US blocks cheap drugs agreement

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
Mr. Big economist man...

Lets hope that I can shnooker the pharmas into feeling that way. As I was typing here, got a call from an HR person at a big pharma for a job interview.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Intellectual property should be protected only when it can be economically and socially justified

And who decides if it is economically and socially justified? You? How authoritarian .

Fact is that the process of patenting leads to economic growth. People will not make a new product at considerable cost to themselves if they know it can be copied by others and sold by them.

[Adam Smith]

This is a pretty complicated issue. Attached is a good, recent 20 page overview article if you are interested in the topic. It is in zipped pdf fromat. The conclusions are as follows.

Pharmaceuticals have brought tremendous health improvements to developing countries. The international community could greatly increase these benefits by implementing systems to provide better access to existing pharmaceuticals and to manage their use, as well as by investing in the global public good of R&D on diseases that disproportionately affect the poor. Developing countries could redirect their health budgets away from salaries and toward cost-effective public health measures, such as vaccination and school-based control of intestinal worms, and could explore institutional reforms for health care delivery. Developed countries and international organizations could encourage differential pricing, allow more favorable tax treatment of appropriate drug donations, and encourage R&D and facilitate access to new products by committing in advance to purchase products needed in developing countries if and when they are developed.

As you can see, there is much more much more to this than just patents. In fact, the US proposed a system under which drugs would be distributed under the control of UN agencies, and even offered to kick in some money to fund the scheme IIRC. Sadly, none of issues or alternative approaches made it into the original BBC article. I am very disappointed in their coverage.

GP:

As I was typing here, got a call from an HR person at a big pharma for a job interview.

If you want some prep material I have some more where this came from, though I might not be able to dig it up until this weekend. PM me your address.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Patents can be really damaging to industry a lot of times. For instance, look at France when they tried product patents a century ago. It's not a great suprise that their chemical industry was quickly destroyed and the industry moved to Switzerland. Strong patents (as in the status quo) are economically worse than no patents.

I don't know the circumstances that caused this, but I have a clue. The French today don't really examine their patents for novelty. So one can get a patent on existing technology. I can certainly understand how such patents can be harmful if they are actually enforced.

In contrast, Germany has a very good patent system. It is a main factor in Germany strong industrial performance, including its chemical industry.

As to patent not be justified until there is a certain level of development - it seems to me rather that the lack of a patent system is a cause of underdevelopment.

[Ned]

Originally posted by faded glory
For those of you whose english is a FOURTH LANGUAGE.

Let me help you understand a few points.

1)Drugs in the US are expensive.
2)Drugs everywhere else are cheap
3)Drug companies have to make up huge losses from socialized medicine abroad, by raping US buyers.

Sorry. Dont wanna pay for it. Nada.

Faded Glory, Are you telling me that the actual cost, without subsidies, of the very same patented drug is lower outside the US?

If this is true, the problem of high cost lies elsewhere - perhaps in the structure of our health insurance system.

[SpencerH]

Drug costs for the same drug can be lower without subsidies. Just look at the drug price difference between Canada. AFAIK the costs are built into the licensing agreements in each country and in Canada they refuse to pay the American prices.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GP

If you think the engine of creation is public discovery, perhaps drugs should be taxed and the money earmarked for public research. But don't underestimate what the drug companies do. You and I know that if we had government development of all those drugs. All the way to market, it would be a lot slower, more political and less innovative, and MORE expensive.

I dont underestimate the drug companies contribution to drug development but since I do basic research (funded by the taxpayers) I dont get shmoozed much .

[Sandman]

Halting the spread of AIDS is more important than safeguarding pharmaceutical company's profits. It's killing a whole continent, and has to be stopped with any means necessary.

[mactbone]

AIDs should be stopped, but there isn't a sure-fire cure is there? So should pharma companies just keep sending every new, expensive drug to see if it'll work?

Sava: The point I was trying to make is that CEOs are as evil as you, as human as you, and the only real difference is that they had the ability to become CEOs and make lots of money by starting a company or being successful in a company.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Drug costs for the same drug can be lower without subsidies. Just look at the drug price difference between Canada. AFAIK the costs are built into the licensing agreements in each country and in Canada they refuse to pay the American prices.

SpencerH, all you are proving is that the high cost in America has as much to do with the number of dollars chasing the drug as anything else.

This price differential between US and elsewhere must create a hugh grey market problem.

[Sandman]

AIDs should be stopped, but there isn't a sure-fire cure is there?

We can still fight the disease with drugs given to HIV-positive mothers who can then give birth to HIV-negative children. Not to mention education in the use of condoms. Frankly, the pharmaceutical companies are on the side of the disease here.

So should pharma companies just keep sending every new, expensive drug to see if it'll work?

Uh? The reason that new drugs are expensive is because they are tested to see if they work.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Halting the spread of AIDS is more important than safeguarding pharmaceutical company's profits. It's killing a whole continent, and has to be stopped with any means necessary.

So - stealing the drugs from the company that invented them is the cure for AIDS? Such actions simply will not incent further research into aids cures.

The alternative to theft is to actually buy the drugs at prevailing prices. If the third world cannot afford it, perhaps the genereous and wealthy Europeans will help.

[SpencerH]

As I said before, the price of most anti-retrovirals has dropped because of the pressure on the drug companies. The cost of HAART outside of the 'developed' world is running between 200-300 USD/yr which is a fraction of what it costs here.

EDIT- that HAART does not include the latest and greatest drugs

[Sandman]

So - stealing the drugs from the company that invented them is the cure for AIDS? Such actions simply will not incent further research into aids cures.

It's not stealing in a legal sense if a country changes the law. Do you also think that it's wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving family? Is it wrong for a government to steal (in the loosest possible sense) drugs to lenghten the lives of it's AIDS victims and to reduce the chances of parent-child transmission?

According to the 'monetary incentive' theory, it seems to me that we will never get an AIDS cure from a company; it would destroy their market. Even if one company did come up with a cure, it'd probably cost a fortune.

Do you think that if an AIDS type disease was ravaging the US, or any developed nation, the people or the government would care about patents or drug company profits?

The alternative to theft is to actually buy the drugs at prevailing prices. If the third world cannot afford it, perhaps the genereous and wealthy Europeans will help.

Or legislate so that it's not theft. Some of the tougher developing world countries have done this. And Europeans are not generous. Our corporations are gits as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Halting the spread of AIDS is more important than safeguarding pharmaceutical company's profits. It's killing a whole continent, and has to be stopped with any means necessary.

What happens with the next AIDS? Then phara companies don't try to make a cure because Hell, they'll lose money on it because some government nitwit will make them sell it for peanuts, causing them to go in the red.

It is a socially desirably goal that phara companies make a profit... so that new drugs are made in the future.

Do you also think that it's wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving family?

Actually yes.. it is still stealing. Maybe more justified, but still...