E-drug: 1999 US International Response to HIV/AIDS
--------------------------------------------------
[copied with thanks from ip-health listserver]
Here is a copy of the comments we sent today to the Department of State
regarding the draft "1999 US International Response to HIV/AIDS"
document.
The draft document can be found on the State's web page at
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/health/981030_hivaids_rpt_cover.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O.Box 19367,Washington DC 20036
e-mails love@cptech.org or cgavin@cptech.org
web http://www.cptech.org
November 6, 1998
Nancy Carter-Foster
Bureau of Oceans and International Environment
and Scientific Affairs
Department of State
via fax (202) 736-7336
Comments on the 1999 US International Response to HIV/AIDS
Introduction
Consumer Project on Technology (http://www.cptech.org) has been involved
in health care and intellectual property issues for several years, on
the national and international levels.
AIDS drugs and vaccine, and intellectual property rights
We have been very interested in reading the draft document on the US
International Response to HIV/AIDS. But we have been also very surprised
to note that this document contains no mention of the intellectual
property rights issue. It is yet essential to think about who detains
the patent on a drug and how the price of this drug is determined if we
want to address properly the problem of HIV/AIDS.
In New Zealand, Bristol Myers Squibb is currently selling ddI
(Didanosine, a drug developed and patented by the NIH) at a 30% higher
price than it is sold in the United States, despite the fact that the
New Zealand per capita income in roughly the half of what it is in the
US.
In Thailand, AIDS groups are fighting to support the government against
US pressures to reduce its authority on the compulsory licensing of
drugs, after it has been urged to stop parallel imports of drugs six
years ago.
One of the most serious opportunistic infection affecting people with
AIDS in Thailand is cryptococcal meningitis. Between 135'000 and 180'000
(or 15-20% of all people affected by AIDS) will or have already
contracted cryptococcal meningitis. One of the two drug available used
to treat it is Diflucan produced by Pfizer. The other one is
Amphotericine B, produced by Bristol Myers Squibb. The cost of one year
treatment for the two drugs is around US$ 2,500, an impossible amount of
money for the average family to find.
Diflican is available in bulk in the international market for US$ 600
per kilogram. If Thailand was "allowed" to use its compulsory licensing
provision (which is perfectly consistent with the TRIPS Agreement), it
would be possible to produce Diflican and sell the drug for about 7 or 8
baht per 200 mg, instead of the price of 230 baht currently charged by
Pfizer.
These two examples are given to show that for most people affected by
HIV/AIDS worldwide, the problem is less research and development of new
drugs that access to existing drugs. Therefore, no international policy
should be adopted by the United States unless a reflection is made on
the intellectual property aspects of access to drugs.
This reflection should include:
- compulsory licensing on drugs
- parallel imports of drugs
- pricing of drugs developed with public funds
- generic drugs substitution
- the appropriate term (and form) of protection for health registration
data.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Catherine Gavin
Lawyer
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington DC 20036
USA
tel (202) 387-8030, fax (202) 234-5176
email:cgavin@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.