"Essentially theft:" Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers

[Suradit69]

Pharmaceutical CEO: Cancer Drug Is Only For Westerners Who Can Afford It

In 2005, the FDA granted approval for a promising new cancer-fighting drug called Nexavar. Bayer took it to market shortly thereafter, and it is currently an approved treatment for late-stage kidney and liver cancer.

That is, so long as you live in the developed world. In a recently published interview in Bloomberg Businessweek, Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers said that his company’s drug isn’t for poor people.

“We did not develop this medicine for Indians…we developed it for western patients who can afford it,” he said back in December. The quote is quickly making its way across Indian news outlets.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/26/3205861/pharmaceutical-ceo-cancer-drug-westerners-afford/

Not directly Thailand-related, but a developed-versus-developing economy issue. Profit-driven pharmaceutical companies spend vast amounts of money on developing drugs. Many of those drugs never reach the market, but those that do are priced to make a profit above and beyond the cost of developing the drug as well as the cost of all those drugs that never were approved.

The argument for such an arrangement is that if drug companies don't make profits they won't continue to do research and then life-saving drugs won't be developed. On the other hand is it really morally justified to not treat people who are too poor to afford the drugs.

In some cases of communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, it could be argued that not treating everyone means that even more people are put at risk ... including the rich.

I personally know of a cancer drug that has a proven off-label use for treating sub-retinal bleeding that can cost less than Baht 10,000 per intravitreal injection (from my experience), but which the producer, Genentech, had tried to prevent being sold for that purpose. They wanted people to buy the modified version of the same drug that would cost Baht 75,000 to Baht 100,000 per injection. Because of the backlash and potential US government intervention, they stopped refusing to sell the cheaper drug for that purpose. I was fortunate that my problem was somewhat resolved after one year, but for some people the treatment can go on for years ... difficult at Baht 10,000 a pop, but impossible for many at Baht 75,000 every month or two. In the US the difference can be between $50 per injection for the cheaper version versus $2000 for the modified version.

The Indian government has said if a drug isn't available in India at a reasonable price it can be produced by a local company without regard to patent violations. I believe Thailand has a similar law and does provide treatment, for example, for HIV/AIDS (???).

In the case of the drug mentioned in the above quoted article:

In 2012, Indian pharmaceutical company Natco Pharma Ltd. applied for just such a license, and it was granted. The company began reproducing the drug at a 97 percent discount, offering it for just $177. Bayer has been appealing the ruling ever since, and in December Dekkers told Businessweek that he viewed the compulsory license as “essentially theft” before dismissing poor Indian cancer patients.

[AyG]

A few points:

Pharmaceutical companies don't really spent a lot of money developing drugs (particularly new ones). They spend massive amounts on advertising to doctors to encourage them to prescribe their latest, most profitable offerings, which are usually simple tweaks on older drugs. The prices charged bear little relationship to the costs of development.

Very little money is put into developing new drugs for conditions that primarily affect people living in third world countries. Those markets simply aren't as profitable as the developed world. This means that a lot of development is focused on first world conditions such as obesity and high blood pressure.

The Thailand-United States Free Trade Agreement is currently being negotiated in extreme secrecy. It has been reported that one of the conditions of the agreement is that Thailand stop making drugs important for the health of Thai people (such as anti-HIV medication) that violate US pharmaceutical company patents.

In short, big business pharmaceuticals are all about profit, not about people's health, and the US government acts at their behest.

[Suradit69]

Very little money is put into developing new drugs for conditions that primarily affect people living in third world countries. Those markets simply aren't as profitable as the developed world.

True, and very little money is spent developing drugs for "orphan diseases" that won't ever produce much in the way of sales either in the developed or less developed world. But many diseases/conditions exist everywhere and the developed world may have a vested interest in containing communicable diseases that appear to be affecting mostly marginal populations. Arguably the government's/Reagan's indifference and delayed response to HIV/AIDS was a mistake on several levels, ethical and economic.

Anyway, if left to "free enterprise," then research & development. as well as availability of treatment, will go where the money is. Turn the responsibility totally over to government to manage and we can guess what a mess that would be.

I know I was p.o.'d at Genentech for their "profits first" attitude when it came to the drug I needed ... Avastin versus Lucentis ... but I would have received treatment either way. For someone with a potentially fatal disease that can be treated, but only if you're rich and/or insured, that seems like there's a big problem that needs a better solution.

The apparent "let them eat cake" attitude of the Bayer CEO makes it all seem even worse, if that's possible.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Suradit69