[Ip-health] MSF submission to the WHO intergovernmental working group

[James ARKINSTALL]

=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Please find below the summary of MSF's contribution to the=0D
intergovernmental working group on public health, innovation and=0D
intellectual property.=0D
=0D
The full text can be downloaded from=0D
http://www.accessmed-msf.org=0D
=0D
or viewed with all other contributions on=0D
http://www.who.int/public_hearing_phi/en/=0D
=0D
Thanks=0D
James=0D
=0D
=0D
Towards a health needs driven framework for R&D and access to medicines=0D
=0D
The Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health=0D
(CIPIH) report concludes that making the medical research and development=
=0D
(R&D) system prevailingly dependent on patents and other forms of=0D
intellectual property (IP) protection carries significant consequences for=
=0D
the setting of R&D priorities, with a detrimental effect for diseases that=
=0D
disproportionately affect developing countries.=0D
=0D
One crucial consequence is the absence of financial incentives to drive R&D=
=0D
when the client population has insufficient purchasing power.   This=0D
applies to neglected diseases - recent research shows how these still only=
=0D
account for 1% of the new chemical entities reaching the market.  But more=
=0D
common diseases are also affected: the lack of reliable medical tools to=0D
address the escalating tuberculosis epidemic or paediatric HIV/AIDS are=0D
clear illustrations of how the system is fundamentally flawed.=0D
=0D
Financing R&D through IP also severely impacts access to medicines.=0D
Competition between manufacturers, which IP protection is designed=0D
specifically to prevent, is the only way to bring prices of medicines down=
=0D
to a sustainable level that patients or ministries of health can afford.=0D
But today, five years after the Doha Declaration promised to re-establish=
=0D
the balance between IP and public health, the cost of treating patients in=
=0D
developing countries is once again increasing.=0D
=0D
Arguably the CIPIH report=E2=80=99s most important contribution is its=0D
consideration of the entire innovation cycle including discovery,=0D
development, but also delivery.   In other words, one must also examine how=
=0D
those in need can access an innovation, once it has been developed.=0D
=0D
The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) must follow the CIPIH=E2=80=99s =
lead,=0D
and address problems related to both innovation and access.  Economic=0D
mechanisms alone will not succeed: government action is needed to ensure=0D
that innovation is steered to meet real health needs, and that access to=0D
these innovations is secured.  The Group must pay considerable attention to=
=0D
neglected diseases, but not limit itself to them, for the problem is wider=
=0D
in scope.  Nor must it content itself with calling for new financial=0D
mechanisms.  What is needed is a concerted effort towards a framework to=0D
promote innovation and access, for diseases that disproportionately affect=
=0D
developing countries.=0D
=0D
Such a plan must include: priority setting of R&D, so that innovation=0D
responds to health needs; new mechanisms for financing R&D that don=E2=80=
=99t come=0D
at the expense of high drug prices; active promotion of mechanisms that=0D
facilitate access to medicines, such as compulsory licences; and review of=
=0D
failed mechanisms such as the August 30th Decision.=0D
=0D
In recent years, WHO=E2=80=99s relative silence on these questions has left=
 the=0D
field open to other agencies like WTO and WIPO that cannot give proper=0D
consideration to health issues.  This must change: the IGWG process must=0D
now examine them with the prioritisation of health above other concerns.=0D
WHO and the Group must not squander this opportunity.=0D
=0D
-ENDS-