[Ip-health] IP-Watch: WHO Board Recommends Extension Of Plan For Health Innovation, IP

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Wed Feb 4 02:21:03 PST 2015


WHO Board Recommends Extension Of Plan For Health Innovation, IP

03/02/2015 BY WILLIAM NEW <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>
SAEZ <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/catherine/>, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The World Health Organization Executive Board this week recommended the
extension of an important strategy and plan of action on health, IP and
innovation. It also set out steps to resolve questions over evaluation and
review of the strategy and plan of action before the annual World Health
Assembly in May.

The 136th WHO Executive Board
<http://who.int/mediacentre/events/2015/eb136/en/> met from 26 January to 3

The IP and innovation issue relates to the 2008 WHO Global Strategy and
Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
(GSPA), which was adopted to “foster innovation and improve access for
people in developing countries,” according to the WHO
<http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/phi_globstat_action/en/>. The GSPA
and related documents are available here
<http://www.who.int/phi/publications/Global_Strategy_Plan_Action.pdf> [pdf].

EB Decision

Today, the Executive Board agreed to an extension of the GSPA until 2022,
and an extension of an “overall programme review” until 2018.

The decision includes language drafted yesterday by a working group
(including government IP specialists) asking the WHO secretariat to report
on options for the establishment of a management evaluation group, terms of
reference, sequencing and other specifics, participants said.

The 3 February decision, EB136/CONF./7 Rev.2
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB136/B136_CONF7Rev2-en.pdf>, [pdf]
recommends that the 68th World Health Assembly (WHA) in May extend the
deadline of the overall programme review of the strategy and plan of action
“on its achievements, remaining challenges and recommendations on the way
forward to 2018, recognizing it was not presented in 2015, as requested by
resolution WHA62.16.”

The decision further requested:

“the Director-General to provide a report for the Sixty-eighth World Health
Assembly on options, in consultation and with the involvement of Member
States, for the conduct of the comprehensive evaluation and the overall
programme review of the global strategy and plan of action on public health
innovation and intellectual property, on its achievements, remaining
challenges and recommendations on the way forward, including whether to
combine the two instruments, sequencing, terms of reference, timing and
options for establishing an evaluation management group with the goal of
completing this exercise by 2018.”

The decision reflects language deleted by the working group, as well as
language added (in bold).

The language that was struck could be seen as reducing the involvement of
member states, one government source said.

The addition at the end reflects efforts to decide whether to address the
evaluation and review separately or together, as well as other details.

Discussions were oriented around a proposal from several developing
countries (Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa, with Ecuador later)
for a 2 February draft decision
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB136/B136_CONF7Rev1-en.pdf> [pdf]
recommending that the annual May World Health Assembly extend the timeframe
of the GSPA from 2015 to 2022.

The draft proposal also suggested to extend the deadline of the overall
programme review of the GSPA to 2018, as it was not presented in 2015.

This draft decision follows an earlier version
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB136/B136_CONF7-en.pdf> [pdf]
tabled by the same countries on 27 January.

Secretariat Perspective

“The decision shows how much member states are engaged with this process of
evaluation of the GSPA and how much they are concerned” about the
implementation, Zafar Mirza, coordinator for Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property, told *Intellectual Property Watch*.

“Member states have also created a space between the Executive Board and
the WHA to work out the best way forward for the evaluation of the GSPA,”
he said.

The secretariat submitted a report, EB136/31, to this week’s Board meeting,
proposing a timeline for the evaluation to be completed by the 2017 WHA.
The secretariat approach asked that this Board meeting to establish an
“evaluation management group” to work on terms of reference and to guide
selection of the evaluation team. The team would begin work this summer.

The past GSPA resolutions had indicated that the evaluations and
comprehensive review would be separate. According to sources, the
secretariat considered that the 133rd Executive Board meeting in 2013 to
have approved a plan to proceed with the evaluation and review as one.

The secretariat report to the 133rd EB, document EB 133/7
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB133/B133_7-en.pdf> [pdf] said the
difference between the evaluation and review was not clear in the GSPA, so
it suggested combining the two. And it proposed to have the secretariat
select an independent external evaluator.

The secretariat report to the 133rd EB requested the Board to “note and
endorse” the report.

The 133rd EB chair had said that her understanding was that the Board noted
and endorsed the report, so the secretariat understood it was working on a
combined evaluation/review. But some member states at this year’s EB said
that was not their understanding and reopened the issue, which is still
being worked out.

The report of EB 133 [pdf] shows the summary of the chair:

“The CHAIRMAN said that it was her understanding that the Board wished to
request the Secretariat to prepare a progress report for consideration by
the governing bodies in 2015, on the understanding that a report on a
comprehensive independent evaluation would be submitted for consideration
in 2017. If there was no objection, she would assume that, the Board,
taking into account the discussion at its 133rd session, was prepared to
note the report and endorse the suggested approach for the evaluation
exercise, including in respect of reporting arrangements.”

Some developing countries this week noted that there was a great deal of
divergence of opinions in the EB133, and did not agreed that the evaluation
and review should be combined. They also sought more involvement in the
evaluation process.

Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO assistant director general for Health Systems and
Innovation, told the Board this week that the secretariat is due to give a
progress report every second year. The last was provided in 2014, she said,
adding that the next one would be due in 2016 if the action plan is
extended. The 2014 progress report is available here
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_40-en.pdf> (A67/40 item
I, pp. 17-21).

The timing of the evaluation stems from the EB133 decision, she said. She
said it was not possible to come up with an evaluation in 2015, and should
be postponed until 2017.

The WHO legal counsel was consulted on the issues and said that the GSPA
extension should be decided by the WHA “because that is a normative
instrument, which was adopted by the health assembly.”

The extension is neither an evaluation nor an assessment, he added, “It is
the applicability of a major policy and normative instrument adopted by the
health assembly.”

But the legal counsel said issues pertaining to the evaluation can be
legitimately decided by the board.

Member State Involvement

In the 30 January board discussion on the issue, Brazil asked why the WHO
“was not able to provide the overall programme review this year, in the
WHA.” Brazil also said the evaluation procedure should involve member
states and should not be done “solely by external evaluation, especially
since there are implementation responsibilities for member states.”

Saudi Arabia for the Eastern Mediterranean Region concurred and said only
EB members should form the evaluation management group. The Maldives for
the Southeast Asia region also said the evaluation management group should
include member states, as did China which said that member states from
different regions should be represented in the group to reflect different

Brazil requested that the secretariat provide for the next WHA the
methodology and terms of reference of the review process.

A number of countries supported the extension sought by the draft decision,
such as Gambia for the Africa region, the United States, and China.

South Africa sought to clarify the actions by the secretariat in relation
to the 133rd EB. On the evaluation management group, the South African
delegate said no specific decision was taken at that time. Referring to
paragraph 6 of resolution WHA62.16
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA62-REC1/WHA62_REC1-en-P2.pdf> [pdf]
(page 30), which approved the GSPA, she said the director general was
requested to continue monitoring the plan of action and conduct an overall
programme review.

The United States said this week it supported the extension, but also
supports “following evaluation policy adopted by the Executive Board in May
2012 and further elaborated through the WHO evaluation practice handbook
2013.” Norway concurred.

“For us,” the US delegate added,” part of reform means sticking to
agreements that we have reached, and we think that should apply to
evaluations including sensitive and important ones, like the [GSPA].”
However, the delegate said, “the US agrees on the importance of
transparency and engagement of member states as described in the draft
decision.” He said the US proposed some edits, in particular including the
participation of the EB Bureau in the evaluation management team. But a US
official later said these were not agreed.

GSPA Implementation

(consolidated version), as agreed upon in 2008, includes eight elements:

   - prioritizing research and development needs
   - promoting research and development
   - building and improving innovative capacity
   - transfer of technology
   - application and management of intellectual property to contribute to
   innovation and promote public health
   - improving delivery and access
   - promoting sustainable financing mechanisms
   - establishing and monitoring reporting systems

The GSPA notably refers to intellectual property rights, stating that they
are an important incentive for the development of new health care products.
However, “this incentive alone does not meet the need for the development
of new products to fight diseases where the potential paying market is
small or uncertain.”

The strategy further underlines the fact that the Doha Declaration on the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) “does not and should not prevent Members from
taking measures to protect public health.”

The plan of action of the global strategy details specifics actions to be
taken on each element and its sub-elements, and which stakeholder these
actions fall to.

Persistent High Prices of Medicines

Gambia for the Africa region said public health-oriented research and
development (R&D) is needed as well as access to affordable health
products. The Maldives said de-linking the cost of R&D from products would
promote access to medical products.

The North Korean representative said IP enhances innovation but should not
be “cold blooded” and have some flexibility, in particular in public
health. Intellectual property has been seen as a barrier to a better and
healthier world, he said. The high prices of pharmaceutical products is an
essential issue for poor populations, he said.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctor without Borders), in its statement
called on governments to extend the mandate of the GSPA to 2022. “We are a
long way from fully implementing the Global strategy,” it said. “Every day,
Médecins Sans Frontières continues to see the importance and role that the
Global Strategy, if fully and properly implemented, could play in ensuring
access and innovation to medicines,” the representative said.

“Today, we see increasing failures with our current system of research and
development, whether with respect to Ebola, antibiotic resistance, or a
range of neglected diseases. We also see unaffordable prices for essential
new medicines, including up to US$1,000 per pill for new medicines to treat
hepatitis C,” she added.

Instead of considering new R&D approaches, “some some governments, pushed
by multinational pharmaceutical companies, are instead seeking to increase
intellectual property protection worldwide, which will only deepen the
challenges that MSF and others will face in accessing treatments,
diagnostics and vaccines,” she said.

More information about the Ip-health mailing list