|
Dr
Hamied’s volte-face on patent deadline leaves IPA house confused
Ananth
Iyer - Mumbai
Cipla
chairman Dr Yusuf Hamied’s remarks on the patent deadline extension
is likely to create differences within the members of the Indian
Pharmaceutical Alliance as well as in the industry.
Dr
Hamied, who stunned the international community by offering Aids
drugs to the Government of South Africa for USD 350 per year, pulled
up another masterstroke during the Express Pharma Pulse Awards function
(22 March, 2002) when he told an industry gathering that India should
press for the status of least developed nation to get a further
10-year extension till 2016 before it makes product patents available.
 Last
week, IDMA, in a select press briefing, toed Dr Hamied’s line
of argument. IDMA spokesperson Yogin Majmudar reiterated that India
should be classified as a least developed nation ‘‘since
the average per capita expenditure on health in India is USD 17
per year, as against USD 220 in semi-developed nations such as Korea
and USD 2,200 in developed nations.’’
Dr
Hamied’s new twist in the tale has the potential to create
serious ideological rifts within IPA. Nicholas Piramal has strongly
opposed Dr Hamied’s contention, while Unichem says it finds
the argument logical. Ranbaxy, the largest drug maker, has distanced
itself. Company spokesperson B K Raizada says Ranbaxy has no views
in the matter. Other IPA members - Lupin, Sun, Zydus Cadila and
Wockhardt - could not be reached despite repeated attempts.
Elaborating
and defending his argument, Dr Hamied told this correspondent that
developed nations, under Article 66 of TRIPS, are under obligation
to make technology transfers to developing nations during the extension
period between 1995-2005. ‘‘What have they given us. Let
the TRIPS council specify the quantum of technology transferred
made to India during the interim period. Further, I would like to
know what was the basis on which India was classified as a least
developed nation in 1995 and was subsequently offered a 10-year
extension period. How has the situation changed in the last seven
years. There are only six per cent of Indians who are matriculate;
more than 50 per cent of the population is below the poverty line;
India accounts for a mere 0.6 per cent of the world trade; India’s
total spend on R&D is USD 3 billion, which is less than what
Pfizer spends annually on R&D. Can TRIPS explain to India why
it should not be categorized as a LDC,’’ asks Dr Hamied.
‘‘India cannot afford a strong IPR regime at this point
of time. My argument is not directed towards the Indian drug industry,
which has demonstrated reasonable success internationally, but for
the millions of Indians who cannot afford high drug prices resulting
from a certain monopoly situation post-2005,’’ Dr Hamied
remarks.
As
regards to the United Nations criterion of classifying a country
as LDC if the average GNP of that country is below USD 100 per year,
Dr Hamied says the majority population in India fall below the USD
100 mark and that the UN should take into account the actual numbers
and not the average GNP of the country.
Dr
Hamied’s argument on India be classified as a LDC and be given
a further 10 year extension appears to be in variance with the ideology
of some IPA member companies. The IPA has time and again reiterated
that it is not principally opposed to product patents regime post-2005,
provided there are safeguards such as compulsory license in place.
‘‘We
will definitely not support the call for an extension. What Dr Hamied
is saying are his personal views. It is not the view of Nicholas
Piramal and as far as I am aware, it is not the view of IPA either,’’
Dr Swati Piramal, chief scientific officer, Nicholas Piramal, told
Express Pharma Pulse. ‘‘We will make more money out of
patents. Dr Hamied’s argument is not valid for the Indian drug
industry,’’ she added.
‘‘There
is a lot of meat in the argument and we support Dr Hamied’s
views. If you look at the overall health index, India is comparable
to least developing nations. As regards to the pharmaceutical industry
base in India, we have attained a certain capability today solely
because of the 1970 Patent Act,’’ says Dr Prakash Mody,
managing director, Unichem Laboratories.
During
an ICMA function in Mumbai on 21 March, IPA president Dr Anji Reddy
had remarked that he gets infuriated when India is categorised as
a developing country and not a developed one for it has enough resources
to prove to the global community on its R&D capabilities. Though
this personal remark may not be reflective of the current controversy,
it nevertheless signals strong ideological differences between the
two doyens of the Indian drug industry on the issue of IPR.
Industry
sources say Ranbaxy Laboratories is another IPA member in favour
of a strong IPR regime. Recently, IPA in its submission has asked
the Indian government to extend the EMR provisions to Indian companies.
Ranbaxy, so far, is the only Indian company that has shown interest
in EMR, as it is keen to protect its once-daily invention of ciprofloxacin
in the interim period.
Dr
Hamied, however, refrained from confirming whether Cipla will pull
out of IPA if thesedifferences persists. ‘‘Hopefully,
the IPA will agree to my stand to protect the healthcare needs of
majority Indians,’’ he added.
|
