There is a quietly menacing machine humming behind the white lab coats and glossy public health campaigns. It does not wear a stethoscope or develop vaccines out of humanitarian impulse. It sits comfortably in boardrooms, trade negotiation halls, and financial spreadsheets — and its name, though rarely spoken aloud, is the Health Industrial Complex.

Much like Eisenhower’s infamous “military-industrial complex”, this one operates in the shadowlands between public need and private greed. But instead of tanks and missiles, it peddles treatments and patents. Its battles are not fought on fields, but in courtrooms, WTO summits, and investor briefings. Its primary enemy? Affordable, equitable healthcare.

Let us dispense with illusions: Big Pharma did not become big by accident. It was sculpted — quite deliberately — by two monumental forces: the financialisation of the global economy and the harmonisation of intellectual property laws through the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. The result is a pharmaceutical sector less concerned with healing the sick and more focused on healing its quarterly earnings.

When the patient is the share price

First, let us examine the financialisation bit — a word economists like to throw around to sound clever when describing capitalism eating its own liver. In the pharmaceutical context, financialisation means that shareholder value now trumps actual drug development. It is not that new treatments are not welcome, it is just that they are a bit… inconvenient, really, when compared to the tidy certainty of stock buybacks, dividend payouts, and the thrill of a good merger.

Take Pfizer, for example. Between 2006 and 2015, the company spent a staggering $139 billion on share buybacks and dividends — more than it invested in R&D. One could argue it was less focused on curing cancer and more on curing a mild case of underperforming stock options.

Academic killjoys like William Lazonick have pointed out that this is not merely wasteful — it is systemically dangerous. Companies that once reinvested profits into research are now essentially financial instruments with a side-hustle in medicine. It is innovation on a shoestring, and the shoestring’s been sold off in a private equity deal.

Meanwhile, the public sector – that ever-generous enabler – continues to fund early-stage research, shouldering the risk while the private sector reaps the intellectual property and revenue. As Mariana Mazzucato so cheerfully points out in The Entrepreneurial State, this is socialism for the R&D budget and capitalism for the profits. Quite the racket, really.

Trade Rules for Intellectual Property Shenanigans (TRIPS)

Enter stage right: the TRIPS Agreement, the World Trade Organization’s not-so-subtle gift to multinational pharmaceutical giants. Officially known as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (a name only a Geneva bureaucrat could love), it standardised intellectual property laws across the globe. Translation: it forced countries to enforce 20-year patent monopolies on drugs, regardless of whether their populations could afford them or not.

Before TRIPS, countries like India allowed patents only on processes, not products, enabling generic manufacturers to reverse-engineer medications and sell them at affordable prices. TRIPS blew that system out of the water, standardising patent regimes in a way that locked out generics and locked in profits. Global health equity? How quaint.

The consequences were not theoretical. HIV medication costs in the 1990s were through the roof, unaffordable to entire continents — until India ignored TRIPS long enough to save millions of lives. Even then, the WTO was not pleased. The Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001 was a face-saving admission that, yes, countries could technically issue compulsory licenses to break patents in public health emergencies — but only if they jumped through enough flaming hoops to make it legally and diplomatically hellish.

The net result? A global legal regime that ensures pharmaceutical companies enjoy the same monopolistic protections in Nairobi as in New Jersey. It is a masterpiece of regulatory capture dressed up as “harmonisation.”

A tidy arrangement

What emerges from all this is not so much a conspiracy as a well-lubricated system of mutually reinforcing incentives. Corporations chase profit — as they are designed to. Governments, particularly those in the Global North, protect these interests under the guise of innovation policy and “investment incentives”. And international institutions — WTO, World Bank, and sometimes even the WHO — keep the machinery well-oiled.

Add to this a healthy dose of philanthrocapitalism — Gates Foundation, we are looking at you — and you have a public health architecture increasingly dominated by private actors. When billionaires fund vaccine distribution and hold patents on the technology, we are not witnessing charity — we are witnessing vertical integration.

Meanwhile, lobbyists in Washington and Brussels work overtime to delay generic competition, extend exclusivity periods, and prevent developing countries from exercising the few flexibilities TRIPS allows. In short, this is a sector that not only owns the medicine but writes the rules that govern its sale.

If you need a case study, look no further than the opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family turned addiction into a business model, lying about the addictiveness of OxyContin while lobbying aggressively to suppress regulation. It was not a bug in the system — it was the system working as designed.

Follow the money, not the microscope

So here we are: a global health regime ostensibly built on scientific progress, but in practice designed to maximise profit extraction from sickness. This is not to say that innovation does not happen — of course it does. But the direction, pricing, and availability of that innovation are shaped less by global health needs and more by what makes shareholders happy.

To borrow from Orwell: all patients are equal, but some markets are more equal than others.

So next time someone tells you the high cost of medication reflects the high cost of innovation, do ask who paid for the innovation. And where the profits went. And whether the real miracle drug was, all along, a robust legal framework for global rent-seeking.

More