A review of the health and economic implications of patent protection, with a specific focus on Thailand

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough it has been two decades since the Thai Patent Act was amended to comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), there has been little emphasis given to assessing the implications of this amendment. The purpose of this review is to summarize the health and economic impact of patent protection, with a focus on the experience of Thailand.MethodsA review of national and international empirical evidence on the health and economic implications of patents from 1980 to 2009 was undertaken.ResultsThe findings illustrate the role of patent protection in four areas: price, present access, future access, and international trade and investment. Forty-three empirical studies were found, three of which were from Thai databases. Patenting does increase price, although the size of effect differs according to the methodology and country. Although weakening patent rights could increase present access, evidence suggests that strengthening patenting may benefit future access; although this is based on complex assumptions and estimations. Moreover, while patent protection appears to have a positive impact on trade flow, the implication for foreign direct investment (FDI) is equivocal.ConclusionsEmpirical studies in Thailand, and other similar countries, are rare, compromising the robustness and generalizability of conclusions. However, evidence does suggest that patenting presents a significant inter-temporal challenge in balancing aspects of current versus future access to technologies. This underlines the urgent need to prioritize health research resources to assess the wider implications of patent protection.

A re‐evaluation of the framework for the protection of patents, women’s health in Nigeria and the issue of accessing pharmaceutical innovation in Africa: Designing strategies for medicines

“…Much of the evidence linking patent prices and access to medicines have been highlighted in the case of HIV/AIDS (Borrell, , p. 505; The International Intellectual Property Institute, , p. 9; WHO, 2014, p. 26) . For instance, the result of a comparative study of patented and generic price differences of HIV/AIDS medicines in Thailand from 2001 to 2004 found that the patented drugs were 1.5–3 times more expensive than the equivalent generic version in 2001 (Yamabhai & Smith, , p. 14) . In another example, the price of an important ARV HIV drug, 3TC (Lamivudine and Epivir), was marketed and sold by Glaxo in the United States for US$3,271 while the generic version was sold for $190 and $98 by Cipla Ltd and Hetero Drugs Limited respectively (Oh, ).…”

Compulsory Licenses for Cancer Drugs: Does Circumventing Patent Rights Improve Access to Oncology Medications?

“…10,15 Counter arguments to this point are simple: if LMICs save money on medication expense, then these savings can be invested in improvement of their own drug manufacturing capacity and health systems. In Thailand, a study found that if relevant HIV/AIDs drugs were not patented, an additional 10,000 prescriptions could be made, which would increase access by 50%.…”

“…There is also the argument that the price of patented medications is not the main barrier to medication access in LMICs and, in fact, that lack of manufacturing capacity or poor health care systems are larger contributors that impact access. 10 , 15 Counter arguments to this point are simple: if LMICs save money on medication expense, then these savings can be invested in improvement of their own drug manufacturing capacity and health systems. In Thailand, a study found that if relevant HIV/AIDs drugs were not patented, an additional 10,000 prescriptions could be made, which would increase access by 50%.…”

“…In Thailand, a study found that if relevant HIV/AIDs drugs were not patented, an additional 10,000 prescriptions could be made, which would increase access by 50%. 10 …”

“…9 High costs are a major, and often insurmountable, barrier in poor countries for which the price of standard cancer medications are simply too high relative to the national and individual income. 10 …”