HELP "the pharmacy to the developing world"
Swiss “Novartis” is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Novartis has launched two law suits against India’s government after the country refused to grant a patent for (Glivec) a new form of the original compound of an anti-cancer medicine. Novartis is challenging not just the Glivec decision, but also a section of India’s patent law designed to promote cheaper generic medicines for poor patients who cannot afford patented medicines.
The law allows India to refuse a patent for an existing medicine that has been slightly modified. In countries such as the US, companies have modified medicines then re-patented them to extend their monopoly and keep generic competition off the market. India’s law ensures that this practice, called “ever-greening”, would not block access to affordable generics.
India changed its Patents Act in early 2005 to meet its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization, India adopted a new patent law that lets drug companies seek patents on medicines invented after 1995 or for new and more efficacious versions of older drugs. The government tried to ensure that medicines that were not innovative, were not granted patents. Novartis is pressuring India to eliminate a perfectly legal public health safeguard.
If Novartis succeeds, additional patents are likely to happen, resulting in further restrictions on the production of generic drugs in India and causing high prices for newer medicines. India’s generic medicine industry is often called “the pharmacy to the developing world” because it produces quality drugs at dramatically more affordable prices.
If Novartis succeeds, drug prices will rise, and people will suffer greatly,” said Vineeta Gupta of SHAII (Stop HIV/AIDS in India Initiative). “Novartis should be ashamed.”
Oxfam says that India’s law reflects an important public health safeguard that was agreed at the World Trade Organization. No country has challenged the legality of India’s law at the WTO.
Most AIDS treatment programmes throughout the world rely on generic antiretroviral (ARV) medicines made in India, including more than 80% of the 80,000 patients treated by Doctors Without Borders in more than 30 countries.
And 70% of the ARVs purchased by UNICEF, the International Dispensary Association, the UN Global Fund, and the Clinton Foundation to treat patients in 87 developing countries come from generic Indian sources as well.
Generic competition is what brought prices down for antiretroviral (ARV) medicines for people living with HIV/AIDS from a staggering $10,000 to $136 a year.
Novartis must drop its controversial court case against India which started in Jan 29th/2007, says international agency Oxfam.
If Novartis wins its case, a lot of patients in developing countries, especially those suffering from HIV/AIDS, who mainly rely on affordable drugs from India, would not have access anymore to drugs, It is unacceptable that commercial interests of a company comes before the general health’s interests and the right of states to protect and promote public health.
Arguements on this case have been heard and judgement is expected in the following weeks, if you care about medication reaching and saving HIV/AIDS patients check this site (you can add your name)
Join the Conversation
Ain’t greed wonderful.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.. what ever that pie might be, already having millions of pie does not lower the greed.. the hell with the rest.. their lives are not worth saving.. they dont deserve a piece or a crumb!
(What ever happened to humanity?)
(I feel like having a piece after all that pie talk.. a piece of real pie)
Companies are not greedy – only people.
Although I do not quite see
- why Novartis should succeed if indeed the Indian law is compatible with the WTO treaty
- why it would be a problem if Novartis gets a patent for an only slightly improved product – the product without the improvement would still be free if it was before
I did sign the petition though, just in case.
companies are run by who? exactly..
It might succeed because the WTO has bent the rules in favour of protecting and promoting public health by the Indian government..
Novartis deliberated failed to let everybody know is that when they (Novartis) had the exclusive rights to Glivec, they charged about ten times ($27,000) more than the generic price ($2,700) in India (Oxfam Briefing Paper, Patents versus Patients, Nov. 2006)
Novartis argues that the generic price is still well above what an average Indian can pay, while it is giving Glivec for free to 6600 patients in India and 15’000 patients worldwide and the manufacturers of the generic do not have such a program.
What is to say to that?
Let’s do some calculation. Novartis sold Glivec of a total value of 1.2 billion $ in one quarter of a year. That’s 5 billion a year. Divided by $50’000 (a more likely average worldwide price) that’s still 100’000 paying customers. How many people live without health insurance and could never afford even $27’000? Probably a multiple of the number of those who can. Final question: Does money give you cancer? I don’t think so.
6600 out of 1.3 million
ROFL
And Indian government and NGOs actually buy the drugs off of the cheaper manufacturers and distributes them to the treatment clinics. It’s true that an average Indian can’t afford even the cheaper medicine, but it’s not they who buy it in most cases.
So at th end the NGOs and the governements can afford the generic brand, but won’t be able to with the other stuff. That’s the issue here.
???
I know that Novartis gives away Gilvec for free to poor patients in the 3rd world countries especially Africa and India BUT Oxfam says this is not a sustainable way of providing medicines. “Novartis cannot guarantee to provide Glivec for free for life to the 24,000 new leukemia patients diagnosed in India each year. Corporate philanthropy has its place, but generic competition is the proven way of keeping drug prices affordable,” said Charveriat.
I hope that answers your question..
I do agree with you two.
(However, Jina: This is about a cancer medication, which has (I think) no direct connection with AIDS.)
About the money giving you cancer – that was supposed to be a sarcastic joke: The figures w o u l d not be disproportionate, if people without money had a (much) lower risk of cancer.
Breaking News: Novartis case dismissed on 7th August 2007.
I have been away for a while but I just checked my mail and recieved this a week ago.
an Indian court dismissed the suit brought by pharmaceutical company Novartis that could have greatly reduced the supply of affordable, lifesaving medications for the world’s poor. In addition, Novartis says it is unlikely to appeal the ruling!
it also states:
More than 45,000 CARE supporters responded by sending letters urging Novartis CEO Dr. Vasella to drop the case and protect affordable lifesaving medicines for the developing world. Although Novartis did not drop its case, after weeks of intense public pressure, it announced that it is unlikely to appeal the Indian court’s ruling.
enterprise rent a car copenhagen
enterprise rent a car copenhagen