|
In late
April public-health activists and policy experts from
around the world will head to
Geneva,
Switzerland, to attend a World Health Organization
conference on intellectual-property rights. There, they
will discuss the best ways to get medicine to the
world’s poor. The resulting recommendations will have a
huge impact on the health-care programs of many
governments in Southeast Asia.
Many of
the conference’s loudest participants support the
suspension of patents on pharmaceuticals. Indeed,
they’re already pushing for governments to follow this
policy.
In the
Philippines, for instance, Congress is currently
considering a measure called the cheaper-medicines bill,
which aims to lower the cost of medicine by weakening or
revoking patents on drugs.
The
bill’s proponents claim they’re fighting for “patients
over patents.” But gutting patents will not only retard
the development of medicines, it could also harm and
kill patients now.
There
are better—and safer—ways to get quality treatment to
the poor.
Simply
put, patents are not responsible for the problems the
poor face in gaining access to medicine. Only 1 percent
of the medicines on the World Health Organization’s
(WHO) “Essential Medicines” list are patented. The
remaining 99 percent of drugs are off-patent and could
be cheaply produced as generics.
Yet, the
access problems remain. Puzzling, if patents are to
blame.
The real
access problems are systemic. Plenty of cheap, generic
drugs are present in the
Philippines and
elsewhere, but they’re not the genuine article.
Many are
of dubious quality or do not pass bioequivalence testing
for safety and efficacy. Some are not tested at all.
Indeed, Dr. Suzette Lazo of the University of the
Philippines has said, “Not all generic drugs in the. . .
market have been tested; in fact only a very small
minority has undergone this crucial testing.”
This
lack of testing could have dangerous consequences. The
WHO estimates that about 30 percent of the medicines
supplied in developing countries are fake. India’s firms
are the most notorious culprits, as the 8,000
pharmaceutical companies there turn out a drug supply
that is nearly 42-percent counterfeit.
Patented
medicines, by contrast, go through intensive screening
and approval procedures in order to guarantee their
safety. Patents generally last for 20 years, but
clinical trials eat into eight to 12 years of that
period—and there’s no guarantee that those clinical
trials will result in a successful product.
That
leaves little time to recoup the $800 million it costs
on average to develop and bring a new drug into the
market. Without the “profitability period” guaranteed by
a patent, it’s unlikely that any firm or individual
would undertake the time- and money-intensive research
necessary to discover the next “miracle” product.
Instead
of interfering with the market for medical treatments,
the government in the Philippines and elsewhere should
step aside.
Scrapping taxes on medicines would be a good start.
In the
Philippines, at present, medicines are slapped with an
import tax of 5 percent and a value-added tax of 12
percent.
In other
countries, the government take is even higher. The total
burden of taxes, charges and fees can range from 55
percent in India to 34 percent in Nigeria to 29 percent
in Bangladesh. Medicines in Mexico are a relative
bargain, with only 24 percent in additional fees.
Such
excessive government charges put critical treatments out
of reach for thousands. Abolishing them entirely would
do wonders to lower the cost of medicine and to get it
to those who need it, particularly the poor.
Geneva
will be crowded with rich technocrats who have little
familiarity with the on-the-ground realities of
Southeast Asia’s public and personal health-care
problems, yet, they won’t hesitate to further incite
national governments to extend their intervention in
medical innovation and patients’ right to choose
effective and safe medicines.
It’s
nothing short of ideological imperialism—pushing us in
Southeast Asia to accept confiscatory policies that
disrespect the property rights of innovators and freedom
to choose of patients. This is condescending to citizens
and political leaders alike.
And its
pretensions come at a price. Patent busting might bring
cheaper drugs in the short term, but it threatens the
well-being of poor patients and stifles medical
innovation over the long haul.
Seizing
patents in the name of the poor may sound compassionate,
but the consequences for both current and future
patients are anything but. Governments can achieve
“cheaper medicines” by simply getting out of the way.
****
Oplas is president of Minimal Government Thinkers Inc.,
a Philippines-based think tank that advocates small
government, small taxes, a free market and more personal
responsibility. He belongs to a network of free-market
oriented think tanks and institutes in Asia and other
parts of the world. |