Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Member governments of the World Health Organization are increasingly talking about how to bring about “fair” pricing of medicines. And what’s clear is that it should not be based on how much you would pay to save your life, a senior WHO official said this week.
Steven Tepp writes: Virtually every consumer in every country wants products and services as inexpensively as possible. Nowhere is that demand more acute than in health care, where quality of life, and life itself, is at stake. In Europe, most national governments use the monopsony power of a single-payer national health care system to negotiate (or dictate) what prices they will pay, an activity that has been considered “anti-competitive” in EU private markets. And some governments simply issue price controls.
We are in a liminal moment for global health financing. The “golden age” of increasing donor funding is clearly over, arrested by the 2008 financial crisis. But while donor contributions are no longer climbing, they have not been falling, either. And it is possible this status quo will hold… But it’s equally possible that this is just the pause before the roller-coaster drops. Considering that Gavi, the Global Fund, and the World Bank will all be launching another replenishment round in 2019—and given the uncertainty surrounding US foreign aid commitments and post-polio financing—that drop may prove very steep indeed.
The annual World Health Assembly will address several issues related to intellectual property and innovation, Marie-Paule Kieny, assistant director-general for health systems and innovation at the World Health Organization, said in an interview this week. But a new initiative at WHO on fair pricing of medical products may not be among them in a significant way. [Update: the latest on the state of play on the UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines is being provided in real time below.]
A committee at the World Health Assembly yesterday decided to seek a closer look at consequences of potential changes to the WHO framework on pandemic influenza. The decision, still to be confirmed by the World Health Assembly, requires in-depth analysis of how to handle pandemic flu viruses under the framework, whether the framework should cover seasonal influenza, and whether the framework should become a specialised international instrument on access and benefit-sharing.
A new report released today by the World Bank shows that the world is not quite prepared to face the next pandemic. As for many other issues, money, or rather the lack of it, is at the heart of the problem, according to the report, which provides 12 recommendations to tackle the issue at the country level.
The World Intellectual Property Organization this week has striven to show its commitment to contributing to the debate on intellectual property and health, and the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, through advancement of its Re:Search program for the next five years.
With global funding for research and development decreasing, and the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, ways to incentivise research are seen as key to solving the problem. Speakers at a side event to the World Health Assembly this week presented models of public and private partnerships to address the issue.
The World Health Organization has launched a public consultation on the Draft Research and Development Blueprint Material Transfer Agreement tool text.
Transparency” and “accountability” are familiar buzzwords. Like salt and pepper, they pop up on nearly every list of ingredients for sound policy and good governance. But, as Ilona Kickbusch and Suerie Moon of the Graduate Institute Global Health Centre in Geneva point out, their details are rarely specified: transparency for what? Accountability to whom? On Tuesday afternoon, those not busy casting a vote for the next World Health Organization director general got the chance to dig into these questions at a panel co-sponsored by the Graduate Institute and FIND. In particular, discussion focused on transparency in terms of public access to two types of information: drug R&D costs and clinical trial data.