[Ip-health] Michelle Childs on the BBC: Do drugs really have to be so expensive?

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Tue Feb 4 05:10:29 PST 2014


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21834442

*28 March 2013*

*Last updated at 22:49 GMT *

*Do drugs really have to be so expensive?*

By Michelle ChildsMedicins Sans Frontieres

A liver cancer treatment is off-limits in the NHS due to its unjustifiably
high price tag, but in India the same treatment is available for less than
£100 a month.

In this week's Scrubbing Up, Michelle Childs, of Medecins Sans Frontieres,
questions why wealthy nations are not doing more to drive down medicine
costs.

Sorafenib tosylate is a drug for liver cancer patented by German
pharmaceutical company Bayer and marketed as Nexavar.

Bayer priced the drug at nearly £3,500 per month.

Until March last year, India - a country where half the population live on
less than £1 per day - had no choice but to pay this sum for patented
Nexavar.

But to ensure its citizens had affordable access, the country has since
granted a compulsory licence clause that cuts the cost of the drug by
allowing another company to manufacture the therapy, even though it is
still under patent.
Continue reading the main
story<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21834442#story_continues_2>
"Start Quote

People in the UK today should be asking, 'Why are these drug prices so
high?'"

Michelle ChildsDirector of Policy and Advocacy at MSF's Campaign for Access
to Essential Medicines

This has slashed the price of the drug by an astounding 97% - generic
versions of sorafenib in India cost around £84 per month.

In the UK, where an affordable generic version isn't available, the price
is around £3,000 per month, which drug regulators say is "simply too high"
to justify making it available on the NHS.

Indeed, the watchdog NICE (National Institute for health and Clinical
Excellence) rejected Nexavar for NHS use based on its cost-benefit
calculation.

The reaction in the UK to this decision was swift and censorious. Health
charities - including the heads of Macmillan Cancer Support and the British
Liver Trust - cancer patients and their families all publicly slammed the
decision, and some even went as far as to picket the NICE offices of CEO
Andrew Dillon in protest. But the one place the anger wasn't directed was
at the prices set by the pharmaceutical companies.

With health budgets that need to be controlled and the Cancer Drugs Fund in
the UK under pressure, the elephant in the room is the cost of the drug in
the first place.

Why did no-one question Bayer on the price tag of its drug? Instead of
asking, "Why are we refusing to pay for these high drug prices?", people in
the UK today should be asking, "Why are these drug prices so high?"

India did.

Bayer has said it will challenge India's decision to allow the production
of a cheaper generic copy of its patented drug.

It justifies the higher price of sorafenib saying it needs the revenue to
pay for future innovation. But Bayer has refused to provide details on how
much it invested in Nexavar's research and development, the cost of which
was partly subsidised by the US government.

The only figure Bayer was prepared to refer to was the $1 billion general
R&D price tag that GSK Chief Andrew Witty recently called "one of the great
myths of the industry".

It is true that innovative new drugs can change the way we treat people and
we need more of them.

But innovation is of little use if people cannot access new treatments
because they are so expensive.

This has long been recognised as an issue in the developing world.
Increasingly though, those who cannot afford these prices are in developed
countries like the UK. The innovation system is failing.

A new approach is needed.

We need to move to a system where new drugs are priced as close to the cost
of production as possible - and where innovation is paid for and rewarded
separately. We need innovation *and* affordable access.

This is the prescription to address the needs of developing countries
suggested by experts at the World Health Organization.

But the UK, EU and other developed countries are blocking meaningful
progress.

With the UK, the US and the EU facing ageing populations and health budget
blowouts, now is the time for them to start siding with developing
countries on affordable access.

It is in the interests of everyone's good health.



More information about the Ip-health mailing list