In this case study I was asked six question the first one was,Do pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to distribute drugs for free or at low cost in developing countries? What are the main arguments for and against such an approach?
While this case is literally full of negative aspects, we will only focus on the main points for both arguments. Pharmaceutical companies want to be sure that the products they spend years and millions of dollars to create are not easily reproduced and sold at discount prices. The profits pharmaceuticals make of their patented products are supposed to refinance new research. So taking away their exclusive distribution rights and allowing other manufacturers to just copy the product and sell it at
…show more content…
Discounted prices make political, economic, and, most importantly, moral sense.
Although ninety-five percent of people living with HIV/AIDS are in developing countries, the impact of this epidemic is global. In South Africa, where one in four adults are living with the disease, HIV/AIDS means almost certain death for those infected. In developed countries however, the introduction of antiretroviral drugs has meant HIV/AIDS is treated as a chronic condition rather than a killer disease. In developing countries like South Africa, the drugs that allow people to live with the disease elsewhere in the world, are simply too expensive for individuals and governments to afford at market price. Drug prices are set by pharmaceutical companies to cover research and development costs. While R&D costs clearly need to be covered, markets in developed countries already pay for most R&D of new products. Because of this, it makes moral and economical sense to establish a two-tiered pricing system; for R&D costs to be paid for by developed countries, allowing significantly reduced prices to be charged in developing countries.
Pharmaceutical companies had been reluctant to provide drugs to developing countries at reduced prices because of concerns around distributing drugs in unregulated and unreliable environments. They argued that this could create new drug-resistant
This casebook concentrates on the negative effects that the pharmaceutical industry’s trade and production policies have on third world nations suffering from disease epidemics. My position is that pharmaceutical companies are not concerned with the health benefits of their drugs, but rather with the market that their drugs generate. I illustrate this notion by describing the trade policies that pharmaceutical companies influence and the pharmaceutical companies’ production policies which concentrate on producing life-style drugs rather than drugs that cure life-threatening diseases.
Expanding into Asia (including India) so as to implement lower cost clinical testing and share opinions with leaders in the medical industry appeared to be a viable option. Drug prices however were substantially lower in India, profits were capped at 6% and post manufacturing costs were limited at 100%.
Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.
In this paper I will be responding to an article by Richard Anderson, business reporter for the BBC NEWS, titled “Pharmaceutical Industry Gets High On Fat Profits.” In Anderson’s article, the most interesting topics are how some drugs can really help and even save lives, how pharmaceutical companies have been accused of some corruptions, and how there is controversy surrounding profiting of drug companies. Overall, I learned a great deal from this article.
As for whether or not it is ethical for companies to decline selling a useful drug in a foreign country because they can make more money marketing the drug elsewhere, I am again neither in agreement or disagreement on this one. It is a company’s chose where and to whom they want to sell drugs to. However, in poor countries, people cannot easily afford anything. Companies would have to reduce their price significantly even by selling in bulk. If they sell to China or other countries that can afford the drugs, I am sure they would do so but they also risk losing money.
Some pharmaceutical companies are feeling grief from a decline in research slump but the issues are more serious in reference to the United States intellectual property laws on which these same companies need to inflate their profits. Maybe the focus should be on an idea that came about several years ago. Give drug patents a shorter term of 15 years but don’t start the clock until the FDA approves the drug.
Hello, Adrian! I definitely see your point about the “pharmaceutical companies [who] are practically free to do whatever they want with the manufacturing and selling their drugs.” What amazes me more is that they seem perfectly justifiable if viewed from the perspective of capitalism. I understand that pharmaceutical and the healthcare industries need to make a profit since it is also the way our economic system mobilizes people to provide for others. However, the absurd price tags on prescription drugs and the cost of healthcare today are way beyond the idea of capitalism. In my opinion, it is causing a fundamental inequality and dividing the rich and the poor. Sadly, the price of inequality is money. Money - because it buys you quality-prescription
Economic: Globalization of the pharmaceutical industry is an exciting opportunity to have research and development done at cheaper prices in other countries. However, this could be a double edged sword for companies because it is easy for other countries, such as India, to produce generic versions of the drug in bulk.
Some of the major assumptions on the drug issues are that the company thought that the drug would not have adverse effects on the consumers. The reason is that it is a large corporation that has
The branded pharmaceutical firms account for more than 50% of worldwide pharmaceutical sales. Thus they make huge profits. These profits can be used to fund hospitals in poor areas. This will not only give the firms respect but also a good recognition. Generic medicines are cheap and easily available. Though they may not be effective, but they serve the purpose for the poor. Some generic medicines may not give the desired results but the major diseases which occur among the poor people can be treated with generic medicines.
The corporate social responsibility states that "corporations can and should act ethically and be accountable to society for their actions." Pharmaceutical companies work to save lives and make a profit. Individuals should make sure that
This process of delay by drug companies is called, “evergreening” and once again proves the point that money overrides a person’s quality of life or life in itself. Proven in 2013, pharmaceutical companies actually got the US Supreme Court to allow them to pay these generic drug companies in order to delay the release of certain generic medications for some time, after the patent for medication expires. This allows pharmaceutical companies more time to profit off of their name brand medications (Belk). In fact, pharmaceutical companies paid the FDA around $712 million dollars in 2013 for prescription drugs user fees which in return helped the FDA in the process of approving drugs for sale and distribution in the US
The article notes that if the government buys the drugs for the country the prices will drop for the huge quantity of products ordered. The lecture rebuts this argument . He suggests that since the countries are poor the government is also poor. She elaborates on this by mentioning that the government is not capable of buying all the drugs needed because they do not have the necessary money to do
Although, we have made significant strides in research and development for HIV medication, pharmaceutical companies have yet to find a way to lower the cost of medication. The average cost of meds in the United States for HIV positive person is $2,500 a month with an average cost of $25,000 a year. As a result, thousands of infected Americans are left everyday suffering through the pain of not knowing whether or not their name will be selected from a government assistance list. The Aids Drug Assistance Program, helps those infected with HIV secure free medication with the help of the government. Unfortunately there are terms associated with the program. The most displeasing is the fact that a
Few know the impact that patents have on the pharmaceutical industry development. The evolution of this industry is closely linked with the evolution of patent system (Salazar, nd.). Lehman (2003) explains in a simple way the definition of patents. According to him, patent is the property right that the creator has over his creation, if it is new, useful and not obvious. The reason for the existence of this protection is to safeguard products from being copied without compensation for the author or inventor. Since the adoption of intellectual property law in the realm of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, the process of innovation of treatments and creation of drugs have been galvanised (ibid.). However, if on the one hand it brings