PHA-Exchange> Le Monde Diplomatique: A new initiative at the WHO

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

> *  This initiative is important. If we can create a global framework
> that stimulates R&D in areas of medical priority and also promotes
> access, we may be able to replace or "de-emphasise" global agreements
> that simply raise drug prices.
>
> http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/20wha
>
> Le Monde Diplomatique
> May 2006
> A new initiative at the WHO
> Prizes rather than prices
> By James Love
>
> May 30. — The World Health Organisation (WHO) has taken an important
> step to reform the global system for supporting medical research and
> development (R&D). The organisation’s governing body has just passed
> a new — hotly-debated — resolution to set up a new intergovernmental
> working group that will immediately start work to "draw up a global
> strategy and plan of action." This will include a new framework to
> support sustainable, needs-driven, essential R&D work on diseases
> that disproportionately affect developing countries.
>
> The WHO’s action is part of a larger effort to implement
> recommendations from an extensive review of intellectual property
> rules, by the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation
> and Public Health (CIPIH). This commission was deadlocked on key
> issues. Do we need new incentive system for medical R&D that is not
> tied to high drug prices? Should the WHO back new global agreements
> on medical R&D, addressing the setting priorities and sharing of
> costs of such research? And should these new agreements supplement or
> replace existing trade agreements on patents and drug prices?
>
> For three years public health non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
> and scientists pushed for the new paradigm for medical R&D. Big drug
> companies pushed back, claiming the existing systems of strong patent
> protection and market driven R&D priorities were working fine. The
> United States aggressively opposed any discussion of R&D treaties or
> agreements at the WHO. The CIPIH could not reach consensus on these
> issues.
>
> In January the governments of Kenya and Brazil proposed a bold new
> WHO initiative to create a new global framework for essential health
> R&D. The United States and the European Commission initially opposed
> it. But at the WHO’s general assembly meeting in May, the US split
> with the big drug companies and the European Commission, and backed
> the Kenya/Brazil proposal.
>
> During the May negotiations, public health groups were gratified that
> the US government (1) and some members of the Congress (2) had come
> to see the logic and benefit of a multilaterial discussion of who
> pays for essential R&D, given the increasing difficulty of pushing
> for higher global drug prices in bilateral negotiations, the growing
> US outlays for medicare part D, and the failure of other governments
> to match the US outlays in projects such as the NIH backed research
> in vaccines in AIDS and other global projects.What was as surprising
> was the hard-line position taken by the European Commission (3),
> which led to calls for a investigation of undue influence by industry
> lobbyists. (4)
>
> Now the WHO will be setting up a new working group that will include
> governments, as well as a number of observers and invited experts and
> stakeholders, in order to create a medium-term framework to identify
> R&D priorities, including methods and sources of funding. Further
> decisions have yet to be made.
>
> Public health groups and some experts will be pushing for new open
> source methods of conducting research, and new incentive systems that
> reward innovations that improve health outcomes in developing
> countries, which are not tied to marketing monopolies or high drug
> prices. Big drug companies will lobby for measures that link high
> prices for blockbuster drugs to R&D for neglected diseases.
>
> This initiative is important. If we can create a global framework
> that stimulates R&D in areas of medical priority and also promotes
> access, we may be able to replace or "de-emphasise" global agreements
> that simply raise drug prices.
>
> More about James Love (http://mondediplo.com/_James-Love_)
>
> Original text in English
>
> (1) Bush Administration Plays Very Positive Role in UN Debate Over
> R&D and Access to Medicine, The Huffington Post http://
> www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/bush-administration-plays_b_21714.html
>
> (2) http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/who/59wha/congress05192006.pdf
>
> (3) See http://www.cptech.org/rnd/ec-industry-compared-rnd.pdf
>
> (4) http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2006-May/009618.html
>
> * James Love is director of CPTech - www.cptech.org
>
>
> English language editorial director: Wendy Kristianasen -
> Le Monde diplomatique.
> 






------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/