Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO

[MarkusS]

I believe some simply cant understand how much R&D costs. Thats the problem here and they cant understand, that this pirate move will hurt their people in the long run. I would say we should make a counter attack against an indian corporation and take their patent away but unfortunately they simply have nothing what we would want...and the main reason for this is indias parasitic laws. It does not encourage any development.

 

[anonymus]

Morals do conflicts, especially when they are selfish in nature. Am I immoral for feeding my family before yours, when you and yours are starving, and we are both in a famine? But I will indulge your argument...How about the government give the man an area where he can sell his water for as high as he want while it allows others to dig outside that area?

Certainly you won't be immoral to feed your family before anyone else during a famine, but that would not be a moral equivalence here. Intellectual rights of companies must be protected and Companies should be allowed to rake profits. It would have been the case had Bayer fulfilling a reasonable level of demand and Government would have granted a licence to generic
manufacturers on purely economic rational.But here Bayer was not even fulfilling fractional demand ( only 2 % of total ).

The moral equivalence here would be that you are a owner of large godown and when famine struck, you hoard all the foodstuff available in your geographical area and refuse to sell it to anyone. Should the government in this case allow whole population to die or force open your ?


Regarding your solution for man with a well problem, Is it not similar to what Indian government has done. Bayer is not barred from selling it's drug at price it desires. It is free to price it's drug at whichever rate it want. It's constituency before Compulsory license was those people who are rich enough that money does not matter to them and they would remain it's constituency. Generics, whatever they may claim always have low efficacy outcomes that original drug.The erosion in customer base of Bayer would be marginal and most of the people who would use that drug would be those who did not have access before compulsory licensing.This was not a case of protecting revenue from India but to preserve their business model as it's winding down would have adverse financial effect in developed countries.



I am not a supporter of socialism but even capitalistic societies are built on certain basic common communal values. Whenever a person decides to enter civilization, he in effect surrenders some of his freedom to collective good.

There are only two basic models that any organization that is trying to make profit could follow; high price low spread model and low price high spread model.A patent restricts competition and allows monopoly to a manufacturer. well and fine. It is OK if a manufacturer of luxury good choose high price low spread model.

The basic dilemma here is that Is it morally correct for a provider of life saving goods and services to follow high price low spread model? Isn't he/she obliged to price it at a rate that maximum number of people could afford it without affecting baseline of his company?

PS: This discussion is theoretical, neither do i believe that GoI is angelic ( it is not ) nor that Bayer is an evil corporation.

 

[drunken-monke]

Atlantis incident? Atlantis is stored in a museum in Los Angeles and doing quite fine. I think you got your facts wrong? As for your "national hero"... she is not my people and for me completly irrelevant. Beside that, she failed her mission. How can she be a hero? For being not successful? Our astronauts always made it back safe. For me, they are hero.

Beside that, this is not topic. You think you can steal from my people and then expect any sympathy?

Ohh my bad.. It was Columbia disaster.. And your words for a "congressional space medal of honor" recipient are simply out of prejudice...

Stealing??? Once the patent is off, we can formulate a generic and sell it in market... Its legitimate as per law... We are not thieves..

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Atlantis incident? Atlantis is stored in a museum in Los Angeles and doing quite fine. I think you got your facts wrong? As for your "national hero"... she is not my people and for me completly irrelevant. Beside that, she failed her mission. How can she be a hero? For being not sucessful? Our astronauts always made it back safe. For me, they are hero.

Beside that, this is not topic. You think you can steal from my people and then expect any sympathy?

@Modrators...
Markus ...
I know i am very new and may not have right to do this ..
but this guy dont know how to respect country or person who work for cause..
please take some action.
instead of debating he is putting insulting comments on nation and deceased person.
Sorry markus but its limit
he just have "MY' people , our research,
Markus.. She did not went for safari.. they were on mission.. NASA dont work country specific work.. their work benefit humanity as whole.
but seems beyond money and profit you dont value anything..
what a shame...

I think you are disturb soul in many post you pointed sympathy.. why its eveytime on your mind..
i think you need sympathies most ....

 

[pursuit of happiness]

I have no problems with voluntary charity and I do wish there are more socially responsive companies out there. But legal compulsion is not the answer. So if you want to see legalized theft in India, so be it. Just do not complain about the morality of foreign companies WHEN they begins to withdraw from India. The fact that India still struggles means that no matter how much you guys may boasts about Indian pharmas, they will not be able to provide for India.

no one works for charity neither companies not even govt
companies need profits .. govt need to make policies for people which will benefit them to reelect.
Good economics lead to good politics..
You are right that legal may not be the right way to work on IPR.. can you suggest some alternate system
CL was agreed by ALL on international forum.. if yes .. why this foul cry...

1. withdrawal of companies.
Please let them go. we dont want companies to suck people blood ..
we are billon people nation .. we can always get some other organistion..
please dont underestimate Govt one policy and these companies will take major hits..
actually ple go backk. let govt understand and now they understood too..
one good policy to boost pharma for 10 yr and then see result..
alll companies know after USA future is in asia.. and will be ...
its indians national interest to protect helath of its people and they are doing as per legal mutual agreed terms...this is best solution we have till now

2. Theft/ stealing
the definition per say is to take away something you dont belong secretly without consent..
does india did wiht out giving information to companies ..?
did india not gave time and opportunity to present case to prove technical efficiency of drug?
are CL is not agreed by WTO?
india allowed many patent who showed real effective and efficiency treatment effect..
if still you call it theft .. its up to you

3. indian pharma

blame goes to indian companies which did not develop there R& D capacity .
but india itselft got confidence post 1991 so still indian industry developing.

indian pharma work in different bushiness model -generics -off patent vertical . but in future they have to get back to mainstream to develop and companies trying to do that now...

 

[drunken-monke]

I have no problems with voluntary charity and I do wish there are more socially responsive companies out there. But legal compulsion is not the answer. So if you want to see legalized theft in India, so be it. Just do not complain about the morality of foreign companies WHEN they begins to withdraw from India. The fact that India still struggles means that no matter how much you guys may boasts about Indian pharmas, they will not be able to provide for India.

You are missing a point here gambit.. MNCs majorly the once which innovates have barely any share in India.. India is a open market (for IPR) and many MNCs are earning a good chunk of money here while they don't have to be worried about regulations. Hence, though the quality of medicine is good, but not equal to that of regulated market.. hence profit of margin (and not necesarily the profit) is high..

 

[pursuit of happiness]

You are missing a point here gambit.. MNCs majorly the once which innovates have barely any share in India.. India is a open market (for IPR) and many MNCs are earning a good chunk of money here while they don't have to be worried about regulations. Hence, though the quality of medicine is good, but not equal to that of regulated market.. hence profit of margin (and not necesarily the profit) is high..

as you are veteran in field..
what 5 step for short term and long term step taken by GOI and industry developed at least 2 companies of bayer, glaxo , merk level organization.
thanks

 

[drunken-monke]

as you are veteran in field..
what 5 step for short term and long term step taken by GOI and industry developed at least 2 companies of bayer, glaxo , merk level organization.
thanks

Are you asking my opinion??

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Are you asking my opinion??

yes

 

[gambit]

Certainly you won't be immoral to feed your family before anyone else during a famine, but that would not be a moral equivalence here. Intellectual rights of companies must be protected and Companies should be allowed to rake profits. It would have been the case had Bayer fulfilling a reasonable level of demand and Government would have granted a licence to generic
manufacturers on purely economic rational.But here Bayer was not even fulfilling fractional demand ( only 2 % of total ).

The moral equivalence here would be that you are a owner of large godown and when famine struck, you hoard all the foodstuff available in your geographical area and refuse to sell it to anyone. Should the government in this case allow whole population to die or force open your ?

Regarding your solution for man with a well problem, Is it not similar to what Indian government has done. Bayer is not barred from selling it's drug at price it desires. It is free to price it's drug at whichever rate it want. It's constituency before Compulsory license was those people who are rich enough that money does not matter to them and they would remain it's constituency. Generics, whatever they may claim always have low efficacy outcomes that original drug.The erosion in customer base of Bayer would be marginal and most of the people who would use that drug would be those who did not have access before compulsory licensing.This was not a case of protecting revenue from India but to preserve their business model as it's winding down would have adverse financial effect in developed countries.

There are only two basic models that any organization that is trying to make profit could follow; high price low spread model and low price high spread model.A patent restricts competition and allows monopoly to a manufacturer. well and fine. It is OK if a manufacturer of luxury good choose high price low spread model.

The basic dilemma here is that Is it morally correct for a provider of life saving goods and services to follow high price low spread model? Isn't he/she obliged to price it at a rate that maximum number of people could afford it without affecting baseline of his company?

PS: This discussion is theoretical, neither do i believe that GoI is angelic ( it is not ) nor that Bayer is an evil corporation.

The problem with your analogy is that India is not suffering under the disease that Nexavar was created to combat. Am not saying that the disease does not exist in India. Am saying that the disease is not epidemic like the plague or a famine or a long drought. If we are debating in the theoretical, then on the same theoretical plane, these diseases existed long before the scientific method that gave us companies like Bayer.

If India does not have access to Nexavar today, just like how India and the rest of the world did not even have Nexavar let alone access to it yesterday, then India and the Indian people will survive in spite of the kidney cancer because unlike a drought, only a few people will have kidney cancer or flat feet or a cleft palate or mental health issues.

Then on that same theoretical plane, we have a conflict of moral obligations. Bayer is ultimately morally obligated to itself in trying to recoup its investments by the only way it knows how: price. India is morally obligated to care for its citizens in the only way it know how: confiscation.

I am not a supporter of socialism but even capitalistic societies are built on certain basic common communal values. Whenever a person decides to enter civilization, he in effect surrenders some of his freedom to collective good.

Another flawed argument.

In any relationship, my freedom ends where another's nose begins. Ever heard of that?

This is a two-way street. If I am restrained from swinging my arm for fear of hitting you, aka violating your rights and freedoms, the reciprocal applies to you as well. Just because I cut 10 cords of wood, an excess to keep myself warm, that does not give you, who cut only 1 cord of wood, to take 4 from me in order to even out our resources. If you can convince me to VOLUNTARILY give you 4 cords of wood, that would be a different issue.

 

[janon]

...

This is a two-way street. If I am restrained from swinging my arm for fear of hitting you, aka violating your rights and freedoms, the reciprocal applies to you as well. Just because I cut 10 cords of wood, an excess to keep myself warm, that does not give you, who cut only 1 cord of wood, to take 4 from me in order to even out our resources. If you can convince me to VOLUNTARILY give you 4 cords of wood, that would be a different issue.

That analogy does not apply. Taking some wood from you causes you to loose something, to lose whatever is taken from you. In this case, replicating a generic version of the drug does not take the drug or the know-how to create that drug away from bayer. Bayer does not loose anything, but in your analogy, you lose wood.

Of course, if India started replicating drugs as soon as they came out, and selling it in European markets and ate into Bayer's marketshare, then they have a cause to complain. In this case, they are admitting that they do not want to sell it to poor Indians anyway. So if we make a cheap copy of the drug and sell it to poor people, what does Bayer lose? Do they lose any profit? No. Do they lose their marketshare? No.

To suitably modify your analogy, if you discover a method to cut excess wood, and we discover a cheaper way to cut the same amount of wood later, and distribute it to those who can only pay a low price, are we doing anything wrong in selling wood to them? We are not taking your wood from you forcibly and selling it, but cutting/making wood ourselves at a lower price. Granted, in the analogy, you may have discovered that burning wood keeps away cold and enables people to live - but should that prevent us from cutting wood and selling it to people who can't afford to buy it from you?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

The problem with your analogy is that India is not suffering under the disease that Nexavar was created to combat. Am not saying that the disease does not exist in India. Am saying that the disease is not epidemic like the plague or a famine or a long drought. If we are debating in the theoretical, then on the same theoretical plane, these diseases existed long before the scientific method that gave us companies like Bayer.

If India does not have access to Nexavar today, just like how India and the rest of the world did not even have Nexavar let alone access to it yesterday, then India and the Indian people will survive in spite of the kidney cancer because unlike a drought, only a few people will have kidney cancer or flat feet or a cleft palate or mental health issues.

Then on that same theoretical plane, we have a conflict of moral obligations. Bayer is ultimately morally obligated to itself in trying to recoup its investments by the only way it knows how: price. India is morally obligated to care for its citizens in the only way it know how: confiscation.


Another flawed argument.

In any relationship, my freedom ends where another's nose begins. Ever heard of that?

This is a two-way street. If I am restrained from swinging my arm for fear of hitting you, aka violating your rights and freedoms, the reciprocal applies to you as well. Just because I cut 10 cords of wood, an excess to keep myself warm, that does not give you, who cut only 1 cord of wood, to take 4 from me in order to even out our resources. If you can convince me to VOLUNTARILY give you 4 cords of wood, that would be a different issue.

--
Shall india wait to become epidemic then call it bayer to reduce price ?
Recover investment but at not cost of peoples life...
instead of 5 yrs it will take 8- 10 yrs to recover cost..

-my freedom ends where another's nose begins
true..

-Wood argument.
you cut 10 cord. ok .. good for yourself..
then me only 1.. then i should convenience you to give me 4 .. as u work hard for those 10 right..
then you may voluntarily give me ..ok

lets put argument on same case
bayer produce medicine with huge cost and effort.. good ..
they introduced in india at their price .. (10 cord ) with duty to comply indian norms
now our pharma industry (only 1 cord)
now india have 2 option
1. either request to bayer
2. work under legal framework

1.indian govt told bayer to implement plan so that needy patient will get those medicine .. bayer did not complied .. link in my previous post..
2. then india went under WTO norms to take 4 cords which okeeyd by international community.

either bayer is right and international community is wrong as they allowed CL (compulsory licensing )
there are nation who talk in WTO , UN.. they are much much clever than us and have access to more data ..
if they allowed CL it means even at CL level- royalty - the parent will be benefited...
Do you think US,Uk,german govt so naive that they will sacrifices such a large business.. you decide..

develop nation as you said take resource from nature then when time to pay back they just ran away .. climate change and kyoto protocol

Summary.
Indian CL may be hampering IPR of some organization . Accepted.
But see the objective of it.. to make a profit or for saving life..
nation who agreed for CL aware about it .. they took decision based on mutual benefit.. no nation does charity... its always give and take
so even in CL pharma companies who seems to be loosing will be gaining something ...

 

[drunken-monke]

@pursuit of happiness


Short term milestones:

1. India is spending 1.4% of Its GDP on healthcare, which has to go to 2% immediately..

2. GOI should have contracts with Giants such as Cipla/Dr. Reddys/Lupin/Emcure for for the supply of specific medicines to patients in Government medical hospitals.. Two things will happen,cost will be loweredsince manufacturing will go high and thee giants willensure quality medicine reach even to the poor.. Am not saying the government should bear the cost of medicine.. Provided there is less corruption....

3. GOI should increase staff of Docs/make compulsory for MMBS docs to serve in hospitals for getting their degree, irrespective of their medical colleges.. Though this decision may spark a new row over rights of Medics... But Don’t have option for time being...

4. Ease DCGI norms for issuing licenses but not the regulation...

5. Set up a Pharma ministry so that Private Pharma companies will tie up with Government and its policies...


Long term:

1. Increase the GDP spending up to 3% on healthcare steadily, and ensuring there is no corruption. Budget constraints would be overcome by taxing per person with nominal charges… but ensuring that the person who has been taxed is taken care of for his medical expenses… A more like US system..

2. Local FDA should tie up with USFDA/MHRA for increasing the quality of medicines distributed in India.. In doing so they need to build the labs and taskforce which would continuously monitor the medicines in the market. Increased GDP spending will only facilitates this..

3. Society needs to dwell within itself for identifying the malpractices and prevention of it.. This is the most difficult task as everyone would think of financial gain for themselves..

4. Many of the chemicals entities has been banned abroad, still those medicines are sold in India.. GOI should act timely to prevent distribution of these medicines after due evolution of possible benefits and adverse effects.. This is a continuous process and GOI/local FDA has to be vigilant.

5. Ethics has to be built in India’s pharma sector starting from student’s level to Pharma Giants.. Difficult but not impossible..

 

[gambit]

That analogy does not apply. Taking some wood from you causes you to loose something, to lose whatever is taken from you. In this case, replicating a generic version of the drug does not take the drug or the know-how to create that drug away from bayer. Bayer does not loose anything, but in your analogy, you lose wood.

That was not about any analogy but about the extent of freedoms. Your friend was talking about the collective good and how everyone is supposed to contribute to that collective. My question is about the extent of the government's reach into the fruits of my labor.

So do YOU approve of taking from me what I labored for myself just because I have more than you?

Of course, if India started replicating drugs as soon as they came out, and selling it in European markets and ate into Bayer's marketshare, then they have a cause to complain. In this case, they are admitting that they do not want to sell it to poor Indians anyway. So if we make a cheap copy of the drug and sell it to poor people, what does Bayer lose? Do they lose any profit? No. Do they lose their marketshare? No.

It does not matter if Bayer lose any market share or not. If I have one million dollars, does it make it morally acceptable that you steal one dollar from me? That one dollar would not affect my lifestyle in the least.

 

[janon]

That was not about any analogy but about the extent of freedoms. Your friend was talking about the collective good and how everyone is supposed to contribute to that collective. My question is about the extent of the government's reach into the fruits of my labor.

So do YOU approve of taking from me what I labored for myself just because I have more than you?

No, I don't. Govt has no right to take anything away from you. Well, taxes I suppose. But in principle, I don't agree with forced redistribution.