[e-drug] Protecting Pharma Companies from threat of Bio-Terrorism

[Mark Weisbrot <weisbrot@cepr.net>]

E-drug: Protecting Pharma Companies from threat of Bio-Terrorism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Cross-posted from Ip-health. Thanks. HH]

This is being distributed to newspapers by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Information Services. If anyone wants to reprint it, please let me
know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting Pharmaceutical Companies from the Threat of
Bio-Terrorism

Some principles are so important that they cannot be violated even
in a time of national emergency. One of those, it now appears, is
the principle of patent rights for multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical
companies.

Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant, finally reached agreement
with the US Department of Health and Human Services over the
price at which it would sell its antibiotic CIPRO to our government.
CIPRO is believed to be one of the most effective treatments for the
possible strains of anthrax infection that we might confront, and the
government has decided to stockpile it.

Since Bayer cut its price from $1.77 to $0.95 per tablet, some see
this latest agreement as a victory for the public interest. But that is
debatable.

"Relying on just one manufacturer to produce our entire supply of
the pharmaceutical is simply not the best way to ensure an
adequate supply," Senator Charles Schumer wrote in a letter to
Health and Human Services secretary Tommy Thompson. It was
pressure from Schumer, as well as from consumer groups, that led
to the price cuts.

This pressure caused Thompson to reverse his position of just a
week earlier and threaten to buy generics if Bayer didn't cut its
price. But why be concerned about patents during a health
emergency? The government has the right, under more than one
law, to purchase generic drugs. Bayer will not necessarily be able to
produce the required stockpile as quickly as it could be obtained if
all sources, including the generic ciprofloxacin, were available. Why
should we take that risk?

CIPRO will still be making a small fortune here, even at the reduced
price. Like most drugs, ciprofloxacin is cheap to produce: the
generic version in India sells for about 3 cents per pill.

But Thompson's threat to go the generic route was probably not all
that serious. The $350 billion pharmaceutical industry is one of the
largest corporate campaign contributors, currently favoring
Republicans by about than 2 to 1. These people got their money's
worth: Bayer, the producer with the patent monopoly, will remain
the sole supplier for the US market.

This is especially important to them right now. While millions of
Americans are worried about anthrax, the Bush Administration is
preparing for a new round of negotiations next month at the World
Trade Organization. Remember that last meeting in 1999 that fell
apart under clouds of tear gas in Seattle? It has taken nearly two
years for the trade ministers to put the pieces back together. And
this time, the problem of patents is high on the agenda.

Our government (with some help from other rich country
governments and of course the big drug companies) has spent the
last decade trying to force poor and middle-income countries to pay
patent-protected prices for essential medicines. They have
brandished the weapon of economic sanctions, filed lawsuits, and --
most recently -- initiated complaints at the WTO. But they have
been losing ground since last year, when the US press discovered
that millions of people would have to die in order for these patent
rights to be protected.

Among the proposed human sacrifices are 36 million people in
developing countries who have HIV or AIDS. This, too, is a health
emergency, with thousands dying every day. Many of them could
be saved with drugs that generic producers can sell for $350 a
year, but cost $10,000 here in the United States.

During the past year the drug companies were shamed into offering
some discounts on AIDS medications in poor countries. But for the
most part they did everything they could to keep their patent
monopolies intact. When the trade ministers meet in Qatar
beginning November 9, the developing countries will try to clarify
their rights under WTO's TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights) agreement. They want to be able to
produce or purchase generic essential medicines.

Leading the fight against them will be our own US Trade
Representative. Now we can see why the public safety of
Americans must take a back seat to patent rights, even in the
presence of unknown threats of bio-terrorism. How can our leaders
tell the rest of the world that patents are more important than
people, if they don't practice what they preach here at home?


Mark Weisbrot
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research
1015 18th Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone (202) 293-5380 x228
Fax (202) 822-1199
(202) 333-6141 (home)
(202) 746-7264 (cell)
E-mail: weisbrot@cepr.net
www.cepr.net

_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health


--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Information and archive http://satellife.healthnet.org/programs/edrug.html
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to:  `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.