A couple of days ago, the drug maker Novartis, went to court in an attempt to patent a modified version of one of its cancer medicines in India. Although the drug company "argued that it needed a patent to protect its investment in the cancer drug"(NPR Article), the battle with the Indian Supreme Court was lost. Because the modification on the medicine called Glivec was so minimal, the Indian government acted on behalf of the poor and the health activists who state that the cheap drug needs accessibility to the poor patients around the world. Novartis on the other hand, claimed that patenting new drugs across the board, spur innovation and fund research.
As we discussed in class, one of the biggest and most controversial issues being discussed in the Doha Round between WTO members is intellectual property (most importantly, pharmaceuticals). This most current happening in India, reflects the complications that the issue of intellectual property brings to the discussion table. With 159 Member States, the conflicting interests on a variety of issues make it harder for any round to pass with a consensus. Many developing countries have joined the WTO, which creates a bigger conflict with the more developed countries who are interested in different trade agreements. In this case, countries like the U.S. and its corporations (such as Novartis) strive for patenting of new drugs even with the smallest modification. However, "as the economies of emerging markets (of developing countries) grow, the countries' refusal to pay higher premiums for newer drugs could significantly reduce the money needed for innovation." (NY Times Article)At the same time however, the fact that many poor people need access to this drug makes patenting very controversial.
Should we deprive the poor of the treatment they need or should we allow patents so that more advanced drugs can be developed? Personally, in this case of India I believe they were right in that Novartis was simply trying to find loopholes to gain more profits from the patenting of Glivec. However, I also recognize that research for developing new drugs is crucial. So I conclude stating that perhaps highly modified drugs must be patented. But I am no expert so I would like to know: what does everyone else think?
This is an interesting topic. Strangely enough, we discussed this topic briefly in another one of my classes yesterday. The example had to do with the proliferation of tuberculosis in Russia. Many patients were required to finish some preliminary medications or testing, and then would be able to cure their TB with relatively cheap antibiotics. However, this was not enforced, and many patients did not finish. Now, the only medications that they were able to take were very expensive because they were new. Russians, by no means high income, could not afford them, and the companies were unwilling to lower the prices. They would risk not making their expected profits from the West, and less profits meant less innovation-which would make the drug cheaper in the long-run. The drug prices didn't go down, and many Russians died of TB-a curable disease.
ReplyDeleteIt's also hard for me to decide what should be done with this issue. Would it be fair to subsidize these drugs to lower income countries so that the companies can still make enough profit to conduct research from the higher income countries? And if drugs were made cheaper, would the increase in sales make up for the profit that has been lost?
The information gathered from the articles and Ligia's post lead me to agree that the Indian supreme court was right in its decision. Granted, Novartis's argument has merit -- if companies cannot patent new drugs, it could stifle "innovation and research." As stated in the NYTimes article, money is being wasted on "new forms of old drugs." But looking at the bigger picture discredits this argument, because cheap drugs are necessary, if not imperative, for the health of developing countries and those that cannot afford the more expensive drugs. Additionally, I think the supreme court was completely justified because of the fact that Novartis only made "minor modifications." If the modifications had not been so small, then I'm sure the supreme court would not have been an obstacle in the patenting process. Thus, further innovation by other companies surely will not decline. It seems most important above all else that we consider the ramifications of increasingly expensive drugs due to actions of pharmaceutical companies and other parties involved in intellectual property rights. The well-being of citizens in developing countries should take precedence over the potential profits of a company like Novartis.
ReplyDeleteThis supreme court ruing in india regarding the patent on Swiss company is good but it can also have negative effect on India's growing population in the long run. India is certainly not new to not following the rules on intellectual properties and in this case it turned out that there was a slight change in the new drugs. With the whole supreme court ruling I want to say it is of course great news for India and it's people especially where India has huge rate of low income people. This news is great for people in India right now because it will definitely save millions of people's lives and of course they don't get charged that $4200 price.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Drug companies might be looking into not supplying medicines to India in the future which I don't encourage because India is too big of a country and it's growing population they need to keep it in mind as well. Drug companies need to be cautious in the future but pulling out of India completely will hurt the drug companies itself. India has a high demand for chronic disease medicine, diabetics, tb, cancer and such. The drug companies will have to find a new business models and they will have to strategize as to how to make it affordable for country like India. If they can find a new strategy drug companies will still be making their profit margin.
Regardless of whether the modification is big or not India should be careful as to how they should proceed with this type of situation in the future.
I was curious if there has been any alternative models to the patent system that could resolve this dilemma between pharmaceutical companies wanting to protect their time/investment and developing countries wanting cheap generic versions of the drug for the public good. Unfortunately there are few solutions that don't come with a handful of their own problems. Tiered pricing for instance would allow for pharmaceutical giants to sell their product at a much lower price in developing regions. This however would create a perverse incentive for the smuggling these cheaper drugs into a more affluent area where their price would be marked up substantially. Subsidizing the pills would most likely be a costly drain on the already impoverished regions of the developing world also.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article that outlines the problems and the possible solutions to the US's current patent regime. http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/
It's mainly about tech patents, but the same fundamental issues apply to the Novartis case.
When you examine the developing countries who have joined the WTO, it is obvious that many are in need of medical relief programs due to high levels of disease. These countries must have access to cheaper pharmaceuticals to quell this issue. On the flip side, however, countries that have the means to conduct R & D into the pharmaceutical industry must be able to incentivize that R & D so that we continue to discover new and better methods to fight diseases. This is where I believe an international institution such as the UN needs to step up as the distributor of cheaper drugs to countries in need. If a certain supply of drugs was given to the UN, while the rest was patented, it may alleviate the need for a black market if a country can prove its need and receives an amount equal to that need. Meanwhile, those countries that have the means to pay for or conduct R & D into those drugs must continue to deal with patents.
ReplyDeleteI very much like your suggestion of having the UN (or other international institution) serve as a distributor. Having a central distributor that has the power (and arguably, the humanitarian duty) to give life-saving drugs at affordable prices is the only real way I can imagine to surpass the controversy of medical patents.
DeleteThe researchers and developers of these drugs certainly need incentive to keep doing their work, and they should be compensated by UN members that can afford to do so. Being part of such a massive and important institution imposes a duty on the richer states to help the poorer. If this were the case, researchers and producers may actually have more incentive to research and produce than before, as they would be compensated proportionally to their time and efforts, rather than to the number of products sold.
This is very much a controversial topic. I do agree that we need to help treat the poor in the developing countries but with a growing population, the development of new drugs is critical. It might be harsh to take this stance but as Charles Darwin said it is about "the survival of the fittest". We are living in such a fast paced globalized world and it is very important to keep up with development. I do very much like Alexa's proposal on having the UN intervene in hopes of keeping prices low.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is in everyone's best interest to help treat the poor by making these drugs cheaper. Subsidizing them could be a good option. Part of the reason this is best is because so much of the world lives in a way that makes buying medicine too expensive right now. If we make these drugs more available, the increased amount of them purchased could help even things out profit-wise and we can start getting rid of a lot of diseases.
ReplyDelete