Thailand Blacklisted From Receiving New AIDS Drugs

[ThaiGoon]

I do work for big pharma and hope i have made that clear so people know my stance. However I this situation with Thailand will not affect my future salary or bonus so its not a fiscal matter for me. I am happy to work for a pharma that probably has the best CSR record and in a division that sells a lot of product at no profit.

Done my reading mate

Put any spin on it you like - the HIV drugs had a case - the adding on of the heart drug has no precedent - like in many area's Thailand takes what is not rightfully their's and hides behind pseudo-altruistic motives beleiving its their right.

This time it being played out on a world stage rather than some local backyard and they are looking like the tin pot dictators they really are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6587379.stm (This was posted a while ago.)

"they spend a lot more on advertising their products than they do on research and development.

Much of the research in the US is, in any case, done by government-funded universities."

"Issuing a compulsory licence for a heart drug, they say, breaks the spirit of the agreement.

Abbott has now withdrawn all its future products from the Thai market - including a new heat-resistant form of Kaletra which is desperately needed by HIV patients."

"At Bangkok's main chest hospital, doctors say they spend almost 20% of their entire budget on Plavix, which is why it was one of the drugs targeted."

"Tellingly the US, normally a vocal defender of intellectual property rights, has not criticised Thailand's decision, nor has the World Health Organization."

And from the white paper Jai Dee posted a while ago.

"This compliance with all legal frameworks has also ben confirmed by the 22 US Congressmen in their letter to the Honorable Susan C. Schwab. "We have not suggested that Thailand has failed to comply with particular national or international law. We have not sought to insert the US gov't into any such discussion."

Yeah, dude, you have done your reading.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ThaiGoon

[ThaiGoon]

why should america be so concerned about your problems when your own people don't give a sh#t?

if the rich people had spent money to educate the average thai to 12 grade, there wouldn't be so many poor people in thailand. you love your slaves so much, you don't want your fellow thai to have a better life.

if you had spent the money like you should have, thailand would be as prosperous as singapore. think about it, singapore only has 4 million people. and thailand has 65 million. so, why is singapore so much richer?

the rich people in thailand don't care about the poor people. simple to see.

Nick, please read the white paper Jai Dee posted a while ago. It's on the previous page I believe. Let me quote some of what it says:

"The budget for access to ARVs also increased ... more than 10 folds in 6 years (from $10 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2007.) This level of spending from national public resources on access to ARVS is highest among the lower middle income developing countries. "

So Nick, looks like we seemed to give a sh#t to a point where it could potentailly bankrupt us. Try reading please Nick. I don't wanna keep quoting what's been posted before.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

CMAmerican, I've seen this comparison to rice patents has been brought up time and time again, and it seems that you fail to realize that ther are millions of rice farmers in Thailand whose lives pretty much depend only on their farming. Rice farming is the only source of income for these poor farmers. It's not the same as pharma companies who had $1.1 billion to spend for lobbying. Less income for three drugs are not gonna put their lives or their businesses in jeopardy.

You fail to realize drug company stock is owned by investors. Much of the stock is owned by institutional investors including pension funds for ordinary people. Start a trend of stealing patents and you take food off the plates of people who worked all their lives and are now retired. You also fail to address the very large number of middle income to well off Thais entitled to free medicine under the government scheme. They can afford the medicine but can get it free at the expense of the drug companies and their shareholders. Further, Thailand is encouraging other countries to do likewise. Yet the MFA claims Thailand understands the importance of IP and innovation. Doesn't seem to corrspond with what other branches of he Thai government have said.

From the MOH Report

Previously posted From the report:

"All of the 62 million Thais who are covered by one of the three above-mentioned national

public health insurance schemes are entitled to full access of all medicines in the essential

drugs list, including almost 900 items of drugs, many of them patented"

The reports suggests that only 2% of Thailand's population is covered by private insurance.

From Agence France-Presse:

Thailand's health minister has threatened to expand the country's generic drug programme to include cancer and more AIDS medications, unless pharmaceutical companies sharply cut their prices.

AND

Mongkol said the government had to resort to the generic program in the face of a ballooning health care budget now at more than 250 billion baht (seven billion dollars) and projected to rise 10 percent every year.

"We want to help the poor. We have to use the compulsory licence for the poor people," he said

What about the top 20% of Thais who also get free medicine?

AND

Mongkol said drug giants should do more to cut prices of essential medicines to treat AIDS, cancer and heart diseases.

"If they voluntarily reduce prices to let the poor people access to essential drugs, there is no need to do compulsory licensing," he said. "We are doing everything to help the poor people."

http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2007/AF070337.html

From the MFA defense of compulsory licensing:

"Second, we recognize the importance of balancing between the protection of innovation and the access to medicine to protect public health. The decision to use CL on the three drugs as made by Ministry of Public Health did not come lightly. So, it is presumptuous to speculate that CL will be used on other medicines."

AND

The gap in income disparity and distribution of wealth remains wide. 20% of poorest population owns less than 5% of national income, while 20% of the richest owns more than 50% of national income. Many of the less-well off people cannot afford necessary treatment, particularly when it comes to HIV/AIDS medicines which the patients have to take all their lives. The Government needs to increase their access.

and the access of the top 20% too say they can keep more of what they have.

http://www.mfa.go.th/web/35.php?id=18088

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

And from the white paper Jai Dee posted a while ago.

"This compliance with all legal frameworks has also ben confirmed by the 22 US Congressmen in their letter to the Honorable Susan C. Schwab. "We have not suggested that Thailand has failed to comply with particular national or international law. We have not sought to insert the US gov't into any such discussion."

What about the other 513 members of the US Congress? I guess their opinion doesn't count.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[nick2k]

I do work for big pharma and hope i have made that clear so people know my stance. However I this situation with Thailand will not affect my future salary or bonus so its not a fiscal matter for me. I am happy to work for a pharma that probably has the best CSR record and in a division that sells a lot of product at no profit.

Done my reading mate

Put any spin on it you like - the HIV drugs had a case - the adding on of the heart drug has no precedent - like in many area's Thailand takes what is not rightfully their's and hides behind pseudo-altruistic motives beleiving its their right.

This time it being played out on a world stage rather than some local backyard and they are looking like the tin pot dictators they really are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6587379.stm (This was posted a while ago.)

"they spend a lot more on advertising their products than they do on research and development.

Much of the research in the US is, in any case, done by government-funded universities."

"Issuing a compulsory licence for a heart drug, they say, breaks the spirit of the agreement.

Abbott has now withdrawn all its future products from the Thai market - including a new heat-resistant form of Kaletra which is desperately needed by HIV patients."

"At Bangkok's main chest hospital, doctors say they spend almost 20% of their entire budget on Plavix, which is why it was one of the drugs targeted."

"Tellingly the US, normally a vocal defender of intellectual property rights, has not criticised Thailand's decision, nor has the World Health Organization."

And from the white paper Jai Dee posted a while ago.

"This compliance with all legal frameworks has also ben confirmed by the 22 US Congressmen in their letter to the Honorable Susan C. Schwab. "We have not suggested that Thailadn has failed to comply with particular national or international law. We habe not sought to insert the US gov't into any such discussion."

Yeah, dude, you have done your reading.

you know something. even before thailand came up with the 30 baht medical plan, I knew they were going to go bankrupt trying to adhere to the plan. it was just a matter of time.

maybe what this whole compulsory licensing is all about is - to divert the blame from the leaders in thailand who implemented the 30 baht plan - to america. like - what's new?!?

expect thailand to cancel the 30 baht medical plan in the near future.

it just makes sense. evil america charges us too much for the medicine. that is why we have to cancel the 30 baht medical plan. in other words, it's not our fault that we can't continue treatment for the aids patients, it's america's fault.

[A_Traveller]

The 30 baht plan was canceled by the junta upon arrival. The process is now free at the point of delivery.

Regards

[ThaiGoon]

CMAmerican, had you followed this a bit more closely, you would have seen that several of their share holders (a group of them in fact) had expressed disappointment and disgust in the way these drug companies have handled this issue. I was the one who posted the article that had those comments from the share holders. I'm pretty sure it's in this thread. (The article was about how Abbott started to be more willing to negotiate with the Thai gov't on this issue.) So I'm pretty certain that you don't need to be that concerned for them (the share holders.)

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

CMAmerican, had you followed this a bit more closely, you would have seen that several of their share holders (a group of them in fact) had expressed disappointment and disgust in the way these drug companies have handled this issue. I was the one who posted the article that had those comments from the share holders. I'm pretty sure it's in this thread. (The article was about how Abbott started to be more willing to negotiate with the Thai gov't on this issue.) So I'm pretty certain that you don't need to be that concerned for them (the share holders.)

You still haven't addressed the issue of the top 20% of the Thai population who hold over 50% of the wealth having access to free medications while Thailand claims the patent breech is to help the poor.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

CMAmerican, had you followed this a bit more closely, you would have seen that several of their share holders (a group of them in fact) had expressed disappointment and disgust in the way these drug companies have handled this issue. I was the one who posted the article that had those comments from the share holders. I'm pretty sure it's in this thread. (The article was about how Abbott started to be more willing to negotiate with the Thai gov't on this issue.) So I'm pretty certain that you don't need to be that concerned for them (the share holders.)

You still haven't addressed the issue of the top 20% of the Thai population who hold over 50% of the wealth having access to free medications while Thailand claims the patent breech is to help the poor.

(Sorry I was about to, but I got to answer a phone call.)

That thing doesn't change the fact that the Thai gov't still has to spend a huge amount of money on the health care system. It doesn't one bit change the fact that the costs for these drugs have increased exponentially over the last few years and threatened to bankrupt the Thai gov't if they let them go on. It doesn't change all those problems the Thai gov't was facing one bit. It's a moot point really.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

CMAmerican, had you followed this a bit more closely, you would have seen that several of their share holders (a group of them in fact) had expressed disappointment and disgust in the way these drug companies have handled this issue. I was the one who posted the article that had those comments from the share holders. I'm pretty sure it's in this thread. (The article was about how Abbott started to be more willing to negotiate with the Thai gov't on this issue.) So I'm pretty certain that you don't need to be that concerned for them (the share holders.)

You still haven't addressed the issue of the top 20% of the Thai population who hold over 50% of the wealth having access to free medications while Thailand claims the patent breech is to help the poor.

(Sorry I was about to, but I got to answer a phone call.)

That thing doesn't change the fact that the Thai gov't still has to spend a huge amount of money on the health care system. It doesn't one bit change the fact that the costs for these drugs have increased exponentially over the last few years and threatened to bankrupt the Thai gov't if they let them go on. It doesn't change all those problems the Thai gov't was facing one bit. It's a moot point really.

So now American and other foreign companies and by extension their shareholders are expected to subsidize the healthcare expense for the top 20% of the Thai population? I doubt the institutional investors in the article had those facts available whne it was written since the Thai government has been spinning the patent breech as a means to help the poor. A one half of one percent royalty is a fair price to pay?

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[nick2k]

why should america be so concerned about your problems when your own people don't give a sh#t?

if the rich people had spent money to educate the average thai to 12 grade, there wouldn't be so many poor people in thailand. you love your slaves so much, you don't want your fellow thai to have a better life.

if you had spent the money like you should have, thailand would be as prosperous as singapore. think about it, singapore only has 4 million people. and thailand has 65 million. so, why is singapore so much richer?

the rich people in thailand don't care about the poor people. simple to see.

Nick, please read the white paper Jai Dee posted a while ago. It's on the previous page I believe. Let me quote some of what it says:

"The budget for access to ARVs also increased ... more than 10 folds in 6 years (from $10 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2007.) This level of spending from national public resources on access to ARVS is highest among the lower middle income developing countries. "

So Nick, looks like we seemed to give a sh#t to a point where it could potentailly bankrupt us. Try reading please Nick. I don't wanna keep quoting what's been posted before.

I don't know everything. I am the first to admit to that. but I do know that dentist in thailand don't pay taxes on their income. and from what I have heard, many dentist are making over 300,000 baht a month. the same applies to franchisees who run all those fast food joints, they make a killing every month because they don't pay their employees anything.

you don't tax your own people. but you expect foreign countries to allow you to steal their drugs? what gives?

do the rich people in thailand really give a sh#t? I don't think so.

if you tax your rich people at a 50% tax rate like we do in the states, you would have enough money to do more things. like educate your people so they can compete with everybody else in the world.

[A_Traveller]

The shareholder point is valid, in that US law places a fiduciary responsibility on the board of any public company to use their best efforts to serve the shareholders {i.e. by generating profits and dividends}. As has been pointed out several major shareholders, made it clear that Abbot's position on this was unwise. Interestingly enough the concern was more to do with damage of perception within the marketplace, after all, Abbot is a major producer of 'enhanced' baby food across the world, including in Thailand.

In summary Thailand did not break the law, they acted within the provisions of TRIPs and the associated WTO protocols. Strangely Abbot {rather like Shell and the oil platform decommissioning} dropped the ball spectacularly in PR terms with the 'we'll take our toys away' and then have found themselves {possibly with help} using a wide range of lobbiests to get both their own shareholders and the wider political community in the US on-side.

The techniques are questionable in the extreme, the whole usa4inv site, would if being used to project a set of Thai values be roundly condemned by those who are strangely silent about it now {herein}. Funny that.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the position is that if those who complain about WTO and TRIPS think it should be changed, then petition your government, take affirmative action as a citizen. Use your rights, many do not have that opportunity, many would say that privilege, choose to use it for the wider good as well as yours, since humans are primarily cooperative species. It is surprising what an individual can do within their own society today.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited May 12, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ThaiGoon]

So nowe American and other foreign companies are expected to subsidize the healthcare expense for the top 20% of the Thai population? A one half of one percent royalty is a fair price to pay?

I'm not sure how you Americans are subsidizing Thailand's healthcare expenses as we are talking about a couple of drug companies here. And people whose money might be actually be impacted seemed to be perfectly fine with what the Thai gov't is trying to do (per my comment about the share holders.) I don't see those people who actually have stakes in this matter go up in arms like you and Nick do.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

So nowe American and other foreign companies are expected to subsidize the healthcare expense for the top 20% of the Thai population? A one half of one percent royalty is a fair price to pay?

I'm not sure how you Americans are subsidizing Thailand's healthcare expenses as we are talking about a couple of drug companies here. And people whose money might be actually be impacted seemed to be perfectly fine with what the Thai gov't is trying to do (per my comment about the share holders.) I don't see those people who actually have stakes in this matter go up in arms like you and Nick do.

Its not quite like you say it is. This from a report in the Chicago Tribune on the very recent (as in less than 2 weeks ago) Abbott shareholders meeting.

AIDS controversy dominates Abbott Labs' annual meeting

By Bruce Japsen

Tribune staff reporter

Published April 27, 2007, 12:21 PM CDT

Abbott Laboratories won't back away from its controversial decision to withhold drug applications in Thailand, Chief Executive Miles White told AIDS activists at the North Chicago company's annual shareholders meeting.

AND

Stockholders greeted White with loud applause, and at various times the crowd shouted down the protesters. Only a relative handful of activists actually entered the hall for the stockholder meeting, but a larger number was outside

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,3375539.story

In the US loud applause indicates support. Hint, they weren't applauding Thailand.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

The shareholder point is valid, in that US law places a fiduciary responsibility on the board of any public company to use their best efforts to serve the shareholders {i.e. by generating profits and dividends}. As has been pointed out several major shareholders, made it clear that Abbot's position on this was unwise. Interestingly enough the concern was more to do with damage of perception within the marketplace, after all, Abbot is a major producer of 'enhanced' baby food across the world, including in Thailand.

In summary Thailand did not break the law, they acted within the provisions of TRIPs and the associated WTO protocols. Strangely Abbot {rather like Shell and the oil platform decommissioning} dropped the ball spectacularly in PR terms with the 'we'll take our toys away' and then have found themselves {possibly with help} using a wide range of lobbiests to get both their own shareholders and the wider political community in the US on-side.

The techniques are questionable in the extreme, the whole usa4inv site, would if being used to project a set of Thai values be roundly condemned by those who are strangely silent about it now {herein}. Funny that.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the position is that if those who complain about WTO and TRIPS think it should be changed, then petition your government, take affirmative action as a citizen. Use your rights, many do not have that opportunity, many would say that privilege, choose to use it for the wider good as well as yours, since humans are primarily cooperative species. It is surprising what an individual can do within their own society today.

Regards

/edit typo//

Cheers A-traveller.

Nick, perhaps if those drug companies had not spent $1.1 billion in lobbying in the last 6 years (which made them the biggest lobbyists in American politics), they would have been more willing and prepared (financially) to talk to the Thai gov't about reducing their drug prices a while ago?

We could go on and on all day about this "who should pay" argument, but the bottom line is that the Thai gov't is not stealing anything and actually doing everything legally. They had tried to negotiate with the drug companies for two years (from 2004 to 2006) before all this but the drug companies didn't wanna listen. The drug companies overcharged their products and only wanted bigger and bigger profits without any regards to the poor dying people in small countries. The costs in providing the healthcare to Thai pople could potentially backrupt the the Thai gov't if they let it go on. That's the bottom line.

[nick2k]

So nowe American and other foreign companies are expected to subsidize the healthcare expense for the top 20% of the Thai population? A one half of one percent royalty is a fair price to pay?

I'm not sure how you Americans are subsidizing Thailand's healthcare expenses as we are talking about a couple of drug companies here. And people whose money might be actually be impacted seemed to be perfectly fine with what the Thai gov't is trying to do (per my comment about the share holders.) I don't see those people who actually have stakes in this matter go up in arms like you and Nick do.

contrary to what you believe, there are a lot of people upset over countries like thailand stealing things from them. currently, we have a number of politicians who have forgotten whom they are suppose to represent. and as more and more americans lose their jobs to countries overseas, you will start to see some changes being made in the political arena.

your notion that this is no big deal is incorrect.

the 22 politicians that you mentioned earlier who seem to be siding with thailand are going to be in for a big surprise when the word gets out that they are not representing america on these issues. if they want to be angels, they should have chosen to be a priest.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

The shareholder point is valid, in that US law places a fiduciary responsibility on the board of any public company to use their best efforts to serve the shareholders {i.e. by generating profits and dividends}. As has been pointed out several major shareholders, made it clear that Abbot's position on this was unwise. Interestingly enough the concern was more to do with damage of perception within the marketplace, after all, Abbot is a major producer of 'enhanced' baby food across the world, including in Thailand.

In summary Thailand did not break the law, they acted within the provisions of TRIPs and the associated WTO protocols. Strangely Abbot {rather like Shell and the oil platform decommissioning} dropped the ball spectacularly in PR terms with the 'we'll take our toys away' and then have found themselves {possibly with help} using a wide range of lobbiests to get both their own shareholders and the wider political community in the US on-side.

The techniques are questionable in the extreme, the whole usa4inv site, would if being used to project a set of Thai values be roundly condemned by those who are strangely silent about it now {herein}. Funny that.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the position is that if those who complain about WTO and TRIPS think it should be changed, then petition your government, take affirmative action as a citizen. Use your rights, many do not have that opportunity, many would say that privilege, choose to use it for the wider good as well as yours, since humans are primarily cooperative species. It is surprising what an individual can do within their own society today.

Regards

/edit typo//

Cheers A-traveller.

Nick, perhaps if those drug companies had not spent $1.1 billion in lobbying in the last 6 years (which made them the biggest lobbyists in American politics), they would have been more willing and prepared (financially) to talk to the Thai gov't about reducing their drug prices a while ago?

We could go on and on all day about this "who should pay" argument, but the bottom line is that the Thai gov't is not stealing anything and actually doing everything legally. They had tried to negotiate with the drug companies for two years (from 2004 to 2006) before all this but the drug companies didn't wanna listen. The drug companies overcharged their products and only wanted bigger and bigger profits without any regards to the poor dying people in small countries. The costs in providing the healthcare to Thai pople could potentially backrupt the the Thai gov't if they let it go on. That's the bottom line.

How does providing free medication to the top 20% of Thailand's population, people who can well afford to pay, show regard for poor people?

[ThaiGoon]

What I posted a while ago and A_traveler mentioned about a group of Abbott's shareholders:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/11/new...arma.php?page=2

Some of Abbott's investors also protested the move. Christian Brothers Investment Services and members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, who together own $35 million in Abbott shares, said they were concerned that the company's actions might damage its reputation.

"To our knowledge, no pharmaceutical company has before withdrawn AIDS drugs in response to a pricing or licensing dispute," the groups said in a statement. "By keeping life-saving medicines like Kaletra off the shelves in Thailand, Abbott Labs is threatening the health of Thais who need access to these drugs for survival."

The group also said Abbott's move could damage the company's "brand, its relationships with patients, and ultimately, shareholder value."

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

What I posted a while ago and A_traveler mentioned about a group of Abbott's shareholders:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/11/new...arma.php?page=2

Some of Abbott's investors also protested the move. Christian Brothers Investment Services and members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, who together own $35 million in Abbott shares, said they were concerned that the company's actions might damage its reputation.

"To our knowledge, no pharmaceutical company has before withdrawn AIDS drugs in response to a pricing or licensing dispute," the groups said in a statement. "By keeping life-saving medicines like Kaletra off the shelves in Thailand, Abbott Labs is threatening the health of Thais who need access to these drugs for survival."

The group also said Abbott's move could damage the company's "brand, its relationships with patients, and ultimately, shareholder value."

I doubt they had all the facts at the time they made the announcement. Providing for the poor is one thing. As I have said in the past, I support that and have in fact probably actually done more as an individual to provide care for the poor than most on theis forum. Giving the rich a free ride is quite another. Nor do I support Thailand's miserly offer of one half of one percent royalty. It isn't fair to the company given the size of Thailand's economy. Money could be saved by requiring those who can pay to do so. That money could be used to help the poor. Thailand doesn't see it that way.

The $35 million you quote is hardly representative of Abbotts total shareholders. According to MSN, the total value of Abbotts outstanding shares is 1.5 billion dollars.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=ABT

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[longway]

How does providing free medication to the top 20% of Thailand's population, people who can well afford to pay, show regard for poor people?

sorry i may be being slow but i cannot understand this point. surely it shows regard for poor people because they will have access to the medication also, and they number 80% presumably. it is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL healthcare system after all.

anyway i wanted to add a few interesting articles i found

Abbott recently sought compulsory license in US patent dispute

Examples of Health-Related Compulsory Licenses

United States

For a large number of US compulsory licenses examples, see the September 29, 2001 CPTech document Examples of Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property in the United States.

On January 29, 2004, the nonprofit corporation Essential Inventions petitioned the US Department of Health and Human Services for compulsory licenses to manufacture and sell inexpensive generic versions of latanoprost (Xalatan) and ritonavir (Norvir). Both drugs were developed with federal funding, and the government has rights through the Bayh-Dole Act to "march in" on the patent rights and license them to another producer. On August 4, 2004, the NIH turned down the request for ritonavir. It has not yet responded to the latanoprost request.

Essential Inventions page on its request for a compulsory license for Latanoprost (Xalatan).

Essential Inventions page on its request for a compulsory license for Ritonavir (Norvir).

Thailand’s Bittersweet Victory over Big Pharma

India, Pakistan, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Ukraine and governments from nearly 40 other countries can all thank Thailand government for cheaper prices of Abbott Laboratories’ anti-AIDS drugs Kaletra and Aluvia.

The US-based pharmaceutical company announced Wednesday it would slash the price of the second-line antiretrovirals for 45 low and middle-income countries to $1,000-per-patient per year from $2,200 previously.

Abbott has developed a reputation over the years as one of the toughest negotiators on HIV/AIDS drugs. In 2004, the Chicago-based company stunned AIDS patients around the globe — and some of its own shareholders — when it said it would raise the price of the antiretroviral Norvir by 400 percent.

Abbott said the move was necessary because it had under-priced the drug for years, but the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the price spike was done to increase the price of two rival drugs taken in conjunction with Norvir, which would result in more sales of its own Kaletra. Internal company documents warned the move would make Abbott look like a “big, bad, greedy pharmaceutical company,” according to the Journal, but Abbott executives reportedly thought the profits gained would outweigh any short-term controversy.

The price increase is now the subject of an anti-trust lawsuit in US federal court. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives also may open hearings on whether Abbott artificially inflated Norvir’s price, The Hill, a Washington DC-based newspaper, reported last month.

this will change everyones minds

Edited May 12, 2007 by longway

[ThaiGoon]

I doubt they had all the facts at the time they made the announcement. Providing for the poor is one thing. As I ahve said in the past, I support that and have in fact probably actually done more as an individual to provide care for the poor than most on theis forum. Giving the rich a free ride is quite another. The moeny saved by requiring those who can pay could be sued to help the poor. Thailand doesn't see it that way.

The $35 million you quote is hardly representative of Abbotts total shareholders. According to MSN, the total value of Abbotts outstanding shares is 1.5 billion dollars.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=ABT

Yeah, I agree that they probably didn't have all the facts. Now that they have access to the white paper released by the Thai gov't (which Jai Dee has posted), they might start to come to their senses more.

PS. I never said that that group of share holders were the majority. I said "several" and "a group". But if more and more shareholders begin to read the white paper, the number of the share holders who do see the light might increase.

And Longway, thanks for the great information krab! I think I'm beginning to understand this issue more and more...and starting to come to a better grasp about who's actually the biggest hypocrite in all of this.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

How does providing free medication to the top 20% of Thailand's population, people who can well afford to pay, show regard for poor people?

sorry i may be being slow but i cannot understand this point. surely it shows regard for poor people because they will have access to the medication also, and they number 80% presumably. it is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL healthcare system after all.

So stealing from foreign companies to provide medicine for weathy Thais is a good thing? Taking for the poor is one thing but when you take money form the shareholders of Abbott to provide for weathy Thais who can afford medicine then offer only a one half of one percent royalty, that is tantamount to stealing. Why should foreign companies be forced to subsidize the healthcare of wealthy Thais? Why is that justice? Its ok to take because those losing are foreigners? That seems to be the attitude.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

Longway, isn't it shocking to see how great information your provided above can easily be dismissed by some people in this thread? I don't really know what it would take for these people to read what Jai Dee and you have posted like they did www.thailies.com. It's sad really.

[ThaiGoon]

From Khun Longway's first link:

None of the subsequent news reports about the Thai action mentioned Abbott’s own efforts to obtain a compulsory license in the United States.

In September 2005, Innogenetics filed a lawsuit claiming that Abbott was infringing claims in Patent No. 5,846,704 ("the '704 patent") concerning a method of genotyping the Hepatitis C virus ("HCV"). On September 1, 2006, a jury agreed with Innogenetics.

In January 2007, before Thailand issued the compulsory license, Abbott was reportedly charging more than 11,500 baht per month for the drug, or nearly $ 4 thousand per year, a price far beyond the ability of the Thailand government to afford for it's large AIDS population.

On April 10, Abbott cut the price of Kaletra and its new heat stabilized version marketed under the trade name Aluvia to $1,000 per year, for NGOs and governments of 40 countries, in order to compete with the price of generic products from India.

The $1,000 price was about $300 under the initial generic offer, but probably 5 times the price at which generic suppliers could produce the product (assuming the finished product can be manufactured for less than $400 per kilo, as is the case for Triomune), if they have sufficient economies of scale and some improved processes.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ThaiGoon

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Longway, isn't it shocking to see how great information your provided above can easily be dismissed by some people in this thread? I don't really know what it would take for these people to read what Jai Dee and you have posted like they did www.thailies.com. It's sad really.

You still haven't said why foreign companies must subsidize the healthcare of wealthy Thais. I don't think you or your buddy can come up with a good reason for that one. Hint, breeching a patent to reduce the cost of medicine is a de facto subsidy.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

And then there is the issue of Plavix. Heart disease is by far more widespread than HIV. There are by far more weathy Thais with heart disease than there are wealthy Thais with HIV. Sanofi-Aventis is Plavix's manufacturer not Abbott. But the appropriation of the drug by the MOH is identical. Again, foreign companies and their shareholders are being forced to subsidize healthcare for Thailand's top 20%, those who can well afford to pay full price. There are no rules in place to prevent this. That is little more than stealing.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

Longway, isn't it shocking to see how great information your provided above can easily be dismissed by some people in this thread? I don't really know what it would take for these people to read what Jai Dee and you have posted like they did www.thailies.com. It's sad really.

You still haven't said why foreign companies must subsidize the healthcare of wealthy Thais. I don't think you or your buddy can come up with a good reason for that one. Hint, breeching a patent to reduce the cost of medicine is a de facto subsidy.

I really don't understand why you keep talking about this subsidy when it's pretty obvious that even at their low $1,000 price, they could still make about 400% profit margin. What kind of subsidy is that? Did you read what Longway has posted at all?

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Longway, isn't it shocking to see how great information your provided above can easily be dismissed by some people in this thread? I don't really know what it would take for these people to read what Jai Dee and you have posted like they did www.thailies.com. It's sad really.

You still haven't said why foreign companies must subsidize the healthcare of wealthy Thais. I don't think you or your buddy can come up with a good reason for that one. Hint, breeching a patent to reduce the cost of medicine is a de facto subsidy.

I really don't understand why you keep talking about this subsidy when it's pretty obvious that even at their low $1,000 price, they could still make about 400% profit margin. What kind of subsidy is that? Did you read what Longway has posted at all?

When you deny, as Thailand has done, a company a reasonable profit under the guise of helping the poor then offer those drugs to the wealthiest Thais that is dishonest. We are talking about the present instance not a past US court case. One half of one percent as a royalty? That is a 400% profit? I don't think so. Address the issue or else admit you can't.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

According to the white paper:

Universal Coverage Scheme covers around 48.5 million people or 78% of the population. And around 20% of Thais pay out of their own pockets when receiving out patient services at private facilities.

Thailand's top 20% are being subsidized by American and their drug companies? What?

78+20=98%...so what about the other 2% of the Thai population?

(From the same paper:)

Some of the better off Thais, around 2% buy private health insurance...(they) go to private facilities for their health services and pay out of pocket, in spite of their right to access to free care paid by the gov't.

What subsidy?

It's on page 9 of the paper by the way, in case some of you find it challenging to find the source.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ThaiGoon

[ThaiGoon]

So basically, the wealthy Thais are not being subsidized and even if Abbott were to be forced to reduce their $4000 price to $1,000 price for the poor Thais, they still potentially could make about $400% profit. All this while Abbott themselves are trying to get a few CLs on other drugs that were developed by the US gov't and other pharma companies. Nice.