoidable mortality and morbidity it foreseeably produces.
“Relational Conceptions of Justice: Responsibilities for Health Outcomes” in Veritas 46/1 (March 2001), 51–75, and in Sudhir Anand, Fabienne Peter, and Amartya Sen, eds.: Public Health, Ethics, and Equity (Oxford: Clarendon Press 2004), 135–161; excerpted as “Responsibilities for Poverty-Related Ill Health” in Ethics and International Affairs 16/2 (2002), 71–79; reprinted in Richard Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper, and John McMillan, eds.: Principles of Health Care Ethics, 2nd edition (Chichester: Wiley and Sons 2007), 27–33; and in Tom L. Beauchamp, LeRoy Walters, Jeffrey P. Kahn, and Anna C. Mastroianni, eds.: Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, seventh edition (Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing 2007), 575–581; further abbreviated as “Responsibilities for Poverty-Related Illness” in Bonnie Steinbock, John Arras and Alex London, eds.: Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 7th edition (Columbus OH: McGraw Hill 2008). Chinese
Abstract: In a democratic society, the social rules are imposed by all upon each. As “recipients” of the rules, we tend to think that they should be designed to generate the best attainable distribution of goods and ills or quality of life. As imposers of the rules, we tend to think that harms we inflict through the rules have greater moral weight than like harms our rules merely fail to prevent or to mitigate. While current (consequentialist and Rawlsian) theorizing reflects the first perspective alone, an adequate account of justice requires a balancing of both. The health equity theme is well suited for showing how purely recipient-oriented conceptions of justice fail and for outlining a more promising alternative.