PHM-Exch> PHM supports proposed binding convention on research and development for medical products needed in low and middle income countries

[Claudio Schuftan]

As the World Health Assembly commences in Geneva PHM calls on the member
states to adopt and implement the recommendations of the Consultative
Expert Working Group on Research and Development.  ****

** **

For background, on links and details go to:
http://www.ghwatch.org/who-watch/wha65/cewg****
The issues before the Assembly****

Before the Assembly is the report of the Consultative Expert Working Group
(CEWG) established as part of the implementation of the Global Strategy and
Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
(GSPA)<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A61/A61_R21-en.pdf>.
The CEWG brief was to recommend alternative ways of funding R&D for medical
products for diseases and conditions disproportionately affecting
developing and least developed countries. These conditions do not represent
lucrative markets for big pharma and as a consequence do not attract
appropriate levels of investment.  Accordingly the policy goal is to delink
the cost of R&D from the final over the counter cost of the product, which
is borne by the patient.

In the 130th EB session in January, a shorter version of the CEWG report
was discussed although the full report came out later in April. The CEWG
recommended working towards a binding agreement on financing and
coordination of R&D.

There was some reluctance among some Member States regarding the binding
character of the proposed instrument on health R&D and reluctance to see it
discussed at this Assembly.

The CEWG report lists the elements of the proposed binding agreement,
providing a framework for negotiations. The proposed elements include,
among others: Promoting R&D for developing new health technologies for
addressing the global challenges constituted by the health needs of
developing countries by securing access and affordability through
de-linking R&D costs and the prices of the products; Securing sustainable
funding to address identified R&D priorities in developing countries;
Improving the coordination of public and private R&D; Enhancing te
innovative capacity in developing countries and technology transfer to
these countries; Improving priority-setting based on the public health
needs of developing countries.

In its report, the CEWG proposes: (i) the establishment of a working group
or technical committee to undertake the preparatory work on the elements of
a draft agreement; (ii) the establishment of an open-ended
inter-governmental working group with appropriate technical support (as in
the case of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). The CEWG also
recommends the allocation of sufficient resources to support the working
group. ****
PHM Comment ****

We commend the CEWG for its work and for maintaining a balanced and
comprehensive approach, which is obvious in the elements it proposed and
the recommendations put forward.

PHM supports working towards a binding instrument on health R&D focusing on
diseases disproportionately affecting developing and least developed
countries.

Big pharma’s arguments in support of the patent system as the principal
driver for pharmaceutical innovation has left millions around this world
without necessary medication. We believe there is a need to materialise the
global moral obligation towards the poor, knowing that they do not
represent attractive markets for big pharma R&D undertakings.

For this reason, a binding instrument is a strategy worth pursuing.

We are optimistic about this process; however, we were worried during the
last EB session to see some countries attempting to slow down the process.
We sensed reluctance among some member states which may reflect the
pressures of Big Pharma.

The WHO should ensure full transparency when undertaking this exercise. The
setting up of committees and working group should be protected against
vested interests of for-profit organisations. Identification of the
different partners and non-State actors should be managed and overseen by
Member States. We expect to see the principles articulated in the WHO
Reform documents regarding conflict of interest being expressed in relation
to the CEWG work (particularly because the very reason the CEWG now exists
is an episode of corporate penetration of the WHO’s supposedly independent
processes.****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20120521/e14de0a0/attachment.html>