[Pharm-policy] Pharmaceutical companies resume litigation against Govt. of South Africa

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Thanks to Richard Jefferys for posting this on HealthGAP

Thiru

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceuticals resume litigation against Government on Medicines Act

WOZA Internet (Johannesburg)
August 1, 2000
By Marjolein Harvey

Johannesburg - The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of SA has
resumed litigation against the Medicines and Related Substances Control
Act No 90 of 1997, arguing that it still undermines patent protection
for pharmaceuticals.

The SA Medicines and Medical Devices Regulatory Authority Act (Sammdra)
- the act housing act 90 of 1997 - would be returned to parliament for
extensive amendments, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang announced
in August 1999 and the PMA followed with a suspension of its litigation
in September.

But PMA CEO Mirryena Deeb says the organisation has failed to reach a
negotiated settlement with government and is forced to resume
litigation. 

She said the PMA was dismayed that the minister's legal advisers have
insisted the association files answering affidavits on legislation
which, by their client's own announcement, is to change.

"Continuing litigation under these circumstances can only amount to an
exorbitant waste of taxpayers' money funds that could be better
appropriated towards saving lives," Deeb said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Underpinning the PMA's rejection of attempts to generally abrogate
patent rights is our unflinching belief that patent protection does not
stand in the way of access to medicines and healthcare."

She says there is evidence that countries with an absence of patent
protection still have a lack of access to quality healthcare.

"Many Asian, South American and African countries in the absence of any
legal hindrance, are able to source their drugs from any supplier
internationally and are free to allow local manufacturing of any drugs,
yet quality and affordable drugs are still not available to the people,"
says Deeb.

She says that sound economic policies and sufficient healthcare funding,
government commitment and political will, adequate infrastructure and
capacity are equally important for access to improve.

Interestingly, a leading health analyst predicted in September that the
suspension would not last, saying the move may be only a calm before a
new storm over the access to treatment.

"The suspension of the lawsuit might well be interpreted by SA as a
signal that they can begin the manufacture of cheaper versions of the
most widely used drugs to treat HIV," associate executive director for
programmes and policy at the US Public Health Association (Apha),
Richard Levinson was reported as saying by IPS.

"However, it seems likely that the drug companies might later
re-institute their suit, if the promised changes in relevant SA
legislation does not satisfy them," says Levinson.

"It seems unlikely that pharmaceutical firms will surrender their profit
margins without a major battle. Therefore, this may be a lull before the
storm," he said.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), drug companies spend
nearly R400 billion on health research; but only 10% of that figure is
spent on diseases that affect 90% of the global population.

Research and development is claimed to be expensive - one reason drug
companies are reluctant to expend efforts on products that will not make
a profit. However, it is unlikely that drug makers would lose much
profit by allowing poorer nations access to cheaper drugs, because they
represent such a small proportion of the market.

"The PMA would ultimately prefer a negotiated settlement and partnership
with government," says  Deeb.

The health department could not yet comment on the matter at the time of
writing.

Richard Jefferys
Access Project Director
AIDS Treatment Data Network, NYC
http://www.aidsnyc.org/network
E-Mail: atdn@aidsnyc.org