Researchers Christian Barry and Matt Peterson argue that the pharma giant's announced initiatives on developing world drugs are less than they seem.

In an essay on the Policy Innovations Commentary blog, Barry and Peterson examine each of three strands of Andrew Witty's announcement.

"1. To reduce the price of medicines it sells in fifty least-developed countries (LDCs) to at most 25 percent of American and British prices;

2. To reinvest 20 percent of the profits it makes in those fifty poor countries into health-care infrastructure in those countries; and

3. To support a patent pool for neglected diseases."

Their responses are essentially:

25% of developed world prices means little to people who even in the wealthiest of the fifty LDCs to benefit (Uzbekistan) earn 98.4% LESS than the average U.S. income. Drastically greater reductions are possible when a drug comes off patent.

The profits GSK makes in those countries are miniscule, and 20% of miniscule is, well, probably rather less than Andrew Witty draws as an annual salary.

On the patent pool point, Barry and Peterson repeat the criticism levelled by Médecins Sans Frontières that the pool expressly excludes AIDS/HIV treatments, even though innovations are needed in developing nations for those conditions too.

0 Comments

Dead tree version

ADVERTISMENT