[Ip-health] Thailand: Health at Stake in Free Trade Talks

[Robert Weissman]

*_The Nation (Thailand)
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/02/08/opinion/index.php?news=3Dopinion_198=
65407.html

EDITORIAL: Health at stake in free-trade talks_*

*Published on February 08, 2006*

/Negotiators for the Thai-US FTA must understand the full importance of
pharmaceutical patent rights. Intellectual property rights, particularly
as they relate to pharmaceutical patents, represent one of the most
contentious issues for negotiators trying to thrash out the Thai-US Free
Trade Agreement (FTA)./

This is not only because of the complicated nature of the subject and
the related regulatory labyrinth, but also because of the strong
economic and social implications intellectual property has for a
developing country like Thailand. To understand the importance of
intellectual property rights in general, and pharmaceutical patents in
particular, let us first look at where the US and Thailand stand.

For the United States, intellectual property rights represent the single
most valuable asset in light of the new reality of information-based
economies and where they derive their national wealth. The supremacy of
the US as a global power depends on how effective it is in acquiring and
maintaining its ownership of knowledge assets.

 From Thailand=92s point of view =96 which, by the way, is basically not
much different from that of any other developing country =96 we find
ourselves at the receiving end of inequalities and problems related to
this global redistribution of property rights in information. Compared
to the US, Thailand holds claim over very few intellectual property
rights that it can exploit economically. Worse, it also lacks the
wherewithal to acquire marketable knowledge assets that people in the
rest of the world want.

To be more specific, the US dominates the world market in pharmaceutical
products and it intends to continue to do so to maximise profits and
make sure that the rest of the world continues to depend on it as the
main source of innovative medical goods. In other words, the US is only
doing what it does best to innovate, to develop new products that people
want, bring them to the market, maximise profits, plough back much of
the money into costly research and development efforts to stay on top of
the game, and so on.

Thailand, on the other hand, is typical of developing countries in that
it depends on the US and other technologically advanced countries as the
main source of usually high-priced drugs that people want because of
their efficacy, effectiveness and safety. The Thai pharmaceutical
industry continues to operate at the lower rung of the innovation ladder
and will likely stay there for the foreseeable future.

FTA negotiations are bringing these inequalities and the virtual
monopoly of knowledge assets by the US into sharper focus. The harder
negotiators from both sides try to clinch the Thailand-US FTA, the more
pharmaceutical patents and related issues become a topic of public
debate. In Thailand public-sector medical professionals, who have long
played an active role in shaping a socialistic approach to the country=92s
public health policy, are the most vocal critics of US proposals on
pharmaceutical patents.

And this is not without good reason. The US negotiators are pushing hard
for Thailand to accept a market-exclusivity extension for patented
pharmaceuticals, which is the main thrust of the US=92 objectives in the
FTA negotiations with Thailand. This market-exclusivity extension covers
patent-term compensation due to delays in patent approval and market
authorisation, restrictions on compulsory licensing to cases of
government use in the event of a national health crisis, five-year data
exclusivity for original drug producers (protection of clinical test
information of original drugs, which is an indispensable reference for
market authorisation).

Even at this late stage of negotiations, the general Thai public appears
to be oblivious to this aspect of the FTA negotiations, which could have
a major impact on their quality of life, equality, and the cost of the
public health system.

Extending the patent term would mean pharmaceutical companies could
continue to monopolise the sale of their original drugs at the expense
of Thai consumers because generic-drug manufacturers would be prevented
from producing cheaper versions of these medicines.

Thai negotiators must conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis before
making any tradeoffs on these controversial issues, which could have a
serious impact on Thailand=92s public-health system and the quality of
life of people for years if not generations to come.

This is no ordinary quid pro quo that should be taken lightly at the
negotiating table.