India allows company to make copycat version of cancer medicine, reducing costs to 3% of the origina - Polidicks

[quote]MUMBAI: In a landmark decision that could set a precedent on how life-saving drugs under patents can be made affordable, the government has allowed a domestic company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture a copycat version of Bayer's patented anti-cancer drug, Nexavar, bringing down its price by 97%. In the first-ever case of compulsory licencing approval, the Indian Patent Office on Monday cleared the application of Hyderabad's Natco Pharma to sell generic drug Nexavar, used for renal and liver cancer, at Rs 8,880 (around $175) for a 120-capsule pack for a month's therapy. Bayer offers it for over Rs 2.8 lakh (roughly $5,500) per 120 capsule. The order provides hope for patients who cannot afford these drugs. The approval paves the way for the launch of Natco's drug in the market, a company official told TOI, adding that it will pay a 6% royalty on net sales every quarter to Bayer. The licence will be valid till such time the drug's patent is valid, i.e. 2020. As per the CL (compulsory licence) order, Natco is also committed to donating free supplies of the medicines to 600 patients each year. Bayer said it was "disappointed" and would "evaluate options to defend intellectual property rights" in the country. In July 2011, Natco had applied for the CL in the Mumbai patent office to make Sorafenib Tosylate for which Bayer has a patent in the country since 2008. Under Section 84, a compulsory licence to manufacture a drug can be issued after three years of the grant of patent on the product, which is not available at an affordable price. Under the World Trade Organisation TRIPS Agreement, compulsory licences are legally-recognized means to overcome barriers in accessing affordable medicines. This is the first time in the history of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, that the provision under Section 84 has been invoked. The patent office acted on the basis that not only had Bayer failed to price the drug at a level that made it accessible and affordable, it also was unable to ensure that the medicine was available in sufficient quantities within India. Controller general of patents, P H Kurian, based his decision on Bayer's admission that only 2% of kidney and liver cancer patients were able to access the drug, and its pricing (Rs 2.8 lakh for a month) did not constitute a "reasonably affordable" price. Since 2005, domestic drug manufacturers have faced formidable barriers in the manufacture of patented drugs, and this has been remedied by the compulsory licensing provision to prevent patent holders from having a monopoly over certain essential medicines. Interestingly, generic manufacturer Cipla has already launched generic Nexavar (Sorafenib Tosylate) at around Rs 28,000 per 120-capsule pack, and is embroiled in a dispute with Bayer in the Delhi high court. Economist and intellectual property expert James Love said, "The Bayer price of Rs 34,11,898 per year ($69,000) is more than 41 times the projected average per capita income for India in 2012, shattering any measure of affordability. Bayer tried to justify its high price by making claims of high R&D costs, but refused to provide any details of its actual outlays on the research for Sorafenib, a cancer drug that was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit, and jointly developed with Onyx Pharmaceuticals. Bayer has made billions from Sorafenib, and made little effort to sell the product in India where its price is far beyond the means of all but a few persons." Dr Tido von Schoen-Angerer, director of independent healthcare organization, MSF, said, "We have been following this case closely because newer drugs to treat HIV are patented in India, and as a result are priced out of reach. But this decision marks a precedent that offers hope. It shows that new drugs under patent can also be produced by generic makers at a fraction of the price, while royalties are paid to the patent holder. This compensates patent holders while at the same time ensuring that competition can bring down prices."[/quote] [url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-uses-special-powers-to-slash-cancer-drug-price-by-97/articleshow/12240143.cms?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=toionFB]Source[/url] If you're going to be corrupt, atleast do it right!

Seriously if I can't afford the original and I am on the deathbed this sounds like completely feasible alternative.

Bit of a tough thing for Bayer to complain about, sure it's patent infringement but in this case the more they'd complain about it the more villainous they would make themselves look

[QUOTE=Lamar;35121343]Bit of a tough thing for Bayer to complain about, sure it's patent infringement but in this case the more they'd complain about it the more villainous they would make themselves look[/QUOTE] How they DARE to save all these LIVES for cheaper than us? I think that research of vital medicine should be paid out of public money. Yeah, drug development can be expensive, but terminal diseases shouldn't be a goldmine for some entrepreneur.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;35121366]How they DARE to save all these LIVES for cheaper than us? I think that research of vital medicine should be paid out of public money. Yeah, drug development can be expensive, but terminal diseases shouldn't be a goldmine for some entrepreneur.[/QUOTE] You have to consider the cost of development of drugs like this though. Pharma companies are driven by profit. If they aren't allowed to patent the medicine that they create, then there is no incentive for them to research it. It might seem insensitive, but it's one of the tradeoffs of living in a capitalist society.

Does it actually work as it should? If so, go for them, they're helping to save lives. If not, then fuck them.

It's called "mark-up"

[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;35121467]You have to consider the cost of development of drugs like this though. Pharma companies are driven by profit. If they aren't allowed to patent the medicine that they create, then there is no incentive for them to research it. It might seem insensitive, but it's one of the tradeoffs of living in a capitalist society.[/QUOTE]You say this as if it were a good thing. That's a very serious problem with our country at this time. A system such as healthcare should not be motivated by a profit margin because it leads to exceptionally high costs for goods that can otherwise be produced for substantially less. So it basically creates a system where you have people unnecessarily indebted to their healthcare provider if they want even a chance to maintain their current quality of health.

Bayer can go fuck themselves. This is the sort of government corruption I like.

Good, I hate companies who overcharge for their medicine (nearly every one of them in the US) and I hope this happens more often.

[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;35121467]You have to consider the cost of development of drugs like this though. Pharma companies are driven by profit. If they aren't allowed to patent the medicine that they create, then there is no incentive for them to research it. It might seem insensitive, but it's one of the tradeoffs of living in a capitalist society.[/QUOTE] Sadly, by the same logic there's no amazing funding (8-9 digit amounts) for a cure for cancer as selling chemotherapy works quite fine as it's steady income for these companies.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35121577]You say this as if it were a good thing. That's a very serious problem with our country at this time. A system such as healthcare should not be motivated by a profit margin because it leads to exceptionally high costs for goods that can otherwise be produced for substantially less. So it basically creates a system where you have people unnecessarily indebted to their healthcare provider if they want even a chance to maintain their current quality of health.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's a good thing at all. Healthcare definitely should not be dependent on the amount of profit you can squeeze out of a consumer due to the fact that they have no choice of whether they take a life saving drug or not. I believe the system we have here in the UK of the NHS is a good start removing the cost from the patient and placing the burden on public funds instead.

There is no way something that benefits humanity to such a degree should be patentable at all.

[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;35121806]I don't think it's a good thing at all. Healthcare definitely should not be dependent on the amount of profit you can squeeze out of a consumer due to the fact that they have no choice of whether they take a life saving drug or not. I believe the system we have here in the UK of the NHS is a good start removing the cost from the patient and placing the burden on public funds instead.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's fucked up you can play with someones life like that. Are only rich people good enough humans to be allowed to live?

[QUOTE=BloodYScar;35121899]There is no way something that benefits humanity to such a degree should be patentable at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, fuck the people who might want to create medicine that might save lives because they know that if they actually make it, they won't be able to make any returns from it

The concept of patent for medicine is disgusting.

[QUOTE=Beaverlake;35122207]The concept of patent for medicine is disgusting.[/QUOTE] It is disgusting, but unfortunately we don't have a better system at the moment. In an ideal world all medical research would be government subsidised with the end result being provided for free to those who need it. However, this rings too close to socialism and all of the (completely unnecessary) stigma that comes with it to a largely conservative public.

[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;35122307]It is disgusting, but unfortunately we don't have a better system at the moment. In an ideal world all medical research would be government subsidised with the end result being provided for free to those who need it. However, this rings too close to socialism and all of the (completely unnecessary) stigma that comes with it to a largely conservative public.[/QUOTE] Socialism is great! Just look at the NHS!

[QUOTE=Greenen73;35122187]Yeah, fuck the people who might want to create medicine that might save lives because they know that if they actually make it, they won't be able to make any returns from it[/QUOTE]We're going in to Atlas Shrugged territory here. [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] Why can't we be more like the Scandinavian Countries?

Never thought I'd say I would like to live under a blatantly corrupt government. ...but fuck that, India here I come! [IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2013/2044082129_e722f3a6c1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;35121467]You have to consider the cost of development of drugs like this though. Pharma companies are driven by profit. If they aren't allowed to patent the medicine that they create, then there is no incentive for them to research it. It might seem insensitive, but it's one of the tradeoffs of living in a capitalist society.[/QUOTE] Then maybe they don't deserve to be privately run in the first place?

Wow wtf I just watched finished Contagion

Now let's just wait until this gets buried in legal trouble and we never get to see cheap cancer medicine.

[QUOTE=Kendra;35121761]Sadly, by the same logic there's no amazing funding (8-9 digit amounts) for a cure for cancer as selling chemotherapy works quite fine as it's steady income for these companies.[/QUOTE] Yup. If not for the fact that chemotherapy is providing top dollar, we could have a cure for cancer by now.

The more the merrier, the cheaper the cheerier.