Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

A Question of Values: Drug Patent Laws Must Have Public Health Exceptions

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted March 25, 2008.


Big Pharma is up in arms about developing countries importing less expensive generic versions of their drugs.
Advertisement

Some big pharmaceutical companies are up in arms about developing countries importing less expensive generic versions of drugs for which these companies hold a patent monopoly. But the procedure is perfectly legal, even under the World Trade Organization's pro-pharmaceutical-monopoly rules. The only question is whether these huge corporations - who used their political muscle in Washington to prevent our government from lowering the price of Medicare prescription drugs -- will intimidate other governments that are trying to provide essential medicines to their citizens.

Thailand became the latest target of this bullying last winter when it issued "compulsory licenses" for three drugs. Two were anti-AIDS drugs (efavirenz and lopinavir/ritonavir) and the third is used to treat patients with cardio-vascular disease (clopidogrel). A compulsory license allows for the production or import of a generic version of a patented drug, without the permission of the patent holder. It is completely legal, and in fact the United States has used compulsory licenses many times.

But the U.S. government has sided with the big pharmaceutical companies and put Thailand on a special "Priority Watch List," which could potentially lead to trade sanctions against Thailand. Actual sanctions are unlikely, but Washington and its pharmaceutical allies have made a serious threat. Now that pressure is reportedly being used to block similar licenses for three cancer drugs.

Thailand is a developing country of 65 million people, with income per person of about $10,000, or less than one-fourth that of the U.S. The government estimates that the use of generic efavirenz will enable it to provide this anti-AIDS medicine to an additional 20,000 people, as compared to using the pharmaceutical giant Merck's branded version (called Stocrin).

The vast majority of developing countries have not exercised their rights to compulsory licensing, because of the pressure from PhRMA (the U.S. trade association of the big branded pharmaceutical companies) and the many politicians that are under its influence. This is a tragedy. Former President Bill Clinton, speaking in support of the governments of Thailand and Brazil in issuing compulsory licenses, noted that "no company will live or die because of high price premiums for AIDS drugs in middle-income countries, but patients may."

The pharmaceutical companies argue that they need to protect their patents in order to fund the research and development that produces new drugs. This is partly true -- although the majority of pharmaceutical research goes to produce "copycat" versions of other drugs that already exist. These copycat drugs can generate big profits but don't necessarily provide any advantage over existing drugs. The system is so inefficient that Americans are currently paying about $150 billion dollars through monopoly pricing to the companies, in order to get about $25 billion worth of research - much of which is not especially helpful.

So big PhRMA is really making an argument for more comprehensive reform: if the economic and social costs of funding research through private monopolies is so high, maybe we should put more into public and non-profit research (which already accounts for a substantial amount of the research these companies use). In fact, if our own government were to fund the research that the branded pharmaceutical companies now carry out, and allow the results to be used for generic drugs, the research would more than pay for itself. The government would save more than the cost of this research through lower prices for the drugs it buys through Medicare and Medicaid. And the drugs would be available immediately as generics to the rest of the world.

Such economically sensible reforms may be some years off, given the power of the pharmaceutical lobby. But the least we can do right now is to stop this lobby from bullying other governments that are trying to do the right thing for their citizens.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: trade, big pharma, pharmaceutical prices

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No half-measures
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Mar 25, 2008 10:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abolish drug patents altogether. They're a state-granted monopoly. Open up the drug companies to competition in the free market--the REAL free market--their vulgar libertarian apologists talk so much about. Patents and copyrights play exactly the same protectionist role in today's global corporate economy that tariffs played in the old national corporate economies.

Intellectual property is theft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No half-measures Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: No half-measures Posted by: emmas
» RE: No half-measures Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: No half-measures Posted by: donl51
» RE: Start thinking, please. Posted by: EncinoM
'Our profits are worth more than your lives'. Humanity = gone.
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 26, 2008 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we would have thought that way about our last drug, we wouldn't have had the money to research this one that is saving your life now.

You paying for this one now, will save someone elses life in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ethical dilemmas and the free market
Posted by: rinthy on Mar 27, 2008 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it amusing that so many posters believe that big pharma have an unfettered right to the fruits of their labors on grounds that they've supplied the research and the brain power and the money to develop the drugs.

Not so fast. What about the, usually, third world populations used as guinea pigs for the research? The drugs don't always work, sometimes they're harmful, sometimes they're even lethal but, last I read, some of the companies were working through what they were pleased to call an 'ethical dilemma' . To wit, was there any obligation on their part to supply successful drugs AT A REDUCED COST to the populations they'd used for testing?

The smart money says the answer was 'no', Despite their substantial investment in the company's product, those third world populations will be required to pay full bore, or die. So spare me the hand wringing over the patents and the rights and the subsequent economic deprivation of drug companies!

Rinthy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is paying for the research?
Posted by: dkm on Mar 31, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that was not emphasized nearly enough in the article is that the basic science that results in new, not copycat, drugs is by and large done on the taxpayer's dime at the publicly funded research universities. And something that was not even mentioned is that the advertising and marketing budgets for the big Pharms are much greater than their research budgets.

The US is the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have at least some restrictions on how much the drug companies can gouge the public. This doesn't seem to interfere with the drug companies' ability to make money in other countries, though. They manage to do alright even with a cap on their greed, so why should they not be able to make money in the US, especially if they reduced their bloated marketing budgets?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]