- Email: [email protected]
Australian government loosens its grip on the pharmaceutical industry
POLICY AND PEOPLE
Australian government loosens its grip on the pharmaceutical industry quent PBAC meeting another minismine which drugs should be subterial staffer, Ken Smith, threatened sidised. In compensation for the govPBAC with a potential police inquiry ernment’s monopsony purchasing because of leaks to the media. power the Department of Industry is Until now the PBAS providing Aus$300 milhas been seen as a model lion from 1999–2003 for Rights were regulatory body. Many research and development not granted to countries including UK to companies manufacturinclude this and Sweden have tried to ing in Australia. Such image in use Australia’s expericompanies can also negoelectronic ences in their own systiate higher prices for their tems. The International products. The compensamedia. Please Union of Pharmacology, tory scheme was camrefer to the which provides advice to paigned for by Clear. printed journal. the United Nations and Given the power of the WHO, has written to the pharmaceutical industry, Secretary of the the success of the system Department of Health, in limiting drug prices has Is Howard losing out? asking that support for the been remarkable but PBAC be maintained. Clear’s appointment sets a precedent The appointment of a former pharthat threatens the government’s grip. maceutical industry employee comes A potential blowout in expenditure at a time when the industry appears for pharmaceuticals would give Prime to be taking a far more aggressive Minister Howard’s government an approach to knock backs from the excuse to limit subsidies and privatise PBAC (see Lancet 2000; 355: 1166). the market. This would please indusTo have an industry representative on try who would not wish to see this the PBAC’s membership creates diffisystem replicated. culties. Martin Goddard, a former Last year at a meeting with Birkett, consumer representative on the and Professor David Henry—a PBAC PBAC, said that “it is a matter of member who is largely credited with sides. The aims of each [group] are developing the body’s cost-effectivedifferent. The legislated aim of PBAC ness guidelines—Wooldridge made it is to get best value of the dollar. The clear that he was being lobbied by the aim of companies is to get the highest pharmaceutical industry who were price. PBAC is effectively a purchasfrustrated by Australia’s restrictive ing authority, not an advisory comdrug policies. A few weeks later, a mittee. It is not necessary to have all senior ministerial adviser, Rachel parties represented around the table”. David, who was also at the meeting, left her government post and joined Pfizer in Hong Kong. At a subseBebe Loff, Stephen Cordner AP
he appointment of a former drug industry executive to Australia’s influential Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which recommends which drugs should go on to Australia’s drug market and get Aus$3·8 billion subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer, has invited allegations that the government has been pandering to the drug industry’s interests. On Feb 1 the Australian federal Minister for Health, Michael Wooldridge, announced the new membership of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The PBAC recommends which medicines should be subsidised to consumers under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which provides Aus$3·8billion dollars subsidy annually. Among the new members is Pat Clear, a former executive of Glaxo-Wellcome Australia and the recently retired head of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association. It has been suggested that there has been some secrecy surrounding Clear’s appointment. In a meeting with Wooldridge only a week before the announcement, Professor Don Birkett, then the chair of PBAC, was told the names of 11 of PBAC’s 12 members. When Birkett was finally informed of the name of the last member he resigned. Five other members have also refused to be reappointed. With PBAC’s advice, Australia has been at the forefront of applying clinical and economic criteria to deter-
T
Brazil and USA at loggerheads over production of generic antiretrovirals
T
he World Trade Organization (WTO) commissioned a legal dispute panel on Feb 1 to examine complaints by the USA that Brazil patent laws discriminate against US imports of antiretroviral drugs. But the next day Brazil raised the stakes and threatened to manufacture two more anti-HIV/AIDS drugs by June if US and Swiss antiretroviral prices were not decreased. Currently, Brazil manufactures eight of 12 available antiretroviral drugs and imports efavirenz and nelfinavir, which are produced by US-based Merck, Sharp & Dohme and Swiss-based, Roche, respectively. Brazil distributes the generic and imported drugs free of charge. “The US action is outrageous. It is a direct defence of drug companies’
THE LANCET • Vol 357 • February 10, 2001
interests and a direct assault on rights of people living with HIV/AIDS”, says Stephen Lewis, a UNAIDS advisor. “The lives of hundreds of thousands HIV/AIDS infected people depend on this system”, Bernard Pécoul, spokesperson for Medicins Sans Frontieres told The Lancet. He called on USA to withdraw the case, which he feared might sabotage Brazil’s successful AIDS programme if the panel decides in favour of USA. MSF warned that US action would also intimidate countries that would be interested in taking up Brazil’s offer to help them produce AIDS medicines. “Rich countries should be supporting, not blocking, the efforts of developing countries to combat the
AIDS epidemic. We should be trying to replicate the success of Brazil’s programme, which has cut AIDS deaths in half, not to snuff it out”, added Pécoul. Production of generic drugs in Brazil has led to a dramatic reduction in prices of antiretroviral drugs. According to Carlos Correa (University of Buenos Aires) “if Brazil were found in violation to the WTO rules, the room for producing affordable medicines would be severely curtailed”. Correa urged WTO member countries to carefully monitor this case, in order to prevent the WTO panels from creating obligations that were not agreed upon. Khabir Ahmad
453
For personal use only. Reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
Australian government loosens its grip on the pharmaceutical industry quent PBAC meeting another minismine which drugs should be subterial staffer, Ken Smith, threatened sidised. In compensation for the govPBAC with a potential police inquiry ernment’s monopsony purchasing because of leaks to the media. power the Department of Industry is Until now the PBAS providing Aus$300 milhas been seen as a model lion from 1999–2003 for Rights were regulatory body. Many research and development not granted to countries including UK to companies manufacturinclude this and Sweden have tried to ing in Australia. Such image in use Australia’s expericompanies can also negoelectronic ences in their own systiate higher prices for their tems. The International products. The compensamedia. Please Union of Pharmacology, tory scheme was camrefer to the which provides advice to paigned for by Clear. printed journal. the United Nations and Given the power of the WHO, has written to the pharmaceutical industry, Secretary of the the success of the system Department of Health, in limiting drug prices has Is Howard losing out? asking that support for the been remarkable but PBAC be maintained. Clear’s appointment sets a precedent The appointment of a former pharthat threatens the government’s grip. maceutical industry employee comes A potential blowout in expenditure at a time when the industry appears for pharmaceuticals would give Prime to be taking a far more aggressive Minister Howard’s government an approach to knock backs from the excuse to limit subsidies and privatise PBAC (see Lancet 2000; 355: 1166). the market. This would please indusTo have an industry representative on try who would not wish to see this the PBAC’s membership creates diffisystem replicated. culties. Martin Goddard, a former Last year at a meeting with Birkett, consumer representative on the and Professor David Henry—a PBAC PBAC, said that “it is a matter of member who is largely credited with sides. The aims of each [group] are developing the body’s cost-effectivedifferent. The legislated aim of PBAC ness guidelines—Wooldridge made it is to get best value of the dollar. The clear that he was being lobbied by the aim of companies is to get the highest pharmaceutical industry who were price. PBAC is effectively a purchasfrustrated by Australia’s restrictive ing authority, not an advisory comdrug policies. A few weeks later, a mittee. It is not necessary to have all senior ministerial adviser, Rachel parties represented around the table”. David, who was also at the meeting, left her government post and joined Pfizer in Hong Kong. At a subseBebe Loff, Stephen Cordner AP
he appointment of a former drug industry executive to Australia’s influential Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which recommends which drugs should go on to Australia’s drug market and get Aus$3·8 billion subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer, has invited allegations that the government has been pandering to the drug industry’s interests. On Feb 1 the Australian federal Minister for Health, Michael Wooldridge, announced the new membership of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The PBAC recommends which medicines should be subsidised to consumers under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which provides Aus$3·8billion dollars subsidy annually. Among the new members is Pat Clear, a former executive of Glaxo-Wellcome Australia and the recently retired head of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association. It has been suggested that there has been some secrecy surrounding Clear’s appointment. In a meeting with Wooldridge only a week before the announcement, Professor Don Birkett, then the chair of PBAC, was told the names of 11 of PBAC’s 12 members. When Birkett was finally informed of the name of the last member he resigned. Five other members have also refused to be reappointed. With PBAC’s advice, Australia has been at the forefront of applying clinical and economic criteria to deter-
T
Brazil and USA at loggerheads over production of generic antiretrovirals
T
he World Trade Organization (WTO) commissioned a legal dispute panel on Feb 1 to examine complaints by the USA that Brazil patent laws discriminate against US imports of antiretroviral drugs. But the next day Brazil raised the stakes and threatened to manufacture two more anti-HIV/AIDS drugs by June if US and Swiss antiretroviral prices were not decreased. Currently, Brazil manufactures eight of 12 available antiretroviral drugs and imports efavirenz and nelfinavir, which are produced by US-based Merck, Sharp & Dohme and Swiss-based, Roche, respectively. Brazil distributes the generic and imported drugs free of charge. “The US action is outrageous. It is a direct defence of drug companies’
THE LANCET • Vol 357 • February 10, 2001
interests and a direct assault on rights of people living with HIV/AIDS”, says Stephen Lewis, a UNAIDS advisor. “The lives of hundreds of thousands HIV/AIDS infected people depend on this system”, Bernard Pécoul, spokesperson for Medicins Sans Frontieres told The Lancet. He called on USA to withdraw the case, which he feared might sabotage Brazil’s successful AIDS programme if the panel decides in favour of USA. MSF warned that US action would also intimidate countries that would be interested in taking up Brazil’s offer to help them produce AIDS medicines. “Rich countries should be supporting, not blocking, the efforts of developing countries to combat the
AIDS epidemic. We should be trying to replicate the success of Brazil’s programme, which has cut AIDS deaths in half, not to snuff it out”, added Pécoul. Production of generic drugs in Brazil has led to a dramatic reduction in prices of antiretroviral drugs. According to Carlos Correa (University of Buenos Aires) “if Brazil were found in violation to the WTO rules, the room for producing affordable medicines would be severely curtailed”. Correa urged WTO member countries to carefully monitor this case, in order to prevent the WTO panels from creating obligations that were not agreed upon. Khabir Ahmad
453
For personal use only. Reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.