Big Pharma, Patents, and Profiting off Illness
Developing a new drug can cost a pharmaceutical company billions of dollars and take a decade of research. However, once the formula is perfected, producing the pill often costs pennies. Should corporations be allowed to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medicine to satisfy their shareholders, or does healthcare belong in the realm of basic human rights? In this unit, we explore the vocabulary of medical monopolies.
1. Because the company held the exclusive patent, they had a total on the life-saving treatment.
2. Activists argue that charging $1,000 for a pill that costs $2 to make is legalised .
3. Once the 20-year patent expires, other companies can finally produce cheap, versions of the drug.
4. During the health crisis, the government agreed to heavily the vaccine so that all citizens could get it for free.
5. It took scientists nearly ten years to isolate the compound and the artificial cure in the lab.
6. The rapid spread of the virus within the city was officially declared an by the health department.
When discussing the collision of immense wealth and human suffering, these idioms capture the cynicism of the debate.
Read about a notorious (and common) pricing scandal in the medical industry.
In 2015, a hedge fund manager bought the patent for a drug that was widely used to treat parasitic infections. The medication, which had been on the market for decades, previously cost only $13 a pill. Overnight, the new CEO raised the price to $750 a pill.
Because no generic alternatives were legally allowed to be sold, patients who relied on the drug to survive were effectively held hostage. The CEO defended the price hike, arguing that the profits, which lined the pockets of shareholders, would be used to fund future research.
The public was outraged, calling it pure extortion. For many desperate families, the realisation that Big Pharma could legally put a price on a life was a bitter pill to swallow. Governments were pressured to intervene and break the monopoly, sparking a massive debate over whether medical patents should be abolished during severe epidemics.
When reporting complex facts, you need to add details to your sentences. A Defining Clause gives essential information to identify *which* specific thing you mean. A Non-Defining Clause just adds "extra" bonus information to something we already identified.
| Type | Punctuation & Pronouns | Meaning & Example |
|---|---|---|
| Defining (Essential) |
NO COMMAS. Can use: who, which, that |
Identifies exactly which one. "The company that raised the prices was sued." (Only the specific company that did this.) |
| Non-Defining (Extra Info) |
USES COMMAS. Can use: who, which NEVER USE 'THAT' |
Adds bonus facts about a known subject. "PharmaCorp, which made billions last year, was sued." (We already know the company is PharmaCorp. The billions is just extra info.) |
Pro Tip: The most common mistake native speakers make in writing is using "that" after a comma. Never do it!
1. Defining (Essential): The specific medicine ____________ saves lives should never be restricted by patents.
2. Non-Defining (Extra Info with commas): The new vaccine, ____________ was developed incredibly fast, proved to be highly effective.
Type the missing words to complete these conversational idioms.
1. The CEO doesn't care about patients; he is only interested in lining his own .
2. Realising that the government would not subsidize the treatment was a very bitter to swallow.
Don't just nod your head in conversations. Master the advanced phrasing to eloquently defend your opinions in high-level debates.
Come and join me for a bespoke English lesson at nativeuk.com designed specifically to build your conversational confidence.
Book a Private SessionWant to speak clearly about politics, tech, and the modern world? We've got the secret vocabulary you won't find in textbooks.
Check out our Good to Know section and dive into our Blog. You’ll be leading conversations like a native speaker in no time.
Explore Free Resources