Policy Wise

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In a fine column in the Indian Express, Saubhik Chakravarti argues that respecting patent regimes does not necessarily sacrifice lives,

They should also see that the question of affordable access to drugs is a matter of public policy, not patents per se. India spends 1 per cent of its GDP on public health — that’s a scandal bigger than anything an MNC can cook up. And of every rupee spent on public hospitals, only 15 paise are spent on buying drugs that are given free to patients. Surely this calls for furious activist action?

Of course, lifesaving drugs like Tarceva, priced as they are, will pose questions even in a vastly better public health system. There are sensible ways to tackle this.

First, there are provisions in the Indian patent law on local manufacturing. Typically, local manufacturing will bring down prices. These provisions however can’t be applied immediately after a patent is granted.

Second, suppose the price of a patented lifesaving drug is “too high”. Drug price control authorities can impose controls only on essential drugs — those most commonly used and for common ailments. But competition authorities can investigate the pharma company’s pricing structure. The WTO’s intellectual property rules explicitly allow for this. And under domestic law, competition authorities have suo motu powers to investigate pricing in any sector.[link]

The emphasis on patents, as this blog has argued in the past is taking the easy way out for the ”pro-poor” activists. A well-thought patent policy can simultaneously can achieve both aims: protect and promote innovation while ensuring that drugs remain affordable for those who can’t afford them. And ensuring cheaper drug prices is not the business of Pharmaceutical companies only; as Chakravarti points out why is public health spending in India only 1% of the G.DP?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!