Healthy Skepticism Library item: 9805

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

Allen M.
Novartis wants drugs access overhaul
swissinfo 2007 Apr 20
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Novartis_wants_drugs_access_overhaul.html?siteSect=105&sid=7737177&cKey=1177107181000

Full text:

A Novartis executive has called for the creation of a global taskforce to fund and distribute new drugs for neglected diseases in developing countries.

Paul Herrling, head of corporate research at the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, told swissinfo the present system of supplying affordable medicines to poor countries was problematic and unsustainable.

The supply of cut price or free medications is currently provided by charitable programmes of pharmaceutical companies or via World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allowing governments to override patents if there is a strong public health case.

Novartis’s current court battle over patent protection for its leukaemia drug Gleevec in India is the latest in a line of confrontations between companies, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the issue.

Herrling believes it is time to set up an independent non-political body of all interested parties to tackle the thorny issue of access to medicine.

“This is now dependent on our goodwill, but governments and NGOs would like to see something more sustainable than the goodwill of big pharma companies,” he told swissinfo.

“This is a much more constructive way to get everyone collaborating towards a solution as opposed to the relatively simple war cry of ‘shoot patents’”.

Gleevec stumbling block

Herrling suggests that firms could apply for funds to develop drugs for diseases such as malaria and grant licenses for their use in that field, while still retaining the patent for other commercial uses.

The idea was recently presented to Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF), but the Geneva-based NGO insists that Novartis must first end its Gleevec fight.

“We welcome Professor Herrling’s suggestions, but Novartis needs to demonstrate their goodwill by stopping their court case in India,” MSF spokesman Pere Pons told swissinfo.

“Access to medicine should be driven by the needs of the people and not the needs of the market.”

Gleevec has fallen foul of an Indian ruling that patents cannot be applied to modifications of existing discoveries, an interpretation that rides roughshod over the established incremental development from molecule to useable medicine. It also protects the thriving Indian generics industry that copies drugs at much cheaper prices.

Novartis says it is fighting to preserve innovation, while MSF has accused the Basel-based firm of using patents to squeeze competitors to inflate prices and profits.

Herrling said he could understand the suspicion of NGOs like MSF after an ill-fated attempt by 39 pharmaceuticals, including Novartis, to fight South African measures to reduce the price of certain drugs in the country. They eventually withdrew their complaint in 2001.

“Horrible” governments

“The industry has come quite a long way since then,” he said.

“At that time pharmas were convinced that if they were not fighting for their profits at the exclusion of everything else their shareholders would sell their shares. But there has been a significant change of public opinion about the problems of the developing world.”

Herrling is convinced that some governments need to change the way they do business with pharmaceuticals.

“Some governments are amazing to work with but others are just horrible. The extreme is a health minister who said ‘Why should I save all these children if I have to feed them all later?’”

“We believe in innovative public-private partnerships. We hope that the governments that work with us will build more successful countries and that will set an example for the others.”

But, above all, Herrling believes the emphasis should shift from rows over patents to a more positive approach.

“My experience is that patents save lives because without patents no one would have anything to copy because no one would invest in innovative research any more,” he said.