[Ip-health] Huffington Post: The Politics of Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicines

[Judit Rius Sanjuan]

Below find James Love/Huffington Post entry about the last WHA and the
guidelines for a new US trade policy.

Remember that tomorrow, Wednesday May 30th 2007, KEI is hosting a brown
bag lunch and panel discussion on the intellectual property provisions
of the new US trade policy.

Time:  12:30-2:00pm
Venue:  1621 Connecticut Avenue Suite 500, Washington, DC 20009
Please RSVP to ben.krohmal@keionline.org or call 202 332 2670.

The Politics of Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicines
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-politics-of-intellect_b_49782.html
By James Love
Posted May 29, 2007 | 09:19 AM (EST)

On Wednesday, May 23, the main UN body for health passed a new
resolution on Public health, innovation and intellectual property. The
resolution was applauded by the public health community, and was
supported by all WHO member states, except one -- the United States.

Earlier, on May 10, 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Ways and Means Chair
Charles Rangel announced a "new bipartisan" trade package that addressed
some of these same issues. The new agreement between the House
Leadership and the Bush Administration on trade policy included a
section on intellectual property rights (IPR) and access to medicine in
developing countries.

The Rangel/Pelosi trade deal addressed a wide number of issues, and drew
lots of fire from groups who opposed various elements, including Huffpo
blogger David Sirota. Some health activists were highly critical of the
provisions on IPR and access to medicines in developing countries. On
this aspect of the deal, our impression was more favorable.

Rangel and Pelosi were able to deliver some substantial changes in trade
policy on three highly technical but very important issue. As set out in
this analysis, in every case, the new trade agreement reduces barriers
to the use of generic medicines in poor countries. I agree with the
groups that wanted more from the Democrats. But I was perhaps more
impressed with how much was achieved in this first step toward a new
trade agenda. I hope it is not the last.

The fact that the new trade deal was an agreement with the Bush
Administration means it involved compromises. On the issue of IPR and
access to medicines, any concessions that would help poor people living
in poor countries were bitterly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry,
a tough lobby in this town. The drug companies not only have huge sway
with the Republicans, they have a lot of influence with democrats,
including those who are making speech after speech on the need to
protect our intellectual property. The new trade deal addressed the most
important three issues in the current trade deals with poor countries
(linking patents to drug registration, patent extensions beyond 20
years, and the new IPR right in pharmaceutical test data). The Bush
administration made real concessions, and patients will benefit from this.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is the main governing body for the UN's
World Health Organization. The passage of resolution WHA60.30 last week
was both (a) another indication the current trade system is broken, and
(b) hope for a new and better paradigm that will serve everyone's
interest better.

The WHO debate on IPR and medicines is quite important, but virtually
unknown in the one country where it is most important -- the United
States. Few members of Congress are following the debate, and there has
been zero press coverage. In Europe and in developing countries, more is
known. In the past several months there have been high level meetings on
these issues held or scheduled in Geneva, Paris, the Netherlands, Munich
and Brussels. The European Parliament has engaged. The U.S. Congress has
not.

Last week the WHA resisted the pressure from the Bush Administration and
gave the WHO a fresh mandate to provide technical assistance to poor
countries who want to issue compulsory licenses on patents on medicines
or take other measures to promote access to generic medicines. But they
did not stop there. The WHO is debating the need for a new approach for
financing new drugs, one that does not "link" R&D incentives to drug
prices. Here, the Bush administration has not been horrible, at least in
the past year. But, nothing will really change unless there is more
leadership from the United States.

This is the basic deal. A number of public health experts, groups and
government officials are now saying it is a mistake to have a global
trade framework that is devoted to higher drug prices, as the primary or
only instrument to promote global medical R&D.

* First, they argue the trade framework should be refashioned as
agreements to pay for R&D, and that countries should be free to choose
all sorts of ways to do that, including public sector funding of open
source R&D projects, uses of innovation prizes, or other innovative ways
to finance R&D. This new trade framework should deal both with the
sustainable sources of finance, and make real efforts to address
priority setting, including efforts to ensure adequate investment in
treatments that concern illnesses that disproportionately impact poor
people living in poor countries.

* Second, they argue that private R&D incentives should not be linked to
drug prices at all, and that rewards for innovation in new products
should be more closely tied to evidence that the products actually
improve health care outcomes. A number of countries are now calling for
broader uses of prizes to stimulate innovation, an idea that is gaining
traction in a number of different areas these days, including not only
to stimulate R&D for new medicines, but also for a number of other
public goods.

This new debate over the global framework to support medical innovation
is important, and one that should be on the radar screen here -- in the
country that is:

1. The biggest global bully for big pharma, and increasingly isolated in
world public opinion, as illustrated by last week's WHA decision.
2. The biggest funder of medical R&D in the world, including both
private sector and public sector investments.
3. The biggest purchaser of generic AIDS drugs in the world.
4. The most in need of domestic reform to control drug prices, among
high income countries.

--
Judit Rius Sanjuan
Attorney
judit.rius@keionline.org

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
www.keionline.org / www.cptech.org
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 18  Fax: +1.202.332.2673