Thailand backs patent drug copies

[SunWuKong]

i'm on the fence about intellectual property rights in some industries, but the pharmaceutical industry is one industry that i think needs less intellectual property protection, especially in the context of sale in developing nations. drug companies don't exactly put all their revenue into research, a lot goes into marketting. and maybe in developed nations, with our much greater per capita GDP and our better developed health care system, it's ok. but a lot of developing nations simply cannot afford the prices they set.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6310515.stm

Thailand backs patent drug copies

Thailand's health ministry says it has approved the production of cheaper versions of patented anti-Aids and heart disease drugs.

Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla said the step was necessary to make the cost of the medicines - Kaletra and Plavix - more affordable.

The move was criticised by pharmaceutical companies but drew praise from Aids campaigners.

There are about half a million people living with HIV in Thailand.

"We have to do this because we don't have enough money to buy safe and necessary drugs for the people under the government's universal health scheme," Mr Mongkol told reporters.

He said at current prices, Thailand could only afford anti-Aids medicine for a fifth of the country's HIV sufferers.

The minister said the move was permissible under international trade rules in the event of national public health emergencies.

Mr Mongkol said the cost of a generic version of Plavix, a blood-thinning treatment to help prevent heart attacks, would be about a tenth of the cost of the patented product.

Plavix is sold by French-based Safovi-Aventis and US firm Bristol-Myers Squibb Co; Kaletra is produced by US-based Abbott Laboratories.

'Dialogue'

However the move has angered pharmaceutical firms, who said they were caught by surprise.

"They are concerned about continuing to invest in a country where the government cannot provide a basic guarantee for the safety of their assets," the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' Association (Prema) said.

But Aids activists welcomed the government's announcement.

"It is a brave decision, despite both anticipated pressure from industry and possible threats to withdraw investments," said Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul, of aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres.

"The authorities have engaged in dialogue with companies before, but the discounts have been marginal. The licenses will benefit a lot of people and will set an example to other countries who face the same problem."

Mr Mongkol said he was willing to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies about importing their products at cheaper prices.

[haplesshobo]

I wonder how much of this is just the Thai's government of shifting responsibility, where its easier to blame drug companies than looking at its own policies which slashed funding for AIDS prevention in half.

The economic argument would be that if you allowed this, where other countries tried to take advantage of this, that would dry up incentives for drug companies to go out and spend the money for the research.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

The economic argument would be that if you allowed this, where other countries tried to take advantage of this, that would dry up incentives for drug companies to go out and spend the money for the research.

right, but a lot of their money doesn't necessarily go to research.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF

[haplesshobo]

That's true, but that's also true for certainly most, if not, all industries. Does that mean that every industry should give away their products and rights to developing countries? From an economic perspective, Big Pharm is probably price differentiating its products, where its giving a price break, to these third world countries anyway. Its not just giving it for free.

Let's say that only 50% of profits end up going back into R&D, and the rest goes to G&A, salaries, marketing, etc... But, by reducing profits, at the end of the day, it's going to bring in less money that goes back into R&D unless those companies are now willing to take a smaller profit or reduce other expenses.

While I think the intentions may or may not be good (let's remember that it was Thailand that slashed its AIDS prevention fund in half), I think this could be a slippery slope. If you allow this, where other countries follow, including America, its going to ultimately hurt drug research. In the long run, this might prove to be a mistake for all those concerned.

And, how much money is being invested into Thailand by those businesses? If its substantial, it might even hurt Thailand if it drives away those businesses.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

That's true, but that's also true for certainly most, if not, all industries. Does that mean that every industry should give away their products and rights to developing countries? From an economic perspective, Big Pharm is probably price differentiating its products, where its giving a price break, to these third world countries anyway. Its not just giving it for free.

that's why i'm on the fence about intellectual property protection for most other industries. but in this particular context, we're talking about people's health, and in some cases, basically how long they will live. i'm personally less supportive of pharm companies because of that. at the end of the day, they are not in the business of helping people - sure that may be a secondary goal - but the bottom line is that they are in business to make money, to maximise profit. that's not necessarily a bad thing, but in my opinion it's less important than people's health and lives.

are they price differentiating their products? i have not read that they do this, or at least, do it to a realistic degree where the drugs become affordable.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

And, how much money is being invested into Thailand by those businesses? If its substantial, it might even hurt Thailand if it drives away those businesses.

i don't think they can afford to stay away. Thailand represents a sizeable market for their products because of its AIDS problem. from a business perspective, the wisest thing to do is to first negotiate with the government instead of just leaving the country.

and if they do leave, that's ok, too, because the government can approve of generic copies of their products.

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

that's why i'm on the fence about intellectual property protection for most other industries. but in this particular context, we're talking about people's health, and in some cases, basically how long they will live. i'm personally less supportive of pharm companies because of that. at the end of the day, they are not in the business of helping people - sure that may be a secondary goal - but the bottom line is that they are in business to make money, to maximise profit. that's not necessarily a bad thing, but in my opinion it's less important than people's health and lives.

are they price differentiating their products? i have not read that they do this, or at least, do it to a realistic degree where the drugs become affordable.

I wouldn't be surprised if pharm companies are price differentiating their drugs for third world countries. From an economic point of view, that would certainly maximize their profits by doing so. And, we see this done for other products, such as textbooks for college students. In the article, it sounds like pharm companies were offering discounts but that Thailand didn't think it went far enough. Maybe, it was 10%, or even up to 75% discount. We don't know. At this point, shouldn't the first generation of AIDS drugs be generic? But, it sounds like Thailand wants the latest, most expensive drugs to fight AIDS. In a ideal world, with unlimited resources, everybody would get the best, most expensive healthcare.

I don't want to give big pharm a free pass, and think that the US government should provide different incentives to encourage more R&D than our current system. But, at the same time, I think it would be ultimately a mistake to overthrow intellectual copyright protection laws no matter how noble the concept. In the long run, I think such policies would be a mistake no matter how good the intentions or the short term benefits. We're never going to finally find a drug to cure or eradicate AIDS if we disconnect incentives for the drug companies to research it by lowering their profits.

[SunWuKong]

Thai government is allowing more cheap drugs, including one for the heart, unrelated to HIV/AIDS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6587379.stm

[SunWuKong]

Brazil to break Aids drug patent

[pikachupacabra]

I'm not on the business development and marketing side of pharm/biotech, but I wonder what kinds of negative effects this is going to have on the business. Will there be a sort of "trickle-down" effect where the companies just stop producing drugs that go into countries that have the generic "breaks" in effect?


I can't speak for large Pharma since I do small Pharma, but research and drug development is plenty expensive for us. However, from what I know, big pharma has a tendency to not research their own drugs a lot of the time; they get too big, bloated, beauraucratic, and hefty to have the creativity, insight, and flexability to research drugs. instead they tend to just buy smaller companies or license drugs off of them.


Anyways, I'll I'm saying is that companies tend to follow the money, and if they see that money possibly not being there after millions worth of research...there might be problems.