Tag: pharmaceutical prices

Competition Law has again Worked to Fight a Bad Drug Patent, but We Need Other Solutions

By Fatima Hassan and Leena Menghaney

A Competition Commission probe recently resulted in a patent on an important tuberculosis medicine being dropped in South Africa. Twenty years ago, a similar Competition Commission case resulted in a settlement that helped drive down the prices of several antiretrovirals, thereby helping to set the stage for the country’s HIV treatment programme. Fatima Hassan and Leena Menghaney connect the dots between the two landmark cases and map out what has and has not changed over the last two decades.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, South Africa faced a major uncontrolled AIDS epidemic, worsened by state sponsored AIDS denialism. South Africa was at the epicentre of a global epidemic, with hundreds of thousands of people getting sick and dying, needlessly, because lifesaving antiretroviral medicines were out of reach.

This was in the main because of the Mbeki government’s deadly science denialism denying public sector patients antiretrovirals and the high cost of some of these medicines, which at the turn of the century was available in the private sector but only for the very rich or medically insured. The private sector price for the combination of three antiretrovirals needed by most people living with HIV was exorbitant.

This was because of patent monopolies held at the time by multinational pharmaceutical companies, particularly GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI). In essence, people in South Africa living with HIV had to beg to live – by seeking donations and charity or pressuring their respective medical schemes to provide coverage. Meanwhile, lifesaving antiretrovirals were generally available in the Global North and in some parts of the Global South where governments like those in Thailand and Brazil had taken action to reduce prices.

Hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa died prematurely because they did not get access to these medicines in time.

The landmark Hazel Tau case

Looking for a way to challenge the high prices of key antiretrovirals, activists turned to South Africa’s newly revamped post-apartheid competition law. In September 2002, the Treatment Action Campaign, Hazel Tau, a woman living with HIV and several others lodged a complaint with the country’s Competition Commission. They alleged that the price that GSK and BI were charging for important antiretrovirals was excessive and anti-competitive, undermining not just Competition Law but also the right to health as enshrined in the country’s still fairly new Constitution.

The Competition Commission agreed to investigate. Several months later, they announced that there was a prima facie case of excessive pricing and that they would be referring the matter to the Competition Tribunal (the next phase of a complaint to the Competition authorities). Almost immediately after that announcement, TAC was approached by GSK and BI to “settle” the matter. This meant there would be no public hearings, and the companies would not have to defend their pricing decisions in the dock.

The terms of the settlement, negotiated by the TAC’s legal team, mirrored what TAC had publicly demanded at the beginning of the case. Most importantly, GSK and BI agreed to grant voluntary licenses to several generic manufacturers that would allow them to make and sell the antiretrovirals in question. It was this generic competition that would drive down the prices of antiretrovirals in the years that followed.

Even though the Competition Commission only has jurisdiction in South Africa, the licenses included many other African countries, which meant those countries could also benefit from the generic competition and lower prices. The settlement (including the terms of the voluntary licenses) was agreed to by the Competition Commission, made an order and publicly announced, leading to the conclusion of the complaint.

The case, which came to be known as the Hazel Tau case, would in the years to come be recognised as one of the foundations that made large HIV treatment programmes possible in South Africa and other African countries. Despite this victory, the ongoing effects of AIDS denialism meant that it would in reality be several years before the more affordable generic antiretrovirals would be made widely available in South Africa.

20 years later, the spotlight is on TB drugs

HIV has not been the only health crisis to affect SA. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading infectious causes of death globally, and drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) remains a public health crisis. The WHO estimates that around 304 000 people fall ill with TB in South Africa per year, and it claims over 50 000 lives, which means it remains one of the country’s top killers. While TB rates are slowly declining, there is concern that rates of drug-resistant forms of TB (DR-TB) are increasing. DR-TB requires newer, more expensive treatments.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Biden Urges Drug Companies to Join in Insulin US Price Cuts

Photo by Dennis Klicker on Unsplash

Following pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly’s much-lauded move to cut US prices for its insulin products, US President Joe Biden is calling on other drugmakers to make similar reductions for the vital medication.

According to Euronews, Lilly is directly slashing its insulin prices by about 70%, since many patients cannot access discounts, and is capping consumer costs at US$35 (R635) a month.

Biden is driving a push for cheaper insulin, signing a law that capped insulin at US$35 a month for senior citizens on Medicare, and urged companies to lower prices on their own. “For far too long, American families have been crushed by drug costs many times higher than what people in other countries are charged for the same prescriptions,” Biden said.

“Insulin costs less than US$10 to make, but Americans are sometimes forced to pay over US$300 for it. It’s flat wrong”.

Biden has called for a national cap on insulin prices, but his current Act does not extend to that.

A Lilly press release revealed that the price of Humalog® (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL (Lilly’s most commonly prescribed insulin) and Humulin® (insulin human) injection 100 units/mL by would be cut by 70%. This price change would take effect around the end 2023. Lilly also said it would cut the price for the generic Lispro to US$25 a vial starting in May. In South Africa, a Humulin® 10mL vial costs R525.28, or US$28.08, according to Health-e’s medicine price registry.

Lilly CEO David Ricks said his company was bringing the changes as not all patients could benefit through discounts through insurers or pharmacy benefit managers.

“We are driving for change in repricing older insulins, but we know that 7 out of 10 Americans don’t use Lilly insulin. We are calling on policymakers, employers and others to join us in making insulin more affordable,” said Ricks. “For the past century, Lilly has focused on inventing new and improved insulins and other medicines that address the impact of diabetes and improve patient outcomes. Our work to discover new and better treatments is far from over. We won’t stop until all people with diabetes are in control of their disease and can get the insulin they need.”

Since insurers and pharmacies will take a while to implement the price cuts, Lilly will immediately cap monthly out-of-pocket costs at $35 for people who are not covered by Medicare’s prescription drug programme.

The Same Medications for Humans are Pricier than for Pets

Photo by Pauline Loroy on Unsplash

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers compared the prices of 120 medications commonly used in humans and pets. The authors found human medication prices were typically higher than the price of pet medications – with the same ingredients at common human-equivalent doses.

While some medications are common to both pets and humans, but price differences can be extreme. In 1991, levamisole (introduced in the 1960s as a veterinary antiparasitic) demonstrated efficacy in treating human colon cancer. The introductory human price of Janssen’s Ergamisol (brand-name levamisole; $5 per 50mg tablet) was 100 times the then veterinary price (approximately $0.05 for an equivalent amount). With the COVID pandemic, a misinformation-driven demand for ivermectin as a COVID treatment led to people seeking veterinary formulations of the drug, increasing the price 15-fold over a month ($6 to $92 for 3 tubes). In this cross-sectional study, the researchers sought to compare prices of commonly prescribed medications used to treat both humans and pets.

The researchers from the University of Minnesota found that retail price for human medications was on average 5.5 times higher than pet medications. For more than 60% of medications, even discounted prices for humans were higher than pet prices. On average, discounted prices were 1.5 times higher for human medications than for pet medications.

‘’A 10-day supply of the same medication costs $2 for a pet dog, $10 for a person with a discount coupon, and $100 for a person without a coupon,” said Arjun Gupta, MBBS, assistant professor at the U of M Medical School and oncologist with M Health Fairview. He is also a member of the Masonic Cancer Center. “With many humans and pets uninsured or underinsured, it is important that cash prices for medications are affordable and that pricing is not exploitative.”

Human prices were also higher than pet prices for drugs such as antibiotics. Researchers warn this may promote humans sourcing antibiotics for their own use from pet sources, especially since human antibiotic use is more regulated.

Exactly why there is such a significant price difference is unclear. One possibility may be drug manufacturers engaging in price discrimination by charging consumers different prices in different markets for the same product, the researchers suggest. Additionally, price differences could reflect variations in medication effectiveness, willingness to pay, and manufacturing, storage, and regulatory standards.

Further research is suggested to explore the causes of price differences.

Source: University of Minnesota Medical School