[Ip-health] Korea FTA negotiations on medicines will harm us too

[heeseob nam]

For persuading US Congress and citizens, we have to refute against the conc=
lusion of the study by U.S. Department of Commerce.=0D
=0D
Commerce Department study of Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countrie=
s (http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/drugpricingstudy.pdf) was conducted =
by Medicare Modernization Act passed by Congress in 2003 instructing the Se=
cretary of Commerce to study OECD drug price controls and the implications =
for US consumers.=0D
=0D
According to the study, there is a potential benefit of $5 billion to $7 bi=
llion annually to US consumers if drugs were developed and marketed in othe=
r countries without price controls. The increased competition in the US mar=
ket created from the deregulation of price controls in other countries coul=
d have an effect on US prices in the long term. Futher, the study found tha=
t by discouraging free market prices, those countries with price controls s=
tifle research and development of new medicines that would otherwise exist =
in a competitive market. The diminished revenue returns range from $18 bill=
ion to $27 billion annually.=0D
=0D
This study estimates that, in the absence of price controls, total revenues=
 from on-patent drug sales for these 11 OECD countries would increase by $1=
7.6 billion to $26.7 billion in 2003, depending on the volume measure used =
to estimate prices(refer to Figure 7 at page 19).=0D
=0D
--=0D
HeeSeob Nam=0D
IPLeft (www.ipleft.or.kr)=0D
Tel. +82-2-6050-1621 Mobile +82 11 470 1180=0D
Fax. +82-2-6050-1706=0D
hurips@gmail.com=0D
=0D
----- Original Message -----=0D
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>=0D
To: "Ip-health" <ip-health@lists.essential.org>=0D
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:15 AM=0D
Subject: [Ip-health] Korea FTA negotiations on medicines will harm us too=
=0D
=0D
=0D
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/korea-fta-negotiations-=0D
> on_b_24929.html=0D
>=0D
> July 12, 2006 The Huffington Post=0D
> James Love=0D
> Korea FTA negotiations on medicines will harm us too=0D
>=0D
> Tens of thousands of persons are demonstrating in Korea today against=0D
> a proposed trade agreement that no one in the United States knows=0D
> about. One of the explicit objectives of the trade agreement is to=0D
> raise the prices of medicines in Korea, and to create international=0D
> norms that would make it difficult for governments to refuse to=0D
> reimburse costly new medicines, negotiate lower prices, or override=0D
> patents.=0D
>=0D
> The negotiations on a new US Korea "Free Trade Agreement" (FTA) is=0D
> only partly about lowering tariffs and other trade liberalization=0D
> measures. The main things the US wants is for Koreans to pay high=0D
> prices for medicines.=0D
>=0D
>      (Stories and pictures of demonstrations against US/Korea FTA here,=
=0D
>      here, and here)=0D
>=0D
> The current US/Korea/FTA negotiation follows an earlier and somewhat=0D
> secret 1999 agreement with Korea that obligated Korea to pay at least=0D
> the average price of 7 industrialized countries for innovative=0D
> medicines. Because of this agreement, Korea now pays more than the US=0D
> for some drugs for cancer and other severe illnesses. The US=0D
> government followed the 1999 Korea agreement with provisions in trade=0D
> agreements with Australia and Singapore that were designed to weaken=0D
> national efforts to control drug prices, and make it much harder for=0D
> governments to override strong patent protection.=0D
>=0D
> This week the United States Trade Representative has sent a number of=0D
> fairly young trade offiicals to Korea to demand huge changes in the=0D
> Korea system for reimbursing medicines. In one July 11, 2006 report,=0D
> Wendy Cutler, the head of the U.S. team at free trade talks with Korea:=
=0D
>=0D
> ----"criticized Korean plans to adopt an approved list for drugs=0D
> available under Korea's national health insurance system. Saying she=0D
> understood the challenges Korea faces in devising a health care=0D
> policy as its population ages, she continued, "But we don't believe=0D
> this proposed change in the Korean system toward a 'positive list'=0D
> will achieve the objective that Korea has stated for itself. We=0D
> believe the proposed system would end up discriminating against and=0D
> limiting the access of Korean patients and doctors to most innovative=0D
> drugs in the world."------=0D
>=0D
> The message that Cutler is delivering, under our flag, is that the US=0D
> wants Korean taxpayers to pay whatever prices pharmaceutical=0D
> companies want. She is following up on earlier threats by US=0D
> government officials, such as this February 7, 2001 US Commerce=0D
> Secretary Don Evans letter, which quite famously said " The United=0D
> States has considerable expertise and experience in health care=0D
> financing matters," while complaining about efforts to link patient=0D
> co-payments in any way to the prices or patent status of medicines.=0D
>=0D
> These position are now aggressively pushed by the Bush=0D
> Administration, but they have wide support in the US Congress, even=0D
> among democrats -- and the 1999 US/Korea agreement was negotiated by=0D
> Bill Clinton. Only a small number of US Congressman have bothered to=0D
> look into these agreements.=0D
>=0D
> But within the Bush Administration, there has been some questioning=0D
> of these policies. (obtained via a CPTech FOIA request). In an=0D
> October 16, 2003 note, Robert Armstrong, then Trade Officer for=0D
> Japan, Korea and Oceania at the US Department of State, wrote "FDA=0D
> and HSS have been involved in analyzing the PhRMA proposals and have=0D
> found a number of their suggestions to be problematic from the=0D
> standpoint of U.S. Domestic practice."=0D
>=0D
> Earlier two other Department officials had raised similar points. On=0D
> September 8, 2003, Bryant Trick had written his colleagues to note=0D
> that: "once Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug benefit, you=0D
> will have price controls and reimbursement guidelines for that. . .=0D
> HMOs are also very active in this (one reason for their=0D
> unpopularity), but since they are private, it is less of an issue."=0D
> And Thomas Jung wrote a September 9, 2003 response reminding State=0D
> officials that US States "are taking the same approach the ROKG is=0D
> taking: containing costs by scrutinizing prescription drugs,=0D
> particularly brand name drugs."=0D
>=0D
> We are about to reap a bitter fruit from the Korea/FTA negotiations.=0D
> Not only will we harm Koreans, but we will are building global norms=0D
> that will make it impossible for the US to protect us from high drug=0D
> prices.=0D
>=0D
> ---------------------------------=0D
> James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /=0D
> tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040=0D
>=0D
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton=0D
>=0D
> _______________________________________________=0D
> Ip-health mailing list=0D
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org=0D
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health