[Ip-health] Compulsory Licensing vs. International Procurement

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Tue Apr 21 14:37:41 PDT 2015


Jamie is exactly right. I don't know what gives Attiran such pleasure to say these things, many of which have limited support or limited significance. A few might not work. Think about the ones that do and the life saving relief that they provide. You can't weigh those things, and the best you should do is find out what the problem is with that those might not work as well as others, and move them over to the other camp. Certainly not dismiss them because some don't work while others save countless lives.

________________________________________
From: Ip-health <ip-health-bounces at lists.keionline.org> on behalf of Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:08 PM
To: Danny Edwards
Cc: Ip-health at lists.keionline.org; Justin Mendoza
Subject: Re: [Ip-health] Compulsory Licensing vs. International Procurement

Well, this is part of a long list of "patents don't matter" and compulsory
licenses "don't work" or are "bad" from Attaran.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Danny Edwards <dedwards at atmindex.org>
wrote:

>
> Hi Justin and IPhealth colleagues,
>
> We would also be interested in other’s views on this paper - apols in
> advance if there has been a previous discussion which we missed...
>
> First of all, credit to the researchers of this paper for stimulating a
> debate about compulsory licensing.  However, we felt that the limitations
> of the paper’s methodology (which are acknowledged by the authors) meant
> that robust conclusions about the value of compulsory licensing or
> otherwise are difficult to draw from it.
>
> Our main concerns were:
>
> One -  Issuing CLs or the the ‘threat' of CLs have been cited many times
> as a key factor in industry decision-making to issue voluntary licenses or
> to cut prices.  Simply put - we don’t know what the pricing landscape would
> look like in the absence of a framework which allows CLs - so its very
> difficult to suggest that one system is better than the other.  Its much
> more likely to be the case  that they work synergistically.
>
> Two - We think the comparison made by the authors is not appropriate.
> They compare a CL price reached in a market where there is very little
> competition (only between the patented drug and the CL-produced competitor)
> where the CL competitor has - most likely - been manufactured locally -
> against a global procurement price in ‘peer countries’ - where patents are
> not necessarily in place.   This only becomes a fair comparison to make
> when there is a patent also in place in the peer country - in fact the
> authors note that when they reduced the sample to only include peer country
> comparators where there was a patent in place they found that CL prices
> ‘modestly outperformed’ international procurement prices.
>
> Best,
>
> Danny
>
> Access to Medicine Foundation
> Scheepmakersdijk 5A, 2011 AS Haarlem
> The Netherlands
> www.atmindex.org
>
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 14:19, Justin Mendoza <justin.mendoza at yale.edu> wrote:
>
> I stumbled upon this interesting piece the other day while researching for
> a project I'm working on. Thought I would share it here, and see if anyone
> had put out a response to it, or had any thoughts on the data.
>
> I found this line from the discussion most interesting: "The compulsory
> licensing price disadvantage was worst for those countries that were less
> well off in terms of Human Development Index score—the very countries that
> most need to save money."
>
> Link (apologies for the pay wall, they didn't publish open source):
> http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/34/3/493.full.pdf+html
>
> Compulsory licensing often did not produce lower prices for antiretrovirals
> compared to international procurement.
> Beall RF
> <
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Beall%20RF%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=25732501
> >
> 1, Kuhn R
> <
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kuhn%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=25732501
> >
> 2, Attaran A
> <
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Attaran%20A%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=25732501
> >
> 3.
>
> ABSTRACT Compulsory licensing has been widely suggested as a legal
> mechanism for bypassing patents to introduce lower-cost generic
> antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS in developing countries. Previous studies
> found that compulsory licensing can reduce procurement prices for drugs,
> but it is unknown how the resulting prices compare to procurements through
> the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; UNICEF; and other
> international channels. For this study we systematically constructed a
> case-study database of compulsory licensing activity for antiretrovirals
> and compared compulsory license prices to those in the World Health
> Organization’s (WHO’s) Global Price Reporting Mechanism and the Global
> Fund’s Price and Quality Reporting Tool. Thirty compulsory license cases
> were analyzed with 673 comparable procurements from WHO and Global Fund
> data. Compulsory license prices exceeded the median international
> procurement prices in nineteen of the thirty case studies, often with a
> price gap of more than 25 percent. Compulsory licensing often delivered
> suboptimal value when compared to the alternative of international
> procurement, especially when used by low-income countries to manufacture
> medicines locally. There is an ongoing need for multilateral and charitable
> actors to work collectively with governments and medicine suppliers on
> policy options.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Wishing the best,
>
> Justin Mendoza
> Yale | School of Public Health
> MPH Candidate *2015* | Health Policy
> E: justin.mendoza at yale.edu
> C: 269-762-2073 | @justindmendoza <https://twitter.com/JustinDMendoza>
> Linkedin Available Here <http://linkd.in/1o9jLDn>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>



--
James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
+41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org




More information about the Ip-health mailing list