The link is contrived. Plan increases access, even if the technology itself might be unaffordable.
Josh Saul 24, J.D. Candidate, 2025, Fordham University School of Law, Ph.D., 2021, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.A., 2014, University of California, Berkeley, “Gene Patents: Striking the Right Balance between Incentive and Innovation,” Fordham Law Review, 92(6), pp. 2765-2804, 2024, JL
Proponents further contend that gene patents ultimately do serve the purpose of promoting access to healthcare.239 They argue that the lack of development of gene-based diagnostics and therapeutics actually deprives people of the ability to test and treat diseases because less research is going into developing those tests and treatments.240 Noting examples like the Lupus flare-up indicator or the Noonan syndrome diagnostic,241 proponents argue that Myriad has had the effect of killing development of these and other technologies that, had Myriad been decided differently, might be on the market today.242 Proponents further note that although patented gene technologies can lead to prohibitively high costs for some, as was the case with Myriad and BRCA testing, this issue is actually one of insurance coverage, not gene patentability.243 They suggest that issues over specific individuals being unable to afford tests or treatment because insurance will not cover it should not be grounds to deny the general public access to potentially lifesaving technologies.244