# \[e-drug\] MSF submission to WHO intergovernmental working group

**URL:** <https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-msf-submission-to-who-intergovernmental-working-group/26789>\
**Category:** e-drug\
**Created:** [November 17, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-msf-submission-to-who-intergovernmental-working-group/26789 "2006-11-17T03:38:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![James\_ARKINSTALL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f1d935/32.png) [@James\_ARKINSTALL](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/James_ARKINSTALL)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-msf-submission-to-who-intergovernmental-working-group/26789/1 "2006-11-17T03:38:21Z")

</div>

E-DRUG: MSF submission to WHO intergovernmental working group  
----------------------------------------------------------

Please find below the summary of MSF's contribution to the  
intergovernmental working group on public health, innovation and  
intellectual property.

The full text can be downloaded from  
[http://www.accessmed-msf.org](http://www.accessmed-msf.org)

or viewed with all other contributions on  
[http://www.who.int/public\_hearing\_phi/en/](http://www.who.int/public_hearing_phi/en/)

Thanks  
James

James ARKINSTALL  
MSF  
\<James.ARKINSTALL@paris.msf.org\>

Towards a health needs driven framework for R&D and access to medicines

The Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health  
(CIPIH) report concludes that making the medical research and development  
(R&D) system prevailingly dependent on patents and other forms of  
intellectual property (IP) protection carries significant consequences for  
the setting of R&D priorities, with a detrimental effect for diseases that  
disproportionately affect developing countries.

One crucial consequence is the absence of financial incentives to drive R&D  
when the client population has insufficient purchasing power. This applies  
to neglected diseases - recent research shows how these still only account  
for 1% of the new chemical entities reaching the market. But more common  
diseases are also affected: the lack of reliable medical tools to address  
the escalating tuberculosis epidemic or paediatric HIV/AIDS are clear  
illustrations of how the system is fundamentally flawed.

Financing R&D through IP also severely impacts access to medicines.  
Competition between manufacturers, which IP protection is designed  
specifically to prevent, is the only way to bring prices of medicines down  
to a sustainable level that patients or ministries of health can afford.  
But today, five years after the Doha Declaration promised to re-establish  
the balance between IP and public health, the cost of treating patients in  
developing countries is once again increasing.

Arguably the CIPIH report's most important contribution is its  
consideration of the entire innovation cycle including discovery,  
development, but also delivery. In other words, one must also examine how  
those in need can access an innovation, once it has been developed.

The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) must follow the CIPIH's lead,  
and address problems related to both innovation and access. Economic  
mechanisms alone will not succeed: government action is needed to ensure  
that innovation is steered to meet real health needs, and that access to  
these innovations is secured. The Group must pay considerable attention to  
neglected diseases, but not limit itself to them, for the problem is wider  
in scope. Nor must it content itself with calling for new financial  
mechanisms. What is needed is a concerted effort towards a framework to  
promote innovation and access, for diseases that disproportionately affect  
developing countries.

Such a plan must include: priority setting of R&D, so that innovation  
responds to health needs; new mechanisms for financing R&D that don’t come  
at the expense of high drug prices; active promotion of mechanisms that  
facilitate access to medicines, such as compulsory licences; and review of  
failed mechanisms such as the August 30th Decision.

In recent years, WHO's relative silence on these questions has left the  
field open to other agencies like WTO and WIPO that cannot give proper  
consideration to health issues. This must change: the IGWG process must now  
examine them with the prioritisation of health above other concerns. WHO  
and the Group must not squander this opportunity.