Healthy Skepticism Library item: 12543
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
Treerutkuarkul A.
Activists want panel's decision on Aluvia drug reviewed
Bangkok Post 2008 Jan 18
http://www.bangkokpost.com/180108_News/18Jan2008_news11.php
Full text:
Health and consumer activists will ask the Administrative Court to look into the Internal Trade Department’s decision not to take legal action against the US pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories for alleged violations of trade laws.
Abbott cancelled the registration of the heat-stable version of an anti-retroviral drug with the trade name Aluvia with the Food and Drug Administration for use in Thailand after the government announced a policy to override patents of three Aids and heart drugs last January.
Activists say the move violated sections 25 and 28 of the Trade Competition Act.
Section 25 stipulates restrictions against market dominance and section 28, controls on parent companies’ influence on decision making by their subsidiaries.
They petitioned the Commerce Ministry’s panel on trade competition to look into the matter.
The panel ruled on Dec 27 that Abbott’s decision to withdraw the registration of Aluvia was legitimate.
About 50 people living with HIV/Aids and consumer protection activists rallied at the Commerce Ministry yesterday urging the Internal Trade Department director-general and the panel’s secretary Yanyong Phuangrach to review the decision.
“I was surprised by the panel’s decision. They should have prioritised health problems caused by HIV/Aids and consider essential life-saving drugs as a special case rather than protecting the benefits of big pharmaceutical business,” said Saree Ongsomwang, manager of the Foundation for Consumers.
She said the network of patients, health activists, and consumer groups would ask the Administrative Court to look into the panel’s ruling in favour of big pharma if the department refuses to revise its ruling.
Ms Saree said during an hour-meeting with Mr Yanyong that Abbott’s removal of Aluvia registration for distribution in Thailand could violate provisions of the constitution regarding fair trade competition and consumer rights protection.
Aids Access Foundation chairman Nimit Tienudom petitioned the panel to reveal details of its decision concerning Abbott’s removal of Aluvia registration.
He also proposed the appointment of neutral academics to sit on the trade competition panel since most panel members are from corporates and that any decision could be biased.
Mr Yanyong said that the panel’s ruling was based on the Trade Competition Act and that it was fair and final. Those who disagreed with the panel decision could take the case to the Administrative Court.
He said the market value of local pharmaceutical products was about 74 billion baht whereas Aids drugs and second-line anti-retroviral treatment were worth only 2.7 billion and 1.3 billion baht respectively.
The market value of Aluvia alone was considered too small to cost market dominance as claimed by the consumer rights group, he said.
Most of the 12,000 HIV-positive people who have developed resistance to first-line anti-retroviral treatment need second-line Aids drugs, namely Kaletra and its heat-stable form Aluvia, both produced by Abbott.
The firm offered to cut the price of Kaletra to $1,000 (32,500 baht) per patient per year on condition that the ministry. revoke its compulsory licensing policy.
The ministry rejected the offer and went ahead with bypassing the drug patent.
It has imported the first lot of Aluvia from India’s generic drug maker Matrix Laboratories, enough for 8,000 HIV-positive patients for six months.
