[Ip-health] Reasons why the IGWG should not place limits the scope of diseases

[Malini Aisola]

http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_jd-wp&Itemid=3D39&p=3D90

Reasons why the IGWG should not place limits the scope of diseases
Malini Aisola
November 9th, 2007

In attempting to address problems of access to medicines in developing
countries, it is not productive to utilize any typology to limit the
scope of diseases that are to be part of the WHO Global Strategy and
Plan of Action=92s focus for the next 7 years.

Analyzing data available through the WHO
(http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/who_dalys_2005_2030.pdf), low and
lower-middle income countries are observed to have high burden of
disease rates for both communicable (Type II & Type III) and
noncommunicable (Type I) diseases.

According to the 2006 CIPIH report (p4), =93=85in contrast to developed
countries, developing countries are increasingly suffering from the
double burden of disease because of the continuing scourge of
communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional diseases, combined
with injuries and noncommunicable diseases.=94

Further, not only do developing countries face a greater burden of
disease than developed countries but often have more limited capacities
to address these problems. For instance, some Type I diseases may
disproportionately impact developing countries because of the lack of
availability of effective screening techniques and treatments options.
For example, the CIPIH report observes that =93=8580% of cervical cancer
cases are in the developing world, where it is the leading cause of
death from cancer for women, but it has been estimated that only about
5% of women in developing countries have been screened for cervical
dysplasia in the past 5 years, compared with 40=9650% of women in
developed countries(9).=94 (p5)

The CIPIH report also states that =93Reducing the very high incidence of
communicable diseases in developing countries is an overriding priority,
but it is also important to consider how the high burden of
noncommunicable diseases in developing countries can be addressed.=94 (p5)

While negotiating text at the IGWG-II, member states should take
seriously the CIPIH recommendation that =93For noncommunicable diseases,
governments and companies should consider how treatments, which are
widely available in developed countries, can be made more accessible for
patients in developing countries.=94 (p115)

For any disease, the prerequisite to access is the existence of the
relevant and well-adapted medical products stemming from sufficient
innovation in that specific area. The formal listing of diseases as
targets for R&D is an unjustified limitation because it cannot ensure
universal access to medical products for diseases that are not included
on the list such as rare or unforeseen medical conditions which are not
limited to certain parts of the world.