A New US Trade Rep And Compulsory Licensing
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 4th, 2008 // 1:27 pm
Speculation is growing on Capitol Hill that Xavier Becerra, a Democratic congressman from California, has been offered the job of US Trade Representative (see this). The job is important, of course, for its influence on trade agreements and some consumer activists appear encouraged because Becerra has, in the past, criticized Bush administration policies on intellectual property and access to medicines.
This is a hot topic, you may recall, as some countries issue compulsory licenses for drugs deemed too costly for large swaths of their populations. A notable example has been Thailand, which angered several large drugmakers by issuing licenses for AIDS and heart meds (read here and here). The moves prompted US Trade Rep Susan Schwab to place Thailand on its Priority Watch twice over the past two years (back story), even as some Democrats urged her to respect compulsory licensing (look here).
And so activists are circulating e-mails noting that he has “previously signed a number of statements indicating support for a trade policy that better reflects the health commitments of Doha,” a reference to the 2001 international trade agreement in Qatar that solidified the right of poorer nations to issue compulsory licenses for medications under certain circumstances.
For instance, three years ago, he signed a letter to former US Trade Rep Robert Portman that read, in part: “Our FTAs must uphold, at a minimum, the essential balance in U.S. law between promoting innovation and affordable health care and must respect the unique public health needs of our trading partners. We urge you to ensure that the USTR promotes these principles in trade negotiations so that (Free Trade Agreements) do not put affordable health care at risk - at home and abroad.”
Michael
I just hope that he keeps in mind . . . there are a number of problems with compulsory licenses. How should a company be “reasonably” compensated? How should the use of the medicines produced be enforced? Many less-than-honest governments would be glad to accept low cost medicines produced by a compulsory licensee only to go and sell the drugs to a higher bidder and not use the drugs for the benefit of the country’s population.
See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/apr/25/internationalaidanddevelopment.aids
Bingo
How does the cited article relate to compulsory licenses and support your suggestion that governments are likely to abuse them for profit?
The article mentions only actions by companies, not governments.
“GSK was criticised by Judge Peter Prescott in pre-trial hearings, who said he was surprised that the company had supplied medicines to commercial organisations “without taking any precautions to see that the medicines really did arrive in, and stay in, west Africa”.”
Bingo
BTW, the previous post was referring to the article cited by Michael.
Michael
The point is that compulsory licenses, while often times seemingly well meaning, lead to problematic consequences. The truth of the matter is that drug companies would be happy to supply African countries with all the drugs they need at next to no cost . . . IF the companies had assurance that the drugs would go to treat the intended population within the country. Unfortunately that isn’t the case. And when people in these needy countries divert drugs away to other European countries FOR A PROFIT, they are taking ADDITIONAL money away from the drug companies - the money the companies would’ve had if they would’ve sold the Europeans the drugs themselves.
Another news story does a better job of explaining the above quoted story from the UK:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-3-2002-27507.asp
Diamond Glass
What was the final consensus on this issue? There are a number of problems with compulsory licenses.