Actually he never mentioned patent support for drug research. However, his column did a good job of showing the waste and corruption that result from the monopoly rents created by patent monopolies.

In this case, the drug Avastin was determined to be ineffective as a treatment for breast cancer by the food and drug administration. Nonetheless, many insurers are likely to continue to pay for the $90,000 a year treatment. This is in part driven by the views of researchers who are on payrolls of the Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer.

This is exactly the sort of corruption that economic theory predicts when government monopolies allow companies to sell their products at prices that far exceed the free market level. It is likely that if Avastin were sold in a free market, the cost of a year’s treatment would only be a few hundred dollars a year. This would remove the incentive to mislead the public about its effectiveness.

This sort of outcome should lead to a debate over the best way to finance prescription drug research. Unfortunately most people in policy positions are hard-core protectionists, so this discussion almost occurs.