NationStates Jolt Archive

When a new medicinal drug is developed, even one that can potentially help people worldwide, the company that develops it has copyright, and retains a monopoly on the drug for many years (sometimes over twenty) during which they may charge any price they choose. This makes developing new drugs a very profitable business, but it also means poorer people and countries are not receiving the best healthcare available. We propose a two-part program to help make more medicines available to more people.

1. Companies developing medicinal drugs are to be given government funding and/or tax breaks, to ensure they will continue their potentially life-saving research.

2. The maximum number of years a nation can hold copyright on a medicinal drug shall be reduced to five, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure they use public.

- - -

One other thing- at the moment, I don't have any endorsements, so I am unable to present this proposal formally. If anyone could recommend a region where I could collect the two endorsements I would need, or if two people cared to join my little region of the world (emphasis on little,) I would be very grateful. I've got lots more where this came from ;)

There are already at least 2 or 3 resolutions on medicine distribution and the UCLP resolution on copyrights and patents. I'd recommend checking these to ensure you arent proposing something already in place. I completely agree with the idea though.

When a new medicinal drug is developed, even one that can potentially help people worldwide, the company that develops it has copyright, and retains a monopoly on the drug for many years (sometimes over twenty) during which they may charge any price they choose. This makes developing new drugs a very profitable business, but it also means poorer people and countries are not receiving the best healthcare available. We propose a two-part program to help make more medicines available to more people.

1. Companies developing medicinal drugs are to be given government funding and/or tax breaks, to ensure they will continue their potentially life-saving research.

2. The maximum number of years a nation can hold copyright on a medicinal drug shall be reduced to five, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure they use public.

- - -

One other thing- at the moment, I don't have any endorsements, so I am unable to present this proposal formally. If anyone could recommend a region where I could collect the two endorsements I would need, or if two people cared to join my little region of the world (emphasis on little,) I would be very grateful. I've got lots more where this came from ;)

If you can justify subsidising the medical community because of "potentially life-saving research" then it might make other industries feel left out. People who develop air-bags for example.

Just one thought, but since you can't formally propose this, I won't offer or refuse my support. I would like to see the formal text before I comment further :}

I thank the honourable member from Aliana in bringing this important issue before us and I too look forward in seeing a full draft of their proposal. I am however convinced that a balance between regulation and freedom must exist in the pharmaceutical industry. Development of new medicines are enormously expensive and companies must be given enough profit to continue their research. However, it must also be made available to every citizen that needs it, which in itself is also a costly exercise.

While thinking ‘off the cuff’ the 5-year patent limit may in some cases be counterproductive. Where a drug has taken 10 years of investment and research to complete it could take several years before the company involved see any return on their investment. If the 5-year patent exclusively is adopted and the company does not see sufficient return, they may be tempted to raise the price of their product even higher.

I would recommend that these types of patent exclusivity rights be evaluated on a case-by-case basis dependent on the complexity and length of research, but even with this approach there are a number of issues to consider.

I hope the honourable member will produce a draft shortly, since I feel this is an important issue and one, which must be handled with care.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I understand your concerns, Telidia, which is why I included part one of the proposal- the government benefits given to drug companies have to be large enough that companies can still benefit, even with a shorter patent period.

Your concerns are valid too, TilEnca, but I don’t think we should hold back on one life-saving initiative just because people will feel “left out”. I’m not saying airbag manufacturers shouldn’t get benefits too, but I think starting with medicine companies is as good a first step as any, and further proposals to help other beneficial industries may follow.

Hmmm, and as a large nation, with a powerful economy, what incentive do we have to subsidise the rest of the Worlds health, propping up nations who can't sort their own economy out?

I understand your concerns, Telidia, which is why I included part one of the proposal- the government benefits given to drug companies have to be large enough that companies can still benefit, even with a shorter patent period.

Indeed and I did note that, but refrained from commenting before I have sight of the new draft, but for reference here some of my concerns.

1. Certain UN member’s economies, especially developing ones, may not be able to support such a subsidy.

2. This is even more pertinent where a nation may need a specific patented drug for an epidemic or other medical disaster.

3. What is enough? Defining and agreeing what level of compensation is due to the patent holder needs to be considered. This I see as a very tough one to agree on, because the government will actually be setting how much profit companies can make. For nations with capitalist economies especially, it could mean impending doom of their pharmaceutical industries. Investors/shareholders will not like it.

4. Some nations rely almost wholly on the Pharmaceutical industry and over regulation could cause those economies more harm than good.

These are just a few for your kind consideration, as you can see the issue is hugely complex. I look forward to seeing your draft in due course however, so we may begin the debate and hopefully pass a resolution that is balanced and considered.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

When a new medicinal drug is developed, even one that can potentially help people worldwide, the company that develops it has copyright, and retains a monopoly on the drug for many years (sometimes over twenty) during which they may charge any price they choose. This makes developing new drugs a very profitable business, but it also means poorer people and countries are not receiving the best healthcare available. We propose a two-part program to help make more medicines available to more people.

Norfaria will respectfully disagree with this proposal, for what shall be outlined below.

1. Companies developing medicinal drugs are to be given government funding and/or tax breaks, to ensure they will continue their potentially life-saving research.

Government funding will only slow down advancement of technology and reduce innovation in an already overregulated and oversubsidized industry. Remove unneccesary and costly governmental regulations as well as wean the companies off governmental subsidies. This will decrease prices by causing companies to be more efficent, increase competition as the entry barrier for new companies will be lower. This in turn will acompany new technological

2. The maximum number of years a nation can hold copyright on a medicinal drug shall be reduced to five, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure they use public.

Copyright isn't the problem, patents are. Norfaria agrees we need an reduction of patent life, but we would support for the abolition of the patent system or drastic reform to shrink the system.


One other thing- at the moment, I don't have any endorsements, so I am unable to present this proposal formally. If anyone could recommend a region where I could collect the two endorsements I would need, or if two people cared to join my little region of the world (emphasis on little,) I would be very grateful. I've got lots more where this came from ;)

Norfaria is in a similar boat.

Copyright isn't the problem, patents are. Norfaria agrees we need an reduction of patent life, but we would support for the abolition of the patent system or drastic reform to shrink the system.

I note the honourable member’s comments with interest, however I remain unconvinced that scrapping patents is the way forward. If anything, I feel it will lead to even less investment. No company is going to invest years in developing a drug without being certain they will see a profit at the end. Developing drugs in the 21st century is a hugely complex and extremely expensive business. The fact that patents exist, provide R&D companies with a level of confidence that there will be a return because only they will be able to sell that specific patent once development is complete.

You mention that government funding is not the way forward so if you believe that, but also wish to scrap patents, how do you propose to ensure R&D companies have enough profits to invest in future life savings medicines?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Here's version 2.0, hopefully the last major rewrite.



OBSERVING that when a new life-saving drug is developed, the developing company retains a monopoly on sales due to copyright laws.

FURTHER OBSERVING that this monopoly can, at present, last for longer than twenty years, preventing the widespread use of new drugs, especially in developing countries where they are needed.

PROPOSING a plan to ensure the availability of potentially life-saving drugs to needy nations

1) The maximum number of years a company can hold copyright to a life-saving drug shall be reduced to ten, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure public.
2) If a nation is suffering from an epidemic that can be cured by a drug under copyright, the maximum number of years for which that copyright can be held shall be reduced to five. (See resolution number 77, Epidemic Prevention Protocol, for the definition of an epidemic.)
3) Governments shall offer funding and/or tax cuts to companies developing life-saving drugs. These benefits must be large enough to ensure companies will continue to profit from said research.
4) Developing nations without the funds to supply such benefits may appeal to the United Nations for financial aid.

RECOGNIZING that this may harm some companies, but believing that the worldwide health benefits will far outweigh the costs.


I'm also considering adding a list item about making other companies give a small percentage of their profits (5%, maybe) to the company that designed the medicine for an aditional 5 years or so. Competition would ensure that prices would remain low, but the original company would still profit.

I thank the honourable member for their revised draft and my comments are as follows:

Firstly, the word copyright is incorrect. Copyright does not apply in this case, but rather patents. Copyright applies mostly to published material or music, patents applies to the unique design of a product. In this case the molecular compound structure of a specific drug.

PROPOSING a plan to ensure the availability of potentially life-saving drugs to needy nations

I advise against the word ‘proposing’ in this clause. Taking it out completely might be advisable or perhaps replacing it with something like, “It is hereby enacted…”. By adding this word it makes the proposal a suggestion and refers to personal opinion. In law, that makes the proposal meaningless because no nation has to follow one nation’s opinion.

1) The maximum number of years a company can hold copyright to a life-saving drug shall be reduced to ten, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure public..

I am not sure about the word ‘life-saving’. Under what conditions would a drug be considered ‘life-saving’? I feel you either need to define this in a definitions section or perhaps take it out completely. Also, the section about ‘manufacturing procedure is superfluous. Once the patent expire after the 10 year limit, individual companies/organisations can apply for the patent directly from member states patent offices/departments.

With regard to the word ‘company’, by which I assume you mean a profit-making organisation might be too exclusive. There are other types of organisations that might patent a drug. Do you wish them to be included, or only target companies? As it stands other types of organisations are excluded.

2) If a nation is suffering from an epidemic that can be cured by a drug under copyright, the maximum number of years for which that copyright can be held shall be reduced to five. (See resolution number 77, Epidemic Prevention Protocol, for the definition of an epidemic.)

An argument from more capitalist nations maybe what happens if the epidemic is resolved quickly? Would they still loose they patent right after five years? The epidemic is effectively over.

Also, I don’t feel this clause safeguards developing nations, which you are trying to help. The organisation supplying the drug can hike up charges because there is a demand only they can supply. I feel it is important to cap the selling price in these circumstances.

Perhaps a way forward would be to use the average selling price the organisation was charging before the epidemic started. Conversely, it would also be unfair not to allow any increases at all, because the retail price index may change. I feel organisations should be able to adjust their selling price in line with the RPI, but no higher, lower if they wish and certainly only once a year.

3) Governments shall offer funding and/or tax cuts to companies developing life-saving drugs. These benefits must be large enough to ensure companies will continue to profit from said research.

I do not feel this clause is necessary. The very fact that this organisation exists and is doing business means they intend to make a profit. I don’t see any reason why the government should help them make anymore. Their profits should go in to investment of new drugs.

4) Developing nations without the funds to supply such benefits may appeal to the United Nations for financial aid.

I don’t think this is possible in the NSUN. Perhaps some of my more learned colleagues would like to comment on this? Perhaps you could create a committee that could see to this, but remember you can’t force it to be role-played and the mods may have an issue with this. I strongly suggest you check with them before you consider this suggestion.

RECOGNIZING that this may harm some companies, but believing that the worldwide health benefits will far outweigh the costs.

Not sure you need this clause, are we not trying to find a compromise here? The harm that is to be done is supposed to be manageable under this proposal. I feel by adding this clause it is a bit like adding a nail in coffin?

I'm also considering adding a list item about making other companies give a small percentage of their profits (5%, maybe) to the company that designed the medicine for an aditional 5 years or so. Competition would ensure that prices would remain low, but the original company would still profit.

I would recommend against this, why should other companies do this? In the Pharmaceutical industry all drugs are patented in the beginning of their life, and larger companies may have hundreds of these. The cost to a company to maintain this could put them out of business, especially if they are small with only one or two patented products.

I hope the honourable member find our comments useful and look forward to their kind reply shortly.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia