The controversy involving Thailand and drugmakers over patents prompted Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington DC think tank, to arrange a briefing last week. It was sponsored by US Sen. Sherrod Brown and Congressman Tom Allen.

One speaker was Sangsak Saicheua of the Royal Thai Embassy. KEI summarized his remarks:

Thailand recognizes a need for balance in the use of compulsory licenses, but argued that three compulsory licenses issued complied with World Trade Organization rules. He stressed that generic drugs resulting from the licenses would be available to Thais covered by a government health plan and who previously had no access to the medicines. Patent holders would see no loss in revenue because upper income Thais, who could previously afford the drugs, are not covered by the health plan and would continue to purchase brand name drugs.

Saicheua also said denied charges that talks weren’t first held with drugmakers about their patents. It “isn’t true at all,” he claimed and insisted Thailand had negotiated on pricing for at least two years, but only received meaningful offers for discounts after issuing the licenses.

Also speaking was Richard Kjeldgaard of PhRMA:

He emphasized that patients are industry’s first priority, and the R&D for these drugs is funded by revenue from patents, but that compulsory licenses destroy both incentives for drug development and access to drugs overall. He made an analogy to a farmer who toils in his fields to produce a harvest, only to have the harvest confiscated with little remuneration. The farmer, he suggests, would have little incentive to work hard for a harvest the next year.

You can read everyone’s statements here.
[tags]Abbott Laboratories, Compulsory Licenses, Patents, Thailand[/tags]