Statement
Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
“Public Research In The Public Interest Act Of 2006”
September 29, 2006
MR. LEAHY: Mr. President, today I am pleased to
introduce the “Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006.” If
enacted, this bill will save lives and improve the quality of health for
millions of families living in impoverished nations. Recently, I have
introduced or cosponsored six bills to address the increasingly
important issues that relate to global health and the need for earlier
access to generic medicines in the United States.
Each year, millions of people needlessly suffer from disease in
impoverished countries worldwide because they lack access to life-saving
medicines. And each year, America’s world-renowned research universities
develop innovative treatments to combat these diseases. However, under
our current system, these treatments do not get to far too many of the
families in impoverished nations who so desperately need them.
Today, 15 percent of the world’s people consume about 91 percent of the
world’s pharmaceuticals. The high price of life saving-medicines --
medicines we take for granted -- puts them far beyond the reach for
millions of the most vulnerable populations.
While the concept of my bill is simple, the implications are profound.
If passed, my bill would greatly lessen the cost burden of generic drugs
in the developing world. It would achieve this by requiring federally
funded research institutions to permit their inventions, such as drugs,
vaccines, and innovative medical devises, to be provided inexpensively
by generic companies distributing medical supplies to the developing
world.
Federally funded labs and research institutions have a vital role to
play in meeting this goal. For example, Yale University has an agreement
with Doctors Without Boarders to permit their generic version of its
life-saving AIDS drug to be used for a pilot treatment program in South
Africa. To date, Yale’s humanitarian endeavor, which in no way reduced
their licensing revenues, continues to save thousands of life.
It is time to ensure that public funds truly serve public purposes -- in
this instance, delivering essential health care needs at minimal costs
to American taxpayers, universities, and pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately, this Congress has been tied up in knots recently and has
been unable to pass even critical appropriations bills. The measures
before us are crucial. This comprehensive approach toward providing
better global health aid and better access to generic drugs should
become law, and I am committed to trying to make it so. I look forward
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this
important legislation.
I have recently introduced or sponsored six bills to address the need
for better access to low-cost generic medicines. Two of these bills
relate to global health, and four of them address the need for earlier
access to generic medicines in the United States.
Federally funded laboratories and other research institutions have a
critical role to play in delivering affordable medicines to these sick
and suffering worldwide. In 2000, a Senate Joint Economic Committee
Report found that public research was instrumental in developing 15 of
the 21 drugs considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic
impact on society.
Between 1970 and 2001, there was a ten-fold increase in the number of
U.S. patents issued annually to U.S. academic institutions. The World
Health Organization’s 2006 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
Innovation, and Public Health has also recently recognized the crucial
role of universities. The WHO recommended that universities adopt
licensing practices designed to increase access to medicines in
developing countries.
The report also tells the story of one way in which the crucial role of
university innovations and other publicly funded research in promoting
global public health first came into the public eye. It is an
interesting story.
In 2001, the international organization Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF,
requested Yale University’s permission to use its generic life-saving
AIDS drug, stavudine, for a pilot treatment project outside Cape Town.
This was at a time when HIV drugs were first being introduced in the
developing world. The costs were prohibitive. Scientists at Yale
University had discovered stavudine’s value in the fight against AIDS,
and Yale University was the key patent holder.
In response to MSF’s request, Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb jointly
announced that they would permit the sale of generics in South Africa
and that Bristol-Myers Squibb would lower the price of its brand-name
stavudine by 96 percent throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
The Yale/Bristol-Myers Squibb announcement was highly significant in the
campaign for access to affordable first-line AIDS treatments. Yale and
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s humanitarian action did not reduce licensing
revenues with respect to Yale. Meanwhile, Yale’s invention to this day
continues to save thousands of lives. According to a recent report by
the WHO’s AIDS Medicines and Diagnostics Service, stavudine is one of
the three first-line HIV medicines that together constituted almost 90
percent of total procurement in 2005.
Unfortunately, this has been an isolated success story rather the road
to greater access for the many important inventions that come out of
publicly funded research institutions.
With respect to HIV/AIDS treatment alone, at least two major drugs based
on university inventions have come to market since the 2001 stavudine
announcement: emtricitabine, developed in large part at Emory University
and sold by Gilead Sciences as Emtriva; and T-20 developed in large part
at Duke university and marketed as Fuzeon by Hoffmann-La Roche and
Trimeris. Just this summer, Yale University announced the license of a
new candidate for an AIDS drug based on stavudine. Called
“4’-ethynyl-stavudine” (or abbreviated more simply as Ed4T). Early
testing suggests that it may be both more effective and less toxic than
its famous predecessor.
But the question is: Will these lifesaving drugs ultimately be available
in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV infection rates range as
high as a third of the adult population?
This bill, the “Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006,”
would focus on this problem. By allowing licensing by generic companies
of inventions coming out of publicly funded research institutions — and
other associated inventions required to produce marketable medicines —
it would drive down the price of new, innovative drugs in areas where
they would otherwise be effectively unavailable.
Because the licensing regime this bill proposes is self-enforcing, it
minimizes both administrative overhead and eliminates the need for
case-by-case decisions, while preserving important intellectual property
protections. Because the Act allows the introduction of generic or
reduced-price drugs only into markets too poor to otherwise afford them,
its terms do not threaten corporate investments or profits in wealthier
nations. All generic drugs manufactured under the bill must be clearly
differentiated from the versions sold in developed nations, where the
brand-name companies make their profits.
Moreover, publicly funded research institutions would receive royalties
from the sale of inventions covered by this bill in developing markets.
While the initial payment of the royalties will typically go the
research institution itself, the bill leaves complete freedom to these
institutions and their licensees to decide how such royalties will
ultimately be shared. This freedom is especially important because the
inventions from universities and other research institutions often form
only one part of the collection of intellectual property necessary to
manufacture a finished, marketable drug. The appropriate division of the
royalties paid by generics for this package of rights in the developing
world will be different for different drugs and medical devices,
depending on whether the university’s contribution is more or less
central to the finished product. This Act would allow all the various
parties the flexibility to divide these royalties appropriately.
I should be clear, however, that the bill I introduce today is an
initial proposal. I look forward to working with research universities
in the United States on this important matter. I also intend to work
with the companies involved in creating, licensing, and bringing to
market the fruits of America’s unparalleled research institutions as we
continue to shape this solution.
Indeed, the best answer may not be legislative at all, if the groups
involved can come together around a different approach. But however it
is achieved, I believe that increasing the availability of the many
medical inventions that come from publicly funded research centers is a
good solution to pressing global health concerns.
Universities, in particular, are unique institutions with unique public
commitments. They are, before anything else, institutions dedicated to
the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the public interest. The
“Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006” is designed in the
spirit of that commitment.
This bill completes a package of six bills that I have recently
introduced to increase access to medicines in the United States and to
address the global public health crisis. While it is the magnitude of
this problem that demands that we, as a Nation, take action, it is the
small things, the individual stories that often speak to us most clearly
at a personal level.
In my office hangs a photograph I took of three young boys on the side
of a mountain in Turkey. I found them flying a kite off the edge of a
cliff that overlooks a vast slum. They had made the toy out of scraps of
paper, patched together with tape and string, and were flying it on the
currents rushing up the face of the rock.
I recalled fearing for their safety as they played so precariously close
to the edge. But these children faced much greater risks. When my
grandchildren get sick, we can always be sure they will get the
medicines they need. For these boys, there is no such guarantee.
These boys, and the millions of children and others like them around the
world are the reason behind each of the six bills I have introduced.
Earlier this summer, I introduced a bill which can be the catalyst for
empowering U.S. generic companies to save the lives or improve the
health of millions of families in impoverished nations. Under the
“Life-Saving Medicines Export Act,” U.S. companies can make low-cost
generic versions of any medicine for export to impoverished nations that
face public health crises when those impoverished nations cannot produce
those life-saving medicines for themselves.
This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting
nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need. The
World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted
resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to
adopt laws that implement that agreement. On December 6, 2005, the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it “welcomes”
efforts to “allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to
export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health
crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.”
This bill addresses the urgent needs of millions of low-income families
in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent
owners of these life-saving medicines. As in the “Public Research in the
Public Interest Act,” introduced today, generic companies are only
permitted to use the compulsory license in the bill in developing
nations, where low-income families are simply too poor to purchase the
“brand-name” versions, and the generic versions must be clearly marked
as not for resale in developed nations. Thus, both bills pose the risk
of minimal losses for patent holders while generating new revenue for
the brand-name companies from the royalties on generic sales.
The four additional bills that complete this “Access to Medicines”
package seek to preserve incentives for U.S. generic companies to enter
and compete in the market. Increased competition leads to lower prices
and saved lives.
First, in the wake of the Supreme Court refusal to hear the drug patent
case called Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Schering-Plough, I joined
fellow Judiciary Committee members -- Senators Kohl, Grassley and
Schumer -- in introducing legislation to explicitly prohibit brand-name
drug manufacturers from using pay-off agreements to keep cheaper generic
equivalents off the market. Such payments are a distortion in the market
that harms patients. I was stunned that the U.S. Supreme Court refused
to hear a case so important to our senior citizens. The Federal Trade
Commission asked the Supreme Court to hear the arguments but the Court
refused at the request of the Justice Department. It seems there may be
no justice -- until that bill is passed -- for our seniors needing
costly patented medicines but live where the brand-name company has paid
generic companies not to compete.
Then, in July, I joined Senators Rockefeller and Schumer in introducing
legislation to ban “authorized generics” that can stifle true generic
competition. I said at the time that “the giant drug companies keep
coming up with ways to avoid real competition and consumers need to be
able to count on Congress to close each new anticompetitive loophole
they come up with.” If enacted, that bill will close this
anti-competitive loophole in the Hatch-Waxman Act and will preserve the
incentives Congress created for generic companies to enter the market to
supply American citizens and seniors with lower-cost drugs.
The fifth bill introduced was with Senator Kohl. That bill is intended
to stop frivolous Citizen Petitions designed to delay introduction of
generic drugs into the market place. Recently, large pharmaceutical
companies have exploited that petition process to keep their profits
high. In addition, I joined with Senators Schumer, Clinton and Stabenow
on the “Access to Life-Savings Medicine Act” which related to developing
a fast-track process for approving generic versions of biologic
medicines.
I believe that these six bills, together, can save millions of lives.
Recognizing the great need, there have been significant voluntary
efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and
non-profits who have already donated life-saving medicines, time,
personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases both in
America and abroad. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts.
Nonetheless, much remains to be done. My bills will both add to and
complement existing efforts, by making sure even cutting edge treatments
are available in developing countries, and by ensuring that America’s
aid dollars and the contributions of private philanthropists are used as
efficiently as they can possibly be used.
The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report to Congress
reported that “[i]n every case generics prices present an opportunity
for cost savings; in some cases, the branded price per pack of a drug is
up to 11 times the cost of the approved generic version.”
The current global public health crisis is one of the great callings of
our time. As a nation, we cannot afford to ignore this threat. Our own
health and aspects of our national security depend on it.
We have become far more aware today of how much our own health depends
on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West
Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or the encroaching menace of multi-drug
resistant bacteria, we are all at risk. We are only an airplane flight
away from wherever an outbreak may occur -- a place where the medical
innovations developed in this country to combat these devastating
diseases may not be available keep the outbreak under control.
In a post-9/11 world, our well-being is intimately connected with that
of other nations. Health is an essential building block for a strong
economy, and vital to maintain a thriving democracy. Through increasing
access to essential medicines throughout the world, the United States
can help to give developing nations a chance to flourish, while
improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world’s population.
President Franklin Roosevelt once said: "The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is
whether we provide enough for those who have little."
We are fortunate, at some times and on some issues, to be able to do
both. Now is one of those times, and this is one of those issues. I hope
my colleagues will join me in supporting my efforts this year on the
global public health crisis, including today’s addition, the “Public
Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006.”
# # # # #