[Ip-health] Sun-Sentinel op-ed: Compulsory licenses the right medicine for prescriptions in developing countries

[Sarah Rimmington]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-medicine18forumsbmar18,0,22378=
69.story

South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale/Broward County Florida)
Compulsory licenses the right medicine for prescriptions in developing
countries
March 18, 2008
By Robert Weissman



The reason for Peter Pitts' overheated rhetoric in a recent South
Florida Sun-Sentinel op-ed ("We're Taking Your Medicine, Literally,"
March 11) would have been a lot clearer if he had disclosed to readers
his multiple entanglements with the brand-name pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Pitts alleged that Thailand, Brazil and other developing country
governments have stolen patented inventions from brand-name
pharmaceutical companies. What these countries have actually done is
issue compulsory licenses =97 lawful authorizations for generic
competition, while products remain on patent =97 that have enabled sick
people to get lifesaving medicines they would otherwise be denied.

Here is what Mr. Pitts did not explain:

First, the compulsory licenses have yielded major public benefits.
Compulsory licenses in Thailand lowered the price of an important
HIV/AIDS drug (efavirenz) by about three-quarters, enabling the
government to triple the number of people receiving this life-saving
treatment. The generic version of a heart disease drug (clopidogrel,
brand-name: Plavix) is one-seventieth the cost of the brand-name
product, enabling the government to offer the drug in the public health
system. Previously, it was simply unavailable.

Second, Thailand and Brazil limited the scope of their compulsory
licenses to the public sector. In the case of Thailand, the government
specifically preserved the right of brand-name drug companies to sell
high-priced, monopoly-protected medicines to the upper-income Thais who
rely on private medical care.

Third, nothing was stolen. Compulsory licensing is legal under the World
Trade Organization's rules governing patent protection, and under the
national law of the countries that have issued compulsory licenses.
Patent holders are guaranteed adequate remuneration under these rules.

Fourth, the United States issues more compulsory licenses than any other
country, including to defense contractors and to remedy abuse-of-patent
cases involving pharmaceuticals.

Fifth, Mr. Pitts contends that compulsory licenses and efforts to
introduce generic competition will undermine incentives for brand-name
drug companies to invest in treatments and cures for diseases unique to
developing countries. But even the brand-name pharmaceutical industry
acknowledges that the real problem is that developing countries' buying
power is inadequate to justify investments for diseases unique to poorer
countries.

Here's what else Mr. Pitts failed to reveal: Not only is he a former FDA
associate commissioner and president of the deceptively named Center for
Medicine in the Public Interest, he is senior vice president for health
affairs at the public relations firm Manning, Selvage and Lee. Manning,
Selvage and Lee's clients include many of the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis, two of
the companies whose products were compulsory licensed in Thailand. The
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest's board and advisory board is
stacked with people connected to the pharmaceutical industry. Disclosing
this information would have helped readers put his hysterical claims in
context.

The one thing Mr. Pitts does get right is that the world needs more
medical innovation, including but not only for diseases endemic to
developing countries. The current system is doing poorly on this score.
There are too few resources devoted to priority health research and
development needs, from new antibiotics to new tuberculosis drugs.

One promising idea is prize funds, which would offer rich rewards for
those who make important medical discoveries, while de-linking payment
to innovators from the price of medicines. We can and must find ways to
support research and development that do not result in the rationing of
life-saving medicines in developing or rich countries, and denial of
life-saving treatment to people simply because they are poor.

Robert Weissman is director of Essential Action, a public health
advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

--
Sarah Rimmington
Attorney
Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
Washington, DC
Tel: (202) 387-8030
Cell: (202) 422-2687
www.essentialaction.org/access/