Our friends and allies, Geneva Network (UK-based) and
Southeast Asia Network for Development (SEANET, Malaysia-based) held a forum yesterday morning in Singapore on the TPP, Health and IPR.
Background of the forum:
This week, trade negotiators from some of the world’s
most powerful economies are meeting in Guam to thrash out the final stages of
the Trans Pacific Partnership. This free
trade agreement – which in Asia includes Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam
and Brunei – stands to become a significant milestone in the deeper integration
of the global economy.
Despite the economic potential of the TPP, one of its
cornerstones – stronger intellectual property rights – remains controversial,
with health NGOs claiming it will impact public health by raising the price of
medicines.
To what extent are such fears justified? Why is intellectual
property in this trade agreement important for the future of medical
innovation? And what does the TPP mean for health in the Asia region?
The speakers yesterday were:
(1) Prof Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng, Faculty of Law, National Univ. of Singapore
(NUS)
(2) Philip Stevens, Director, Geneva Network, UK
(3) Bill Claxton, Carcinoid &
NeuroEndocrine Tumour Society
(4) Andrew Spiegel, Global Colon Cancer
Association, and
(5) Mo Mayrides, Associate VP, PhRMA, USA.
Moderator was Dr. Debora Elms, Executive Director, Asian Trade Centre, Singapore.
(1) Prof Elizabeth
Ng begins by introducing the countries involved in #TPP and how negotiation
will impact the countries.
No one should begrudge that patent owners deserve
adequate protection of returns from investment of considerable resources.
TPP Provision : Patent term extension, data exclusivity,
including biologics and patent linkage.
It's often argued that stronger IP foster econ growth,
but counter agreement is flow of FDIs is not solely on property rights.
What are challenges to incorporate in regional system?
1. Restriction on trips flexibilities eg: data
exclusivity
2 : Lack of skilled patent examiners and other skilled
workforce.
3. Access to medicine for the poor : price increases and
lack of access to affordable generics.
#ASEAN #TPP countries - how do you further enhance
corporation with AEC happening when only 4 ASEAN countries are involved?
The tension between patent protection and access for
public health is unlikely to abate.
it is understandable the pharma industry feels justified
to seek stronger patent protection
Protection and access must be appropriately calibrated in
order to achieve balance between public interest and private interest.
(2) Philip Stevens
from @genevanetwork : It's unlikely that there will be changes to the
provisions on data inclusivity for chemical drugs.
If #IP protection increases in Malaysia, companies will
set up R&D facilities.
No one has done cost benefit analysis on the impact
heightened #IP provisions on the availability of medicines in developing
countries.
There is a positive relationship between trade
liberalisation and better health outcomes.
How? Economic liberalisation increases incomes - allows
people to get better nutrition and sanitation.
(3) Bill Claxton
of Carcinoid & NeuroEndocrine Tumour Society discusses how innovative
medical care has improved his life.
As a patient advocate, I have become increasingly
impressed with how pharmaceutical companies support patient groups.
#TPP we need to protect innovators and incentivise their
efforts.
Clinical trial can't work for rare diseases. Many trial
fails because of trial designs.
If you look at the debate of 5/7/12 yrs for data
protection - it won't make a huge difference in rare disease community.
We are looking for a balance between protection and
access between public interest and private interest.
(4) Mo Mayrides,
Assoc VP of PhRMA representing industry views on #IP in the #TPP
I don't see how the #TPP would deny governments the right
to public health access.
(5) Andrew Spiegel
from Global Cancer Association who traveled from Philadelphia to attend the
panel this morning
Patients that are diagnosed with colon cancer are living
longer and more comfortably as a result of innovative biological drugs
Biologics have had tremendous impact on medicine, but
there is still a long way to go
Investments will not occur in medical technology if there
is no #IP protection
The scary part is if innovation stops, we would rather
medicine get delayed into market than not being made all.
Open Forum,
questions:
(a) Biggest
barrier to #TPP is American public opinion. Do all patient advocacy groups
align w your perspectives?
Andrew : Declaration of support among patient advocacy
groups on #IP protection, 100 groups signed and delivered to President Obama
Bill Claxton:Patient groups are not well informed on this
issue. It is possible to get a consensus view.Patient advocacy is an emerging
area.
Dr Elms : Hypothetically, there is some time for patient
groups to get mobilised by end of the year.
(b) Question ;
How long does it take for medicine to be made and the cost?
Mo : Study from Tufts University - Cost is 2.6 USD
Billion and takes 2-6 years to develop. Takes 7- 8 years before any return on
investment.
Critics will say the cost is overblown. But costs have
gone up in recent years.
-------------
See also:
IPR and Medicines 29: Parallel Importation and Patent Linkage, August 19, 2014
IPR and Medicines 30: R&D and Innovator Companies, November 03, 2014
IPR and Medicines 31: Trademark Stealing and Counterfeit Medicines, November 17, 2014
IPR and Medicines 29: Parallel Importation and Patent Linkage, August 19, 2014
IPR and Medicines 30: R&D and Innovator Companies, November 03, 2014
IPR and Medicines 31: Trademark Stealing and Counterfeit Medicines, November 17, 2014
IPR and Medicines 32: The Policy Workshop's Hong Kong Dialogue, November 28, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment