Oxfam criticises industry over access to medicines

Home > PJ (current issue) > News / News Centre | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7480 p612
1 December 2007

This article
Reprint Photocopy

Acrobat Reader

Oxfam criticises industry over access to medicines

Oxfam has criticised the pharmaceutical industry for not putting access to medicines at the heart of its business models.

The charity interviewed the top 12 pharmaceutical companies (in terms of market capitalisation), asking them about their drug pricing policies, their record in generating medicines relevant to the developing world and their stance on intellectual property rights.

Each company’s practices, described in Oxfam’s report “Investing for life” released last week, were measured against several benchmarks. For example, Oxfam believes that to ensure universal access to medicines, in terms of pricing, companies should:

• Apply a systematic, global approach to pricing in developing countries, overseen by an international body, which addresses public health needs and real purchasing power for each country

• Disclose their pricing rationale in developing countries

• Have pricing policies that ensure products for neglected conditions are affordable

• Apply these pricing policies to their entire portfolio, beyond medicines for neglected diseases and HIV/AIDS

However, none of the 12 companies is meeting these requirements. Some, such as Sanofi-Aventis, are applying tiered pricing in developing countries, but only for neglected disease and HIV/AIDS medicines. Oxfam calls this “managing reputational risks”. Other companies believe that price is not a key barrier to access.

Of the 12 companies interviewed, GlaxoSmithKline was a leader in many ways, according to Mogha Kamal-Yanni, senior health and HIV policy adviser at Oxfam.

The report says that GSK has introduced tiered pricing for some antibiotics and diabetes treatments, it is conducting research and development in 11 disease areas relevant to developing countries and has granted voluntary licences for the supply of antiretroviral drugs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Abbott and Pfizer scored the lowest points, especially in terms of intellectual property, Dr Kamal-Yanni said. Companies have been reactive rather than proactive, often making changes only after huge public campaigns, she added.

The industry is also criticised for relying too heavily on donating medicines, a strategy that Oxfam says is unsustainable and can cause chaos in the market for low-cost medicines.

Industry response

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said the report includes subjective interpretation of data and seems reluctant to acknowledge the scale of industry’s involvement in developing world issues.

“In particular, it continues to regard industry’s defence of patents — essential for companies to be able to invest the £500m it takes to develop just one new medicine — as a cause of the problem when the reality is that poor countries cannot afford any price, however cheap. For example, India — with the lowest prices for essential medicines in the world — still cannot provide them to two-thirds of its citizens.”

Richard Barker, ABPI director general, added: “We acknowledge our responsibility to co-operate with governments,philanthropists, world bodies and major non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam, to try to improve the health of those living in developing nations. Access to the right treatment is vital for many of the world’s poor, but this should be combined with addressing the causes of poverty.”