 |
| Financial Tribune |
How do governments get the drugs needed for treating life threatening disease in underdeveloped countries? There are many solutions but in “Balancing Tradeoff between Access and Incentive: Compulsory Licensing and Parallel Importing of HIV/AIDS Drugs in South Africa” by Arpan Chokshi, who wrote his paper for a college class to study the economics behind the international pharmaceutical trade, the best solution for both the patients and pharmaceutical companies seems to be compulsory licensing or parallel importing.
Compulsory licensing is “‘a government license that enables someone other than the patent holder to copy patented or copyrighted products and processes’ for pharmaceutical drugs, compulsory licensing would allow the government to make a patent holding firm, such as Glaxo Smith Kline allow other, usually local, drug manufacturers to manufacture the drug that Glaxo Smith holds a patent for”. This would allow governments to give the rights of development to a company that wasn’t the original developer to allow for cheaper prices and, in turn, better affordability for the people who need the drug most.
The other solution, parallel importing, is an option that doesn’t affect patent laws but instead lets “genuine products [be] brought into a country without the authorization of the copyright, patent, or trademark owner”. This would mean that the original developer with the patent would be the only one making the drug, but people could buy it from countries and then sell it again in another country. This would allow for more jobs in those areas, easier access and the original patent holder still receives the original profit. This is the better option because there would be less push back from pharmaceutical countries about putting parallel licensing in place than compulsory licensing and it would allow for cheaper prices due to competing secondary buyers selling it to those countries, which would lower prices for those who need those drugs.
