[Ip-health] RAND study of IP and Developing Countries

Ellen Shaffer ershaffer at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 06:50:54 PDT 2010


Thanks for calling attention to this publication frm RAND, which
unfortunately neglects to cite our own empirical study on this issue, one of
the few available.  I'm waiting for  a reply fron Dr, Hassan to my note,
below.

Dear Dr. Hassan,
I was interested in your findings as they mirror our own. Given that
you also note the scarcity of empirical studies on the subject of
intellectual property and access to medicines, I was surprised that
you and colleagues did not note our study on this subject:
P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S :C A F T A
Health Affairs
25 August 2009
A Trade Agreement's Impact On Access To
Generic Drugs
The Central America Free Trade Agreement has kept some generic drugs
from Guatemala even though they're available in the United States.by
Ellen R. Shaffer and Joseph E. Brenner
ABSTRACT: Millions of people lack access to affordable medicines. The
intellectual property rules in the Central America Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA) provide pharmaceutical companies with monopoly
protections that allow them to market some drugs without competition
by less costly generics. We examined availability of certain drugs in
Guatemala and found that CAFTA intellectual property rules reduced
access to some generic drugs already on the market and delayed new
entry of other generics. Some drugs protected from competition in
Guatemala will become open for generic competition in the United
States before generic versions will be legally available in Guatemala.
[Health Affairs 28, no. 5 (2009): w957-w968 (published online 25
August 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w957)]
The hard copy was published in January, 2010.
Best, Ellen Shaffer

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Aidan Hollis <ahollis at ucalgary.ca> wrote:

> The RAND corporation has prepared a study on IP and Developing Countries.
> The study seems largely to summarize existing economics literature, but may
> be a useful resource for some on this list-serve. Chapter 5 is particularly
> relevant.
>
> Aidan Hollis
> Professor of Economics
>
> University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW Calgary AB T2N 1N4 Canada
> tel: +1 403 220 5861  fax: +1 403 220 5861
> email: ahollis at ucalgary.ca
> web: http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm
>
> Incentives for Global Health
> http://www.healthimpactfund.org
>
>
>
> Intellectual Property and Developing Countries
> A review of the literature
>
> Emmanuel Hassan, Ohid Yaqub, Stephanie Diepeveen
> Prepared for the UK Intellectual Property Office and the UK Department for
> International Development
> The RAND Corporation – 2010
>
> Available online as PDF file at:
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR804.pdf
>
> The report is divided into five chapters corresponding to the areas
> proposed by the Intellectual Property Office IPO. Each chapter reviews the
> theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for and against strong
> intellectual property rights in developing countries from the perspective of
> both developed and developing countries. The report concludes with a
> discussion of the knowledge gaps that exist in the literature and suggests
> directions for future research
>
> Executive summary
>
> CHAPTER 1 Introduction
> Main findings from past research
> Intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment and international
> trade
> Intellectual property rights, international technology transfer and
> domestic innovation
> Intellectual property rights and public health
> Intellectual property rights, genetic resources and traditional knowledge
> Future research directions
> Intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment, trade and
> licensing
> Intellectual property rights, international technology transfer and
> domestic innovation
> Intellectual property rights and public health
> Intellectual property rights, genetic resources and traditional knowledge
>
> CHAPTER 2 Intellectual property and foreign direct investment
> 2.1 Introduction
> 2.2 Intellectual property and foreign direct investment: the theory
> 2.2.1 The case for stronger intellectual property rights
> 2.2.2 The case against stronger intellectual property rights
> 2.3 Intellectual property and foreign direct investment: the empirical
> evidence
> 2.3.1 Evidence from the perspective of developed countries
> 2.3.2 Evidence from the perspective of developing countries
> 2.4 Conclusions and future research directions
>
> CHAPTER 3 Intellectual property and trade
> 3.1 Introduction
> 3.2 Intellectual property and trade: the theory
> 3.2.1 The case for stronger intellectual property rights
> 3.2.2 The case against stronger intellectual property rights
> 3.3 Intellectual property and trade: the empirical evidence
> 3.3.1 Evidence from the perspective of developed countries
> 3.3.2 Evidence from the perspective of developing countries
> 3.4 Conclusions and future research directions
>
> CHAPTER 4 Intellectual property and innovation
> 4.1 Introduction
> 4.2 Intellectual property rights and innovation: the theory
> 4.2.1 The case for stronger intellectual property rights
> 4.2.2 The case against stronger intellectual property rights
> 4.3 Intellectual property and innovation: the empirical evidence
> 4.3.1 Evidence on international technology transfer
> 4.3.2 Evidence on domestic innovation
> 4.4 Conclusions and future research directions
>
> CHAPTER 5 Intellectual property and public health
> 5.1 Introduction
> 5.2 The importance of patents for pharmaceutical innovation
> 5.3 Intellectual property rights and access to innovations
> 5.3.1 Patents are taken out only in selected countries
> 5.3.2 Accessing healthcare innovations by lowering prices
> 5.4 Intellectual property rights and innovation for health
> 5.4.1 Limits in using intellectual property rights to address developing
> country problems
> 5.4.2 Creating conditions for more effective intellectual property policy
> 5.5 Conclusions and further research directions
>
> CHAPTER 6 Intellectual property, genetic resources and traditional
> knowledge
> 6.1 Introduction
> 6.2 Intellectual property, traditional knowledge and genetic resources: the
> theory
> 6.2.1 An emerging field of research
> 6.2.2 Assumptions about the nature of traditional knowledge
> 6.2.3 Human rights discourse
> 6.3 Intellectual property, genetic resources and traditional knowledge: the
> empirical evidence
> 6.3.1 Evidence from the perspective of developed countries
> 6.3.2 Evidence from the perspective of developing countries
> 6.4 Conclusions and further research directions
>
> CHAPTER 7 Conclusion
> References
> Appendix: International patent protection – 1960–2005
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>



-- 
Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH
Co-Director, Center for Policy Analysis/EQUAL/CPATH
San Francisco Presidio
P.O. Box 29586
San Francisco, CA 94129-0586
Phone 415-922-6204
www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org
www.cpath.org
cell: 415-680-4603



More information about the Ip-health mailing list