US Government and Big Pharma putting pressure on India to stop cheap drug production

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Damn it's all about the mighty dollar and not about helping human beings from suffering or death. I hope India pushes back on this.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Link to news article

18.si.jpg


Powerful global pharmaceutical firms are leaning on the United States government to discourage India from allowing the production and sale of affordable generic drugs still on-patent, according to inside sources close to the matter.

According to two senior officials, an Indian government committee is reviewing patented drugs from foreign companies for opportunities to spin certain medications into low-cost, generic versions. The drugs up for analysis are used to treat cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, and HIV, the sources told Reuters. They would not expand on the review process or on the timeline for any decisions on granting what are known as compulsory licenses.

Like other emerging economies such as China and South Africa, a rapidly growing population in India poses challenges to its government in keeping healthcare costs down while increasing access to life-saving drugs.

And wherever there are “emerging markets” - coupled with declining sales of patented drugs in Western markets - there are multinational conglomerates seeking profit inroads. Western-based pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer Inc., Novartis AG, and others are reportedly frustrated by India’s efforts to increase access to these vital drug treatments in a country where only 15 percent of the nation’s 1.2 billion people have health insurance.

Thus, led by the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), these companies are pressing for a stronger reaction from the US government, with which they already have substantial clout.

India, for instance, is already on the US government’s Priority Watch List - nations that are monitored closely given they do not always tow the line on intellectual property according to Washington’s standards. Countries in this classification include Argentina, China, Egypt, Pakistan, and Russia, among many others.

PhRMA believes the US should threaten to downgrade India to a Priority Foreign Country, which includes the “worst” nations that thwart intellectual property boundaries. Currently, only Ukraine is considered a member of this exclusive category.

"The multinational companies are exploring all options - from paring their investments in the country to forcing the US to take some actions," said a source in New Delhi, who, Reuters reported, “is directly involved in the situation.”

"Companies feel something should be done at the earliest to check the violations of their intellectual property in the country. They want government-to-government pressure to change things," the source said.

A PhRMA representative declined to comment to Reuters.

"PhRMA makes submissions to the US government every year on trade issues but this year they really want to ratchet up the pressure on India," said a drug company executive.

Reuters says PhRMA plans to submit to the US government by the Friday filing deadline a list of concerns about countries they believe could be a part of the Special 301 Report, an annual message from the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Despite the clout it possesses in the US and globally, the drugmakers need to tread lightly when attempting to influence policy toward a country like India, where a large percentage of the population lives in poverty, at least one company told Reuters.

"I don't believe there is any need for any kind of more assertive stance. This is a situation where constructive engagement is the way forward," GlaxoSmithKline Chief Executive Andrew Witty said.

Nevertheless, India’s drug market is expected to be worth US$22 to 32 million by 2017, making it the 11th largest in the world, according to IMS Health.

Some believe that if India relies too excessively on compulsory licenses for alternative drugs, it may mean that pharmaceutical companies will devote less research and development spending in the country.

AstraZeneca, for example, shut down its research and development operations in Bangalore last month, calling the move part of its global strategy.

"If the authorities are going haywire and looking to grant compulsory licences lock, stock and barrel, in that event you will lose the credibility in India as a system," Ameet Hariani, managing partner at Mumbai-based law firm Hariani & Co., told Reuters.

"You are going to see much more litigation on this issue. People are going to be unwilling to introduce new drugs in the market," he said. "You can't expect to get a new drug at a price of an aspirin."

In 2012, India awarded its first compulsory license to domestic company Natco Pharma Ltd.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Perversely perhaps the Bush administration was more open to inexpensive medication production, at least for the poorest nations. There is a group which would have produced medications for HIV treatment for Africans for example, which the Obama administration openly derided and acted to block. There's really no surprise in the OP's post.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
I think this is one time where a cheaper overseas alternative is justified.

So, what happens, a Pharma drug rep stops making a 6 digit figure for waltzing into a Dr's office, dropping off a few samples, showing off her legs, butt and boobs V. making that same drug available to the uninsured and poor?

I'll take the latter. The drug rep can become a stripper and still make some huge cash, without paying taxes,... as well as get closer to her coke dealer.

Now, Pharma HAS suffered at the government regulations. Non-sales and non-drug design positions,... it has already declined in the last 10 years. So, there won't be a huge line employee level reduction - that, again, has already occured, when India takes over.

You want to compete with cheaper drugs? Well, stop adding massive markups. What's that? You need to add massive markups for stakeholder profits? OK, make it so that no Pharma company goes public for trading etc. Lets get out of this stupid business of making profits off of sick people who will suffer without meds.

Enough already.
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
This is what happens when healthcare is dictated by capitalism. Can't afford to pay the exorbitant prices? Die. Want to make your own cheap version so poor people don't die? Unacceptable to the profit line. Capitalism is brilliant for a lot of things, but dictating the health and wellness of people should be nowhere on that list. There's a reason Dr. Jonas Salk is so highly regarded.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,131
31,125
136
This is what happens when healthcare is dictated by capitalism. Can't afford to pay the exorbitant prices? Die. Want to make your own cheap version so poor people don't die? Unacceptable to the profit line. Capitalism is brilliant for a lot of things, but dictating the health and wellness of people should be nowhere on that list. There's a reason Dr. Jonas Salk is so highly regarded.

The free-market is the only solution for everything. You socialist dog. India needs to invest in its own research and not steal from other countries. /s
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Drug patents (i.e. government endorsed monopolies) are a part of a free market?

Christ almighty some of you are very confused.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Drug patents (i.e. government endorsed monopolies) are a part of a free market?

Christ almighty some of you are very confused.

Yeah, fuck intellectual property rights. Information wants to be free. Pharmaceutical companies will of course keep spending billions of dollars to develop drugs which will be immediately pirated to "help the poor." Not being able to recover R&D expenses sounds like the business model of the future.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
I think this is one time where a cheaper overseas alternative is justified.

So, what happens, a Pharma drug rep stops making a 6 digit figure for waltzing into a Dr's office, dropping off a few samples, showing off her legs, butt and boobs V. making that same drug available to the uninsured and poor?

I'll take the latter. The drug rep can become a stripper and still make some huge cash, without paying taxes,... as well as get closer to her coke dealer.

Now, Pharma HAS suffered at the government regulations. Non-sales and non-drug design positions,... it has already declined in the last 10 years. So, there won't be a huge line employee level reduction - that, again, has already occured, when India takes over.

You want to compete with cheaper drugs? Well, stop adding massive markups. What's that? You need to add massive markups for stakeholder profits? OK, make it so that no Pharma company goes public for trading etc. Lets get out of this stupid business of making profits off of sick people who will suffer without meds.

Enough already.

Ironically that is one of the reasons that we pay such a high price here in the US. When other countries tell the pharma companies that "you can either sell it to us for $5 a pill or we will just violate your patent and make it ourselves" they must recoup their money from other customers, namely us.

As far as profit goes, I doubt that drugs would be all that much cheaper if you took all profit out of it. Then if you did do that, who would put up the absurd billions that it takes to create new drugs? Why in the hell would anyone put that kind of money at risk (how many drugs never make it to market versus ones that do?), and it is a HUGE risk, when there is zero profit in it???
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Drug patents (i.e. government endorsed monopolies) are a part of a free market?

Christ almighty some of you are very confused.

Being able to profit off of something that you develop is one of the very foundations of the free market. There is NO free market without that very basic concept.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Yeah, fuck intellectual property rights.

I'm glad you agree that creating artificial scarcity of an idea is a poor economic model. Time to try something new.

How about a new model? Private company researches drug, upon success they agree to release the formula to the world at a certain price. International community comes together to meet the creators price, and after that the formula for the drug is free to all?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I'm glad you agree that creating scarcity of an idea is a poor economic model. Time to try something new.

How about a new model? Private company researches drug, upon success they agree to release the formula to the world at a certain price. International community comes together to meet the creators price, and after that the formula for the drug is free to all?

Well except the problem is by "International Community" it will mean Western Countries(probably specifically the US). In which case I am still being forced to subsidize drugs for 3rd world countries.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,099
10,422
136
I'm glad you agree that creating scarcity of an idea is a poor economic model. Time to try something new.

How about a new model? Private company researches drug, upon success they agree to release the formula to the world at a certain price. International community comes together to meet the creators price, and after that the formula for the drug is free to all?

I favor that model.

Oh, and go India! Screw the US drug cartel.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Being able to profit off of something that you develop is one of the very foundations of the free market. There is NO free market without that very basic concept.

That's simplistic thinking. The value of something is based on it's scarcity and demand. The amazing thing about ideas as that there is no scarcity. The cost for reproduction of an idea is zero. This is the information age. Why are some people so intent on choking it?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Working for a Pharma. I guess we should stop spending billions to develop a drug, if we're not going to recoup our costs.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Well except the problem is by "International Community" it will mean Western Countries(probably specifically the US). In which case I am still being forced to subsidize drugs for 3rd world countries.

Wait, so now you're just concerned about YOUR cost? I thought you wanted to make sure the inventor was being paid.

Besides, if the drug were free to all then you could buy the drug for the same pennies that someone in India could, even if your upfront cost were higher due to our massively increased GDP compared to India.

Hell, for important drugs treating major diseases (read: not erectile dysfunction) you might even have wealthy philanthropists shelling out billions just to see their names in the history books.

Fuck, it's like I've thought of everything!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm glad you agree that creating artificial scarcity of an idea is a poor economic model. Time to try something new.

How about a new model? Private company researches drug, upon success they agree to release the formula to the world at a certain price. International community comes together to meet the creators price, and after that the formula for the drug is free to all?

How is that different than now aside from a wholesale rather than retail distribution model? The very point is that India and other countries aren't "coming together to meet the creator's price," their "certain price" is zero and are just pirating the pharma company IP.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Working for a Pharma. I guess we should stop spending billions to develop a drug, if we're not going to recoup our costs.

And what's the solution when billions of people can't afford that drug? Do we let them die or suffer because they're not prosperous enough to be worth helping? That seems like an awfully callous way to treat human life; "Yes, I've developed this thing that could ease your pain, but what's in it for me?"
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
How is that different than now aside from a wholesale rather than retail distribution model? The very point is that India and other countries aren't "coming together to meet the creator's price," their "certain price" is zero and are just pirating the pharma company IP.

Because they're copying the formula which is already in the wild. If there's nothing in the wild for India to copy because the owner is keeping it a secret, the price becomes non-zero.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Derp. You're an idiot.

Let me guess, with that witty retort you're on the sales side of the pharma industry? Any moron can do that job.


Edit: That must be what it is. Under my model, the people doing the actual work of inventing the drug make money. The people fronting the capital for research and the actual researchers. It's salesman leeches like you who disappear under my model. I can see where that upsets you.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,876
6,784
126
Wait, so now you're just concerned about YOUR cost? I thought you wanted to make sure the inventor was being paid.

Besides, if the drug were free to all then you could buy the drug for the same pennies that someone in India could, even if your upfront cost were higher due to our massively increased GDP compared to India.

Hell, for important drugs treating major diseases (read: not erectile dysfunction) you might even have wealthy philanthropists shelling out billions just to see their names in the history books.

Fuck, it's like I've thought of everything!

I'm impressed. The way I see it, being alive and our survival instinct sets us up for easy blackmail by those who would save us for a price.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I'm impressed. The way I see it, being alive and our survival instinct sets us up for easy blackmail by those who would save us for a price.

Don't be too impressed, I'm still a capitalist. I just believe that our current system of Intellectual Property is destined for the trashbin of bad ideas. Artificial scarcity of ideas makes everyone poorer.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,876
6,784
126
Don't be too impressed, I'm still a capitalist. I just believe that our current system of Intellectual Property is destined for the trashbin of bad ideas. Artificial scarcity of ideas makes everyone poorer.

Well, you see, I think that careers in medicine and medical research should be run by a civilian military with rank and pay limited as it is in the military, but awarded by achievement and service, and with lifetime benefits.

I don't believe capitalism and health should mix. If one could practice or do research in medicine with financial matters of no relevance, I believe the field could easily be filled by folk motivated by compassion for others and a desire to serve and further the human race.