Friday, November 11, 2011

Today is 11-11-11

Wonderful date today, 6 one's. Many groups and individuals marked this day for the launching of some of their big programs and projects.

Me, I will attend the Philippine Economic Society (PES) annual meeting and conference, a whole day activity to be held at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Will meet many friends there in the economics profession. I've been inactive of the PES lately. Well, I did not like the themes and topics of previous conferences before. This year, still another cheesy topic, but the good thing is that there are so many simultaneous panel discussions, something like 6 to 7 panels on-going at the same time, so I can just hop from one panel to another if one panel is boring. This is the main reason that attracted me to attend today's PES big event.


In the morning session, I plan to attend the discussion on "Understanding Institutional Change in the Philippines". I want to see if the speakers will mention topics like rule of law and property rights, two of the most important but often overlooked concepts in many economic and social literatures in the country. Or I can jump to the panel on International Trade.

In the afternoon, I plan to attend the panel on "Labor and Migration", or "Issues on Restraining Firm Market Power". Restrain market power? Why not restrain government power? There will also be cocktails after the conference, yeah, beer or wine, I prefer beer.

November 2011 is quite pivotal for some countries. The government in Greece sank, Berlusconi in Italy is sinking. Thailand manyprovinces are "sinking" literally due to heavy flooding. The floods are still rampaging for weeks now. Some folks will definitely argue that "warming causes cooling", yeah right.

State welfarism is very costly, many countries on both sides of the Atlantic are realizing it slowly. Paying someone for not working, or giving "free" healthcare for many if not all people, early retirement (like 50 years old in Greece?) and long pensions, are slam dunking their public finance with tons and tons of public debt. Public Debt/GDP ratio of 50 percent seems mild these days, as many countries are on the 60 to 100 percent or higher ratio already.

And talks of Israeli strike of Iran's nuke facilities has resurfaced. Here in the Philippines, talks of "all out war" against the communist CPP-NPA and the secessionist MILF rebels is also resurfacing, at least among a few sectors who want to end these 42-43 years old armed conflict. Me too, I'm tired of all these war, even if they are limited to far away municipalities and barrios. I don't want to see, support, finance through endless taxes and fees all those wars and bloated military bureaucracies for the next decades. It's an endless war it seems.
------

The PES conference was great, lots of good papers presented, big audience too, should be 200+ participants. I actually came late, past 10am. The morning plenary session has already started, about Public Private Partnership (PPP) on various infrastructure projects. There were four speakers, one from the PPP Office, one from the Department of Finance, and two from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). I forgot the conference kit at home, I don't remember their names, but will write about it further. Peter Wallace was the moderator.

The two ADB guys talked a lot about public goods, like hard infrastructures (roads, energy, ports, etc.) and education. During the open forum, I was one of those who asked questions. I said something like this.
My question and comments are addressed to the two speakers from the ADB. You talked a lot about public goods, state responsibility, but I think one important public good now that government can provide is how to reduce the public debt, reduce the interest payment burden. The ongoing debt problems in Greece, Italy, the US and other developed countries clearly show that high public debt leading to economic turmoil is one clear proof of government failure, of government as creator or instigator of economic instability. So why not push for private sector investments even with no public sector participation? When government comes in, they bring lots of bureaucracies, as earlier mentioned by Mr. Vic Valdepenas where the PPP Office is duplicating the functions of the ICC (Investment Coordinating Council), the BOI (Board of Investments) and other agencies. Government also contract more debt, and get more taxes to finance those debts. So it is possible to have more private sector investments with no additional public debt.

Interest payment alone of the Philippine government is around P330 billion per year, average for 2010 to 2012, principal amortization not included yet, clearly a huge public finance burden. If private investors come in, government can only ask them, "Will you be involved in drug pushing, human trafficking, related activities?" If their answer is No, then government should tell them, "Ok, start your business tomorrow" and that's how we proceed with investment-led growth.

Perhaps it was somehow a shocker for the two ADB guys to be told that government -- and ADB-pushed new debts -- should step back. My gift for them on 11-11-11. In fairness to the two guys, they admitted that bigger private sector involvement is possible and desirable, that high public debt is a big issue for many economies.

More stories later in this blog.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Drug Price Control 20: Competition, not Price Regulation

After I shared  Drug Price Control 19: Why is the Policy not Withrawn Yet to a number of friends in the Philippine health network yesterday, I got a reply from Ms. Leonila Ocampo, the President of the Philippine Pharmacists Association (PPhA), also a member of the MeTA Philippines Council, DOH Advisory Council on Healthcare, etc. Leonie allowed me to post here her comments. She wrote,

I agree with you Nonoy. I too, am not for price regulation. We have more than enough SKUs from where the consumer can choose from. What we need to focus is to educate the public of the many possible choices but also note that the choice has to be guided by someone who understand medicines not only in terms of cost but more importantly on the outcomes it delivers to the patient when used.; outcomes which could be affected by a number of factors e.g. lack or no information on the right way to use it. COST, after all, is not all about the price tag but the total amount one pays for the effect the medicines gives to the patient to improve his quality of life.
My hope is for government authorities to support us, the Philippine Pharmacists Association, in our drive to improve the Pharmacy Services in the country by pushing everyone involve, including non-pharmacists operators of pharmacy to support that real patient servicing in the pharmacy counters happen for the patient to get the full benefit of his medicines and avoid any possible untoward effects that may result to another expense of the patient. More and more of the added cost could happen because of complications that may occur due to non-clear understanding in the use of the medicines.

Yes, I have to write that piece yesterday to ask the DOH again and again -- if the policy isn't working, why not withraw it?

Which is a better policy, push the Generics Law of 1988 which encourages generic drugs, or retain the price control policy of 2009 which encourages purchase of branded innovator drugs? The fact that PCPI leaders and members themselves were already complaining that the policy is adversely hitting them too, that should be additional consideration for the DOH to discontinue the policy.

And the bigger damage which will remain "invisible and non-obvious" to us, is the absence of some important innovator drugs and treatment to cure certain diseases because their manufacturers have seen the political threat of price dictatorship by the government. That is, one can buy those drugs in Hong Kong, or Singapore, or S. Korea, Taiwan, etc., but not in the Philippines. It cannot even be considered as "product pull-out" since those products will not be brought here in the first place. I don't think we will be better off with this kind of scenario.

I hope that MeTA Philippines can conduct a forum to assess the price control policy and give one categorical answer: did it achieve its goal of cheaper drugs for the poor or not? (Or did it only give cheaper drugs to the rich and middle class?) If the answer is no, then what are the other alternatives that are already in existing laws -- Generics Act of 1988, CML of 2008, etc.?

Leonie made a follow up comment.

Yes Nonoy. In the last FIP (International Federation of Pharmaceutical Association) Congress held in Hyderabad, India, the FIP Council, which Philippines is a member, passed a resolution on how to help Canada resolve their problem on non-availabi;lity of innovator drugs (with no available alternatives) and innovators (with a number of alternatives already available) due to pull out or non-production done by manufacturing companies due to loss in profitability. In fact when this was discussed, I was worried looking forward to a time that the same might happen in the Philippines. Do we want this to happen to us anyway? 
I hope we can go to do initiatives which could better address the many problems causing under treatment, failure of treatment, adverse effects due to misuse and abuse of medicines and other herbal supplements, and other forms of medication errors which are the very culprit of added expenditures in the use of medicines if we want to be cost-effective and help the patients get the optimum effects of their medicines. 
PPhA IS WORKING ON THIS BUT AS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AND IF NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGISLATION, WE CAN ONLY DO MUCH.
This is another breaking news from Leonie, that even Canada suffers from non-availability of some innovator drugs. So desperate patients have to buy those medicines online from the US, or they must fly to the US, UK, India, etc. to get those drugs and treatment that are not available in Canada. Which makes treatment even more expensive, which defeats the purpose of natonalized healthcare. I think the case here is and small- or non-reimbursement of innovator drugs if some generics are available.

This should be another consideration for the DOH, if policies that tend to demonize innovator companies really help the public or harm them.

Canada's nationalized and socialized healthcare system is suffering from heavy financial bleeding, so the Canadian government has to resort to healthcare rationing. I.e., queueing to get physican appointment and "free healthcare" can stretch to one month or longer. If one's medical case and disease is not urgent and life threatening, he/she will have to wait for one month or more to be seen by a doctor. At least we don't have that situation in the Philippines yet. Not yet.

I think Healthy Options, other herbal stores, are raking in big money for those endless health supplements. Some of these may qualify as "irrational drug use".

Government should just allow more competition. Let the innovator companies price their products high if they wish to, so long as generic companies are around to provide more choices for the public. So what if Pfizer will price its Norvasc 10 mg at P50 or higher, so long as other cheaper amlodipine generics are available at P15, P10, even P7? Why force the higher priced drug to become 50 percent "cheaper" when the poor and the public have options to get cheaper drugs of the same generic category?

This way, we do not penalize and demonize the innovator companies while giving fair and equal treatment to the generic companies. And we avoid non-launch or delayed launching of more powerful, more disease-killer innovator drugs into the country.

On another note, I checked google for the topic, "drug price control Philippines" last October 4, 2011. I was surprised by the result: six of the top 10 articles on page 1 were my papers.


Today, I checked google again for the same research query, there is a slight difference. Only four of my papers landed in the top 10 articles, as wikileaks stories became more prominent.


Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Pilipinas Forum 19: The CPP-NPA, Sison and Maoism

This should be the longest exchanges in the "Pilipinas Forum" series in this blog so far. Yes, this is 32 pages long :-) These were posted in PF yahoogroups in August 2002 or nine years ago. There should be some lessons here for those studying the Philippine communist movement.

An earlier related paper will be  Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?, August 30, 2011. It's 11 pages long. Enjoy.
---------

I cautiously welcome the GMA decision to redeploy forces to fight against NPA cadres throughout the Philippines. While I fully support the fight against criminal elements and include among these any revolutionary group who resorts to armed violence against the public or the Government, I also hope that corresponding efforts will be made to protect the human rights of peaceful political opposition.

I continue to believe that economic development and respect for human rights is the best way to counter various guerilla groups. But, when any group resorts to violence in a democratic system I feel the full force of law should be applied against them. If this requires the support and direct involvement of the AFP and even funds provided bythe USA, then so be it. I would far prefer to see funds spend for economic and infrastructure development, but such expenditures also require a peaceful environment to do any good. If businesses are being extorted by NPA groups and infrastructure is being destroyed in the name of countering the 'oppression' of the people, the other improvements do little good.

I strongly believe in the right of self defense. While I understand that the members of the NPA, CCP, NDF and others feel that their revolutionary cause is a legitimate self defense against oppression, I believe the overall right of the people of a democratic society have a greater right to defend themselves from those forces who seek to impose their belief structure upon them by violence. If the CCP, NDF or even the Mickey Mouse Club for that matter, manage to go out and get themselves elected into a position of majority in a barangay, municipality, or province, then that is the will of the people and they have just cause to defend that. Short of that, however, the use of armed violence against the people's legitimately elected government is no different that criminality and that government elected by the people should treat it as such.

While I would prefer disputes to be settled peacefully, to tell the truth, I welcome Jose Ma. Maria Sison's call for the NPA to launch attacks. Let them come out in the open, let them show the common people how they are 'defending' them against oppression by cutting off their electricity and by destroying the infrastructure that has been built by their hard earned tax money. Hopefully when they come out into the light of day and show clearly who they are and what they believe they can be dealt with effectively once and for all.

I have no disagreement with legitimate opposition to the existing government, hey, I probably even agree with a lot of their charges of corruption and waste of the people's resources. But, let that opposition be heard through the electoral process. Let that opposition be felt through the right to vote. As soon as one group decides to let their opposition be expressed by armed violence they have left the side of legitimacy and have no right to decry the acts of society to defend themselves.

–Cynthia Diaz

Cynthia, I do agree with you. Sison and his brood (not only armed communist rebels) are out of mind and touch of time. I also believe that force have to be met with force, but calibrated and selective of targets because of the Bill of Rights.

However, the real enemy is within, within the mainstream. These are those who give a bad name to democracy, freedom of enterpise -- businessmen retaining a feudal state of mind towards their employees; those at home who mistreat their household help, corrupt gov't officials, demo-crazy protesters, politicking clergy, greedy and power hungry politicians, indifferent citizenry, flying voters, ....

–Roy Picart


The CPP-NPA thinks they hold the solution to the country's problems. Yet, they are the biggest obstacle to progress. Sison's call for the destruction of public utilities-which as Cynthia mentioned are built with the Pinoy's pawis-at-dugo-is a clear sign that their real target is the country's progress, however small they claim these to be. Kapirangot na nga lang-sisirain pa nila! Who do they think will pay to rebuild all these again?!! Certainly not Sison! The fail ure of Filipinos to achieve progress under the current system is the NPA's success.

Bayan Muna's "New Vietnam" scare is ridiculous. In the first place, the existence of the NPA is the cause of the very arrangement they are opposing. The NPA-and the armed violence they have continually brought society-is the root problem, then (maybe) the Americans. Before the American issue was even raised had they condemned the NPA's first (along with other terrorist groups) then maybe we won't ever need American "meddling".

Why do we need communism? Capitalism, though far from perfect, has evolved considerably from the 18th century capitalism of the industrial revolution. Even in the very countries that have adopted and spread communism, the ideology has proven to be more oppressive than capitalism. In so many years, it did not make the lives of their people better if not make them even worse. Now, China is relying on capitalism to compete in the global economy (ex., state-ownership of industries is being replaced by IPOs). As neo-capitalists, they may yet become the biggest threat to the Filipino worker and farmer... perhaps even more than the Americans ever did.

–Gilbert Cunanan

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

IPR and Medicines 16: Wikileaks and the Cheaper Medicines Law

In a news report today in the Philippine Star, author Sheila Crisostomo wrote,


WikiLeaks: US lobbied vs cheaper medicine law in Phl By Sheila Crisostomo (The Philippine Star) Updated November 08, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (11) View comments
MANILA, Philippines - The online whistle-blower WikiLeaks reported that the United States had lobbied against the Cheaper Medicine Act in the Philippines after American stakeholders expressed concern about the possible changes in the country’s pharmaceutical policies.
WikiLeaks claimed that the US lobbied with former senator and now Transportation Secretary Manuel Roxas II and Quirino Rep. Junie Cua who sponsored the law, Republic Act 9502.
press statement revealed that on Oct. 27, 2005 then US Ambassador Kristie Kenny said that US Intellectual Property (IP) Rights holders “were concerned about Roxas’ move to amend the IP Code with respect to patents and parallel imports for pharmaceuticals.”
Kenny supposedly said that Roxas’ bill was “troubling US pharmaceutical rights holders trying to retain their market share and profitability in the Philippines.”
“Roxas’ proposal would change the IP Code so that the period of patent protection begins after the product has been introduced anywhere in the world rather than just in the Philippines,” the statement quoted Kenny sa saying....

Ms. Crisostomo did not cite her source/s but it should have come from the various wikileaks and cablegate, gathered by James Love of the Knowledge Ecology International,


http://keionline.org/node/1225
Wikileaks cables on the US opposition to Philippines legislation on affordable medicines










    Submitted by James Love on 3. September 2011 - 7:44



From KEI staff review of Wikileaks cables (http://keionline.org/wikileaks)
From September 19, 2005 to January 15, 2010, the US Department of State sent dozens of cables from Manila reporting on disputes in the Philippines regarding IPR and the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs. Much of the U.S. advocacy in the Philippines was done in close cooperation with Pfizer.
One disturbing feature of the cables is the constant lying about the IPR norms in the TRIPS agreement. For example, the Department of State often claims that TRIPS requires patents on new uses of old drugs or data exclusivity (it clearly does not). The US Department of State also implies in several cables that parallel trade (importing the patent owners' own product that was placed in the market in another country), is inconsistent with TRIPS....
The other reference to Ms. Crisostomo's article, especially her last paragraph, 

The statement showed that Kenny had said the Philippine government must tread carefully and should not ignore the multinational company’s warning that it could withdraw many drugs from the Philippine market if price controls are put into effect.





Cable reference id: #09MANILA468







Reference id aka Wikileaks id #195307  ? 
SubjectPhilippines Closer To Drug Price Controls
OriginEmbassy Manila (Philippines)
Cable timeThu, 5 Mar 2009 05:50 UTC
...
¶5. (SBU) In addition, the Association asserts that the Health
Department has been pressuring companies to sell drugs in small packages that can retail for 100 pesos, or around USD 2, offering to exempt such drugs from price controls. In many cases, this can amount to a handful of tablets needed for one cycle of a course of doses. Representatives of Pfizer warned us that for certain antibiotics, small doses can promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and claimed that it is being pressed to sell antibiotics that currently cost over 1000 pesos for the 100-peso fixed price. Pfizer said that if these price controls are put into effect, it will withdraw many drugs from the Philippine market.

Here now are my commentaries to the above articles.

1. About her news story, 'US embassy lobbied vs CML", I think it is obvious that ALL embassies by governments to other countries are lobby groups for the political, economic, business and other interests of those governments. For instance, the Philippine embassy in the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia (KSA) is there to lobby Philippine interests on (a) secure oil imports supply, (b) secure more Filipino workers' placement in KSA, (c) lobby the Saudi government not to proceed with beheading or other capital punishment against Filipino OFWs convicted of some crimes in the kingdom, among others.

The same way, the US embassy -- and UK embassy, Swiss embassy, etc. -- would have talked to the authors of the CML then to protect the IPR of American, British, Swiss, other foreign innovator pharma companies here who will be affected by the major amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) re compulsory licensing (CL), special CL, exhaustion of rights (aka parallel importation), Bolar principle (aka early working), other IPR-related policies.  

2. On the proposal by the DOH to "chop-chop" expensive anti-biotics into small dosages so these can be sold at P100 a piece, I think it's rather weird for the DOH to do or say that. Anti-biotic resistance (ABR) is a real and existing health risk. Once a patient develops ABR, the disease or infection will not be healed; or it can be temporarily cured, to resurface later as a new, more powerful disease, that will require more expensive treatment. The patient will be the end-loser.

One alternative to expensive vaccines and anti-biotics is to drop or remove government taxes (3-5% import tax + 12% VAT + local government taxes) on medicines. Another is to encourage the entry of more innovator companies that can supply cheaper alternative drugs (competition among innovator companies), or scout for existing cheaper generic alternatives.


Meanwhile, here are some slides presented by Reiner Gloor, Executive Director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP) during the 2nd Generics Summit, September 7-8, 2011, Richmonde Hotel, Eastwood, Quezon City. The event was sponsored by the Department of Health. PHAP is the federation of mostly multinational pharma companies and some big drugstore chains. Reiner was showing the value and risks of drug innovation.


Up to 10,000 molecules and compound of molecules are invented and on average, only one will get the nod of the FDA. 



Out of the 20 years patent life of a drug molecule, about 9 to 10 years consumed by regulatory approval process to test on efficacy and safety of those new drugs. The commercial period to earn for the innovator companies is only 10 to 11 years, then the patent will expire. 


Then various generic manufacturers, and the innovator companies themselves compete with each other to produce the low price, effective drugs and treatment. And this is where the public maximizes the benefits of drug innovation.



Reiner also showed one slide on the rising cost of developing one new drug. As of 2005, their industry average cost was $1.3 billion already. It should be higher at this time.


I remember a debate a few years ago with one friend in the health NGOs, she said that they do not believe that the cost of developing just one new drug would be $1 billion or more. She quoted one estimate saying it's only around $160 million. If this is so, then the number of innovator companies worldwide should drastically expand. Why be contented with being a generic manufacturer, waiting for the patent of a successful drug to expire, or spend big money to lobby governments and legislators to make it easier to impose compulsory licensing (CL) and special CL, when they can be innovator themselves? Yes, why spend big money on politics and politicians, when you can spend it on drug innovation instead?
----------


See also:

Climate stupidity 21: Global Cooling and Durban

As global temperatures -- air/troposphere, land surface, sea surface -- are falling, the UN and many high government climate/environment officials from many countries are preparing for the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) meeting in Durban, South Africa, this coming November 29 to December 9. Their mission, as usual, is to "fight man-made warming and climate change."

The usual junketers of endless global climate meetings are preparing their most alarmist presentations, photos and predictions, that unless taxpayers will send them more money, the world will burn with more catastrophic warming and cooling, more drought and no drought, more rain and less rain, more snow and less snow, more hurricanes and less hurricanes. more strong typhoons and mild typhoons. After all, whatever weather or climate the world or countries and continents will have, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is true and cannot be negated.

Below is my article today in the online magazine, the lobbyist.biz.
--------

http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1226-bitter-global-cooling

LESS GOVERNMENT

Discusses why more personal and parental responsibility, more competition, less politics, less taxes and less coercion will bring more peace and prosperity in society.

Nonoy Oplas
Re-emergence of La Nina without passing through an El Nino stage, drastically falling global air and tropospheric temperature, heavy flooding in several countries in East Asia. These are among the indicators of a bitter global cooling that is engulfing the planet.
Here is the recent temperature anomaly (or deviation from the average temperature) of the lower troposphere, global. Source of next two graphs, http://www.drroyspencer.com.

Drug Price Control 19: Why is the Policy not Withrawn Yet

The drug price control policy of the Philippine government is now 2 years and 3 months old. Twenty one (21) molecules were slapped with the policy that became effective in mid-August 2009. I still have to see any official assessment paper by the Department of Health (DOH), or by Congress, or by other groups and NGOs, saying that the policy was really necessary to make certain drugs become more accessible to the poor. Most if not all of the literatures that I have encountered -- from multinational pharma, local pharma, hospital associations, pharmacists association, medical association, drugstore associations, etc. -- say that the policy was unnecessary at the start and its continued implementation is a failure in its avowed goal of making essential drugs become more affordable and more accessible to more and more people.

During the 2nd Generics Summit sponsored by the DOH last September 7-8, 2011, held at Richmonde Hoel in Eastwood, Quezon City, one of the speakers was Mr. Tomas Luke "Beau" Agana, President of the Philippine Chamber of Pharmaceutical Industry (PCPI), also the President and CEO of Pharex Health Corp. PCPI is the federation of mostly or wholly Filipino generic drug manufacturers and distributors/drugstores, with more than 120 member-companies.

Beau gladly shared with me the powerpoint he presented during the 2nd Generics Summit. See my earlier discussion about the Summit, along with my photo with Beau and other activities here, IPR and medicines 12: Expanding generics.

Below are six of the slides showed by Beau, citing the cases of 3 molecules: amlodipine (anti-hypertension drug), simvastatin (anti-high cholesterol drug) and co-amoxiclav (anti-biotics).


The figures show that even prior to drug price control policy of August 2009, the average weighted price (total molecule value / total volume) and prices of leading brands of amlodipine were already declining. Pharex's amlodipine generic was already selling at around P11 vs. norvasc's P38. There were other generics that were already selling at around P8 even before the drug price control policy. As a result of declining weight average price (solid red line), sales volume of amlodipine 5mg was rising.

The same story for simvastatin molecule, below.


Even before the drug price control policy, prices of leading brands and the weighted average price were declining. The government's heavy price intervention only brought them further down faster. Volume also increased.

This is because simvastatin -- and almost all molecules slapped by the policy -- is/are already off-patent, so that more and more brands are introduced each year from more generic manufacturers.

Finally, Co-Amoxiclav molecule, below. Same pattern of declining prices even before the drug price control policy.


I will also use these data from Beau in the coming Asia Generics Summit in Taipei, November 19-21. I will speak there to talk about generic drugs from a consumer's perspective.

At face value, one may conclude that "Drug price control policy quickened the pace of price decline of those drug molecules; hence, the policy is correct." Partly true. But what is not shown by these and related charts, are the following:

1. Generic drugs that were displaced and pulled out from the market because their manufacturers could no longer bring down already low prices.
2. Potential generic drugs from more generic manufacturers who did not launch their products here because of the heavy-handed price intervention by the government; and
3. Potential innovator drugs from more innovator companies who did not launch their more revolutionary, more powerful drugs here because of the same price intervention by the government.

Besides, the trend of declining prices was already there before the policy was imposed. There was healthy competition among innovator and generic companies already, each player targeting its niche market and location. Different prices for different brands targeted for different consumers.

I am still wondering why the DOH is not withrawing the policy. Could it be pressure from some influential officials of the Liberal Party, the party in power? Former Senator Mar Roxas, LP President, was the main pusher of the policy way back in early to mid-2009, just a few months before the May 2010 elections. Or other factors?

But the sooner that the DOH will withraw that policy, the sooner it can rectify the damage to the business environment that it has created. Right now, there are many emerging or re-emerging diseases which have no medications yet. Like dengue, various types of cancer, there are no existing vaccine against them yet. The price control policy has mainly targeted the innovator companies -- and adversely affected the local generic companies in the process. Some innovator companies outside the country should be having second thoughts coming in because of the price dictatorship policy imposed by the past administration, but continued by the current administration.
-------

See also
Drug price control 17: Wikileaks on the planned Pfizer drugs withrawal, September 22, 2011.
Drug price control 18: Wikileaks and former US Amb. Kenney on price control, September 28, 2011