Nearly three decades ago, there was an increase in deaths of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. Developing countries have experienced the greatest HIV/AIDS morbidity and mortality, with the highest prevalence rates recorded in young adults in sub-Saharan Africa. In South Africa over three million people are killed by this disease (Macfarlene3). After this epidemic spreaded in Africa and killed people it branched out to other countries in the world.
The high prices set by pharmaceutical companies for drugs allows the companies to continue researching, developing, and producing new drugs. As new diseases are discovered, new medications must be discovered in order to treat them.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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%.
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 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
In August of 2003, the United States pharmaceutical industry dropped its resistance of the intellectual property rights provisions under World Trade Organizations to make general, low-cost antiviral drugs to developing countries that were facing increases in health emergencies. There are many factors for and against distributing drugs for free or at a low cost in developing countries. One disagreement would be the fact that even though there are epidemics and medical emergencies in other countries, there has yet to be a test or specific procedure to determine what institutes as a medical emergency. The advantages would include the United States being able to promote this approach to other countries and therefore create income if exported at a low cost. If countries were to give drugs away for free, it would hurt them because they would never see anything in return.
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
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
Without a free competition market, prices tend to rise (Borts and Stein, 1964) and, due to that, the populations of developing countries are, usually, the most affected by these rules. In other words, adoption of a system of patent represents a burden for the poor population once it creates more difficulties for their government in providing the necessary amount or quality of drugs or treatment required by their needs. To solve this situation, it is necessary to find a balance between the incentive and power given to the pharmaceutical industry and affordable access to medicine by the population. This essay will evaluate the patent system and show three key solutions to the problem in the realm of public health adopted by developed and developing countries, contrasting and evaluating each one. It will also argue that intervention by the government is the most appropriate solution.