[Ip-health] PharmaTimes: US attacks on New Zealand drug agency draw anger

Krista Cox krista.cox at keionline.org
Mon May 9 14:06:51 PDT 2011

US attacks on New Zealand drug agency draw anger
WORLD NEWS | MAY 09, 2011


The US Trade Representative's latest Special 301 report's criticisms of New
Zealand's drug agency PHARMAC have drawn angry responses in that country.

The UTSR's newly-published annual report on intellectual property rights
notes that the US pharmaceutical industry "continues to express concerns
regarding, among other things, the transparency, fairness and predictability
of the PHARMAC pricing and reimbursement regime, as well as the overall
climate for innovative medicines in New Zealand."

In its submission asking for New Zealand to be placed on the USTR's Special
301 Priority Watch List, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America (PhRMA) said that PHARMAC "continues to impose stringent
cost-containment strategies and operate in a non-transparent manner, making
unpredictable funding decisions and creating an unfavourable environment for
innovative medicines."

"On average, the regulatory approval process for new drugs in New Zealand
takes about three years after the date of approval in the country of first
launch. This delay is exacerbated by the uncertainty and tardiness of
PHARMAC funding which is necessary for effective market access," PhRMA tells
the USTR.
The US trade group is highly critical of the methodology behind PHARMAC's
reimbursement decisions, which it says is denying many of the most effective
medicines to New Zealand patients.

"Analysis has found that of the 83 innovative new prescription-only
medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in Australia
between May 2000 and October 2006, only 22 are currently reimbursed in New
Zealand," says PhRMA.

"Many of these 22 products have restricted reimbursement, such as
reimbursement for limited indications. Funding for new medicines in New
Zealand is also significantly delayed, such that some medicines are only
funded after they come off patent, even where there is no funded therapeutic
alternative," it adds.

However, critics in New Zealand claim that the industry's criticisms are
"predictable" as it gears up for the next round of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) negotiations, a proposed regional trade agreement that
also includes Australia, Brunei Darussalem, China, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore
and Vietnam.

"US pharmaceutical companies strongly oppose PHARMAC and always have because
they cannot come into the New Zealand drug market and extort top dollar for
their latest wonder drug from sick and vulnerable Kiwis," said Maryan
Street, trade spokesperson for the opposition Labour Party.

US drugmakers "are at liberty to sell approved medicines here, but if
PHARMAC can provide a subsidised medicine at cheaper rates, why would Kiwis
buy the more expensive option?" she said, and called on the government to
"draw a line in the sand and tell New Zealanders it will not trade away a
system that works in our favour."

"PHARMAC has saved New Zealand over NZ$700 million over its lifetime and
ensures that all New Zealanders have access to affordable medicines. It
works in the interests of ordinary Kiwis, not overseas businesses, and
that's the way it should stay," added the Party's associate health
spokesman, Iain Lees-Galloway.

PHARMAC spokeswoman Jude Ulrich points to cases where PHARMAC has decided
not to fund drugs that have subsequently been withdrawn in other countries.
For example, if PHARMAC had funded COX-2 inhibitors at the same rate as
Australia, it would have had 330-1,900 people die of heart attacks over a
four-year period, she said, while its decision not to fund the COX-2
inhibitors had also enabled the funding of 18 other drugs, saving 487
statistical lives a year.

Jane Kelsey, a professor of law at the University of Auckland and a strong
critic of the TPP, says the drugmakers are "notorious for commercial
blackmail, threatening to withhold access to certain drugs unless they get
their way."

"When they refer to 'science-based decision-making,'  they mean that cost
should not be a consideration. Basically they want us to low out the health
budget by siphoning more money directly into their coffers," said Prof

Krista Cox
Staff Attorney
Knowledge Ecology International
(202) 332-2670

More information about the Ip-health mailing list