Global Pulse Blog

I had the pleasure of attending AMSA’s 59^th Annual Convention this past weekend with some of my fellow Global Pulse editors.On Saturday, convention attendees had the opportunity to learn about the link between global access to essential medicine and domestic efforts to limit the pharmaceutical industry’s influence in health care. The talk centered around a discussion of the issues contributing to the fact that around 10 million people in developing nations around the globe die each year due to a lack of access to existing vaccinations and medicines. This health crisis is influenced by the pharmaceutical industry’s common refusal to permit impoverished countries from manufacturing generic versions of life-saving brand-name medicines.

Sarah Rimmington of Essential Action (http://www.essentialaction.org/access/) spoke about global access to medicines, stressing the importance of introducing generic competition to the market as a means of driving down prices of essential drugs. The success of this strategy is evident in the case of HIV/AIDS medicines, which cost around $10,000-15,000 per patient per year around 10 years ago compared to approximately $90-130 per patient per year today with the introduction of generic medicines for developing nations, a 98% reduction in price of these life-saving medications. Several resolutions address this balance between adequate global access and innovation and development of new medications. For example, The World Trade Organization’s 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) requireed all member countries to adopt U.S.-style patent rules for all products, including medicines. The 2001 Doha Declaration clarified that TRIPS should be interpreted to support the obligation to protect public health and promote access to medicines. The Doha Declaration affirms that WTO members may utilize the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement “to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all,” including the issuance of compulsory licenses. Compulsory licenses authorize price-lowering generic competition for products on patent.

Despite this declaration, the US administration has unfortunately not respected the spirit of this effort in several ways. For example, the US continues to negotiate intellectual property provisions in bilateral trade agreements leading to restrictions on the use of TRIPS flexibilities. Additionally, the US has employed threat tactics against countries using the flexibilities. A prominent example of this threat technique appeared in 2007 when the US Trade Representative placed Thailand on the Special 301 Priority Watch list, citing Thailand’s lawful issuance of compulsory licenses for two vital HIV/AIDS medicines and a heart disease drug. Special 301 is an annual review of trading partners’ intellectual property rules, highlighting nations judged to provide inadequate protection for patents, copyright, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property. Similarly, the US Trade Representative placed Brazil on the Special 301 Priority Watch list due to their consideration of a lawful compulsory license to address the countries HIV/AIDs crisis (which it has since issued).

Efforts like Brazil and Thailand’s actions are supported by UNAIDS, Doctors Without Borders, President Clinton and many other public health and international development experts as well as the American people. A nationwide June 2007 poll of 2246 adults conducted by the Wall Street Journal-Harris Interactive showed 61% of Americans supported the use of compulsory licensing if it enabled developing countries to treat more patients, with only 20% opposed to such actions.

For more, check out the Access to Medicines Project