The cost of patents
Innovative drug products cost a fortune to develop. There is the cost of the initial chemistry and pharmacology to find a lead compound. Full clinical trials, from toxicology to effect studies, have to be carried out. And then there is the substantial cost of going through the approvals process. Then many drugs fall out of development because of safety concerns, or their effects are not all they were hoped to be, and the cost of these failed products have to be met from the profits generated by those that reach the market. So little wonder that pharma companies jealously guard their patent rights.
In the developed world, there may be concerns about the price of drugs and whether they are affordable, but ultimately agreements are reached and drugs are mostly available for those that need them. This is clearly not the case in the developing world. A number of pharmaceutical companies have hit the headlines in recent weeks over the cost of their products there, notably anti-HIV medicines. In many parts of Africa, in particular, HIV is endemic and AIDS is the most common cause of death. A court case in South Africa has seen a total of 39 drug companies taking on the government over a law it introduced that would allow it to import cut-price generic drugs.
The drug companies are fundamentally opposed to the principle of their patent rights being overridden in this way. It could lead to some uncomfortable precedents being set, not to mention an explosion in parallel importing back to the developed world where the patents are being respected. Some of the drug companies, notably Merck & Co and GlaxoSmithKline, have responded to pressure from the World Health Organisation and other agencies to make their AIDS drugs more widely available. They have cut the price at which they are prepared to sell their drugs to developing nations, in the hope that this will make them more affordable without jeopardising the patent system.
However, the issue of patents that has been seized on by pressure groups is irrelevant if the infrastructure for the successful administration of the drugs is not in place. Medicines could even be free, but if the healthcare system to support their supply, educate patients in compliance and ensures that patients receive regular supplies is not there, then there is little point. The complex dosing regimens that are required for anti-HIV drug strategies to be successful are difficult enough to stick to for patients in the developed world with public health back-up.
Freely available drugs are not the answer in themselves. Perhaps the drug companies should be looking more towards promoting the creation and support of effective public health networks. Otherwise, any gestures like price slashing of patented drugs will be, in effect, empty promises.