E-DRUG: TAC action against BMS
------------------------------
[AIDS activists in South Africa are now concentrating on BMS, which
refuses to make its cheaper ARV prices available to the private sector.
The stakes are high: AngloAmerican announced this week that it wants
to buy anti-retroviral cocktails for 10,000 mineworkers by end 2002.
{see 2 press articles on this move copied below}
A typical multinational cocktail would cost them USD 2500 or
USD 25 million per year for 10,000 employees.
Two generic producers (Cipla and Aspen Pharmacar/Hetero) are talking
to AngloAmerican, and the lowest offer so far is USD 350 per person
per year.
This means AngloAmerican could save USD 21.5 million per year for
its 10,000 employees if it could buy generic!
Obviously, a small percentage of this would have to be paid
in lawyer costs to get a voluntary or compulsory
license, and for royalties to the patent holders.
BMS is not alone in refusing to offer its discounted prices to the private
sector: Roche and GlaxoSmithKline have also not yet made their public
sector prices available.
However, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD should be praised, as they did
make their lower prices available to the private sector.
When will BMS, GSK and Roche follow? NN]
For more news, see: www.tac.org.za
8 May, 2001
Today, TAC activists protested at a Bristol-Myers Squibb presentation in
Bellville.
This is the reason why:
Treatment Action Campaign Statement
What has Happened to the Bristol-Myers Squibb $1/Day Offer?
On the 14th of March, multinational pharmaceutical company,
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), announced that it would reduce the combined
price of two anti-retroviral medicines didanosine (ddI, brand-name is
Videx) and stavudine (d4T, brand-name is Zerit) to US$1 (approx. R8) per
day in sub-Saharan Africa. It turns out the offer was a public relations
stunt, designed to alleviate activist and legal pressure. BMS have
indicated that the price reduction is available only to governments and
NGOs. However, no sub-Saharan African government distributes
anti-retrovirals as part of triple-drug therapy, and there is no NGO in
South Africa with the capacity to administer triple-drug therapy to a
significant number of people. The reduction is not being made in the
private sector, which is the only place where anti-retrovirals are
readily available. At least one company which distributes
anti-retrovirals with no mark-up, only a prescription fee, has been
spurned by BMS when they enquired about the price reduction. Dr Steve
Andrews, a GP in Cape Town who is angered by BMS's failure to deliver on
the price reduction, said "I have patients who are dying because they
cannot afford to buy these medicines."
The Treatment Action Campaign considered the BMS price reduction a major
victory for activists. It would have saved lives. The price reduction
would have brought one triple-drug therapy regimen (ddI, d4T and
efavirenz) to less than R1000 per month, still too much for most South
Africans, but within the range of many middle-class people and workers
on medical aid. Even if the sero-prevalence ratio of the approximately 7
million South Africans on medical aid is much lower than the whole
population, many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people
would have been able to consider commencing highly active
anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). Some of the few thousand people
currently on HAART would have experienced much-needed financial relief.
Instead, drug companies continue to make false offers. This is further
evidence that they are not to be trusted. Only competition from generic
suppliers will create a sustainable mechanism for reducing the prices of
essential patented medicines to affordable levels. Furthermore, the
South African Rand, like most of the world's currencies has recently
weakened significantly against the US dollar. Even if the US$1 a day
offer were to be implemented, the price in African countries will
steadily rise. Only local production and importation from countries
whose currencies are less volatile against local currencies can negate
this problem.
BMS is the World's Worst Patent Abuser
James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology has submitted an
affidavit on behalf of TAC in the Medicines Act court case, which
describes how BMS makes huge profits by patenting medicines developed
with public money. BMS market eleven drugs developed by the US based
National Cancer Institute (NCI), a publicly funded body, while BMS's
nearest rivals only market two NCI developed drugs. BMS also hold the
patent on an essential medicine used for treating Karposi Sacoma, called
Taxol, in which they did no invest any research and development. BMS are
arguably the worst patent abuser of all pharmaceutical companies. They
have the ignominy of being the world's worst patent abuser among
pharmaceutical companies.
Yale University and NIH Must Demonstrate Sincerity
Yale University and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
patent-holders on ddI and d4T, must demonstrate that they are not part
of this BMS publicity stunt by issuing a legally binding statement that
the licenses for these medicines are available to any generic
manufacturer with the knowledge and capacity to develop and distribute
them. TAC acknowledges that Yale and the NIH may charge a small
undifferentiated royalty fee to manufacturers, on condition that this
money is re-invested into research on diseases affecting the
third-world.
TAC calls on activists around the world to step up the pressure against
BMS, Yale University and the NIH, until the original price offer is
implemented and ddI and d4T licenses are issued to generic
manufacturers. BMS must not be allowed to get away with murder.
TAC also calls on generic manufacturers of ddI and d4T to immediately
apply for compulsory licenses on these medicines.