Gilead Unfairly Controls AIDS Ingredients
1 CommentBy Ed Silverman // February 15th, 2007 // 8:21 am
That’s the charge in a petition filed with the US Federal Trade Commission by an advocacy group, Knowledge Ecology International.
Supposedly, the drugmaker devised a complex scheme to use patents on a government funded AIDS drug, which was invented at Emory University, to cut-off low cost supplies of ingredients for two AIDS drugs. KEI charges Gilead with “using licenses to patents on th AIDS drug emtricitabine in 45 countries to control the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients to more than 100 other countries, and control the market for a second AIDS drug, tenofovir, that is generally off-patent in developing countries.
KEI includes a reader’s guide from Brook Baker, a Northeastern University law school prof: Gilead’s licenses “split and tie-up the market for active pharmaceutical ingredients; Gilead seeks royalties on approved sales even when patents are not in force, and finally, Gilead is preventing additional sales in unapproved markets even where the two drugs and their combinations aren’t patented.”
Why should anyone care? This is how KEI sees it: “This action imposes higher costs for AIDS drugs in more than 150 developing country markets. The US government is the largest purchaser of AIDS drugs in the developing world, and is harmed by this anticompetitive practice.”
In other words, the alleged scheme keeps prices artificially high, for everyone. And if KEI is correct, Gilead is making hay since US taxpayers funded the discovery of the drug in the first place. This will probably take awhile to play out, but KEI, which is all over patent issues involving drugmakers around the world, is raising some important questions.
[tags]AIDS, Federal Trade Commission, Gilead Sciences, Knowledge Ecology International, Patents[/tags]
Melody
In his book “Too Profitable to Cure” the author addresses another such AIDS debacle, together with his complaint about insulin:
Increase the price!
Here is a parallel example of this deluded corporate mindset, whereby patients of another chronic disease are manipulated for profit. In a news release dated 2004, the AIDS Foundation filed an antitrust and restraint of trade lawsuit against the pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Novir, the “old” AIDS drug, underwent a five-fold increase (from $50/month to $250/month). Abbott’s “new” drug, which had Novir as a significant component, remained unchanged in price. Novir was considered the better product for some AIDS patients. Because of the cost increase, these patients were forced to the cheaper, diluted Novir product called Kaletra. Abbott’s price increase for Novir crippled competing pharmaceuticals who were using Novir as a part of their proprietary formulation. Would you call this restraint of trade? Or would you call it criminal malfeasance?5
This same kind of manipulation occurred for insulin users once rDNA genetically engineered human insulin received approval from the FDA. After being on the market for 10 years, rDNA insulin had captured only about 50% of the market. A marketing ploy (manipulation) was needed to propel human insulin to “stardom.” So, major insulin manufacturers set about increasing the price of animal-based insulins (beef, pork and beef/pork) while the price of rDNA insulin remained stable. When managed health care organizations, including the U.S. Veterans Administration, began endorsing rDNA insulin because of price advantage, the “popularity” of animal insulins began to decline. As sales declined, the pharmaceuticals could point to a waning market to excuse or justify their gradual withdrawal of animal insulins from the marketplace. They did this WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that some diabetic patients could not take human insulin. How this can be considered anything but criminal behavior? If I slip a cyanide pill into your dish of ice cream, knowing full well that cyanide is poisonous, is there little doubt that I will be charged with murder when you die?