Search results

Using the pharmaceutical sector as a microcosm of the health sector, we highlight the most prevalent structural and policy issues that make this sector susceptible to corruption and ways in which these vulnerabilities can be addressed. We conducted a literature review of publications from 2004 to 2015 that included books, peer-reviewed literature, as well as gray literature such as working papers, reports published by international organizations and donor agencies, and newspaper articles discussing this topic. We found that vulnerabilities to corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occur due to a lack of good governance, accountability, transparency, and proper oversight in each of the decision points of the pharmaceutical supply chain. What works best to limit corruption is context specific and linked to the complexity of the sector. At a global level, tackling corruption involves hard and soft international laws and the creation of international standards and guidelines for national governments and the pharmaceutical industry. At a national level, including civil society in decision-making and monitoring is also often cited as a positive mechanism against corruption. Anticorruption measures tend to be specific to the particular “site” of the pharmaceutical system and include improving institutional checks and balances like stronger and better implemented regulations and better oversight and protection for “whistle blowers,” financial incentives to refrain from engaging in corrupt behavior, and increasing the use of technology in processes to minimize human discretion. This chapter was adapted from a discussion piece published by Transparency International UK entitled Corruption in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Diagnosing the Challenges.

Intentions of managers of pharmaceutical multinational enterprises (MNEs) to adopt business strategies, which will aid global health and wellbeing, are in some ways linked with their understanding of the returns that their company will receive from these investments. However, the MNE’s managers are unaware of business strategies that will allow them to link their business activities with the corporate objectives of contributing to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Pharmaceutical companies are moving toward monopolistic practices by acquiring local companies for manufacturing purposes or by engaging local companies in contract manufacturing and directing the focus of these companies away from innovation and toward profit making. At the same time, pharmaceutical MNEs are promoting global health and wellbeing as their SDGs. This study uses knowledge from existing sources and expert insights to explain the returns that MNEs can get from their investments related to global health and wellbeing. One of the important recommendations from the ethical point of view is engaging local firms in the innovation process; from the marketing perspective, this study recommends the use of a corporate brand and not a product brand for offering generic medicines. The operations perspective explains how MNEs can incorporate the social agenda into their mainstream business strategies. Limitations of the study are discussed, and avenues for future research are explained.

There is sufficient evidence to prove that the improved health status of a nation’s citizens results in economic growth and development via improved functionality and productivity of labor. It is also commonly accepted that healthcare expenditure significantly influences health status through, for instance, improving life expectancy at birth and reducing morbidity, death, and infant mortality rates. Within healthcare, medicines account for a considerable share of health-related expenditure in both developed and developing countries. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that improved access to medicines is likely to contribute not only to the well-being of families and individuals but also to the economic growth and development in all societies. It has been widely advocated that pharmaceutical multinational enterprises (MNEs) can play an important role to address this problem, as they develop and supply a significant proportion of the drugs imported by low- and middle-income countries. This chapter is dedicated to a systematic review of literature in order to identify the strategies implemented by pharmaceutical MNEs to improve access to medicines in the low- and middle-income countries. A total of 76 research articles have been identified, and we have found that the main strategies of pharmaceutical MNEs are related to improving health outcomes through R&D, establishing partnerships for product development, pricing strategies to improve access to medicines, technology transfer, licensing agreements, and nonmarket efforts to improve access to medicines, among other strategies to overcome barriers imposed by intellectual property rights. We have also found that pharmaceutical MNEs’ strategies take place within a complex system and often involve interactions with a wide range of actors, such as international organizations, governments, private not-for-profit sector, universities and research institutes, and generic manufacturers. However, there is still a need for major progress in the field of access to medicines, and pharmaceutical MNEs should be more active in this field in order to avoid potential negative consequences, such as loss of legitimacy and compulsory licensing of their patented medicines.

The World Health Organization estimated that in 1999 roughly one-third of the world's population lacked access to essential medicines that would have saved or improved their lives. Our analysis focuses on how pharmaceutical product patents restrict access to essential medicines in developing countries. It is well established that pharmaceutical product patents provide little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop new medicines designed to treat diseases prevalent in developing countries or to market in developing countries those patented medicines developed to treat diseases prevalent in developed countries. Economists have developed theoretical models showing that these incentives could be changed if (1) developing countries provided intellectual property protection for new pharmaceutical innovations and (2) an international regulatory framework were established to facilitate pharmaceutical companies setting lower prices in developing countries and higher prices in developed countries for patented medicines. We develop an index of property rights in pharmaceutical innovations covering 129 countries from 1960 to 2005. It shows that in 1960 only a handful of countries provided significant protection for pharmaceutical innovations, but by 2005 over 95 percent of countries in our sample provided significant statutory protections. However, an international framework to allow pharmaceutical companies to price discriminate has not been put in place. We conclude that international price discrimination mechanisms, compulsory patent licenses, and regional patent buyouts are not viable mechanisms for providing access to essential medicines to patients in developing countries. Global patent buyouts are more likely to achieve this goal, as they are not founded on an impractical separation of pharmaceutical markets in developing and developed countries and they provide critical incentives to develop new essential medicines.

Through an analysis of the HIV-Tainted-Blood Affair in Japan, this paper explores why pharmaceutical companies act in a socially irresponsible manner. The paper suggests encouraging members of these corporations to become more conscious of their responsibility to society by developing themselves as professionals. The analysis shows that drug disasters are not caused only by a particular “special villain,” but by the structural conflict between medical professional ethics and the profit making motivation of pharmaceutical companies. In other words, the behaviors of pharmaceutical companies fall into the interstices of professional ethics.

Public health policy often excludes access to essential medicines. Drawing on an in-depth case study examining access to essential medicines in the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa, and more briefly, making reference to the U.S. diabetes epidemic, we highlight the relationship between the need for essential medicines in world populations, and the role of groups external to government in promoting access to essential medicines in public health policy. We consider how, in the context of health stratification, the activities of patient advocacy groups, and “third way” social policies of the pharmaceutical industry generate “social capital,” creating enhanced access to essential medicines for a few, and promoting the ideal of the right to access for all. The implications for the development of public health policy inclusive of essential medicines are discussed.

Understanding of the factors that contribute to policies diverging from neoliberal norms and accounting for situations when social movement activists prevail over the interests of more powerful opponents requires an analytical framework specifying the dimensions of interest. The case of Brazil’s pharmaceutical policies, especially those dealing with HIV/AIDS, is considered.

To understand the space and limits for progressive agency amidst contemporary globalization, previous articulations of dependent development and global capitalism require conceptual space with insights from social movement theory and normative framing.

Control over technology, political alliances, and normative appeals have changed since the concept of dependent development to today’s contemporary neoliberal globalization for understanding cases of progressive agency. Technology is based more on intangible knowledge, activism across the state-society boundary is more likely, and human rights has become the dominant idiom for naming and shaming more powerful opponents.

The analytic framework developed informs our understanding of pharmaceutical autonomy – the ability of a country to provide for the prescription drug needs of its population – in the case of Brazil. Further research of other situations requires the application of the framework to determine its merits.

A focus on technology, alliances, and norms provides a useful starting point for exploring situations of development autonomy that prevails over the interests of corporate power.

The biomedical paradigm enjoys growing importance in our society. Biomedicine (e.g., Genetics) seems to occupy the position once held by religion and politics. In this context, every trivial problem of daily life is thought to require an appropriate remedy, and perfect health becomes a paramount value, especially within the upper class.

Medicalization is not only promoted by doctors. Today, other engines of medicalization are also available. These include pharmaceutical companies through marketing, advertising, and disease mongering; active consumers who seek a pharmacological solution – a magic bullet – to solve non-organic problems; technology, because highly sensitive diagnostic tools can now detect potential abnormalities even in very low quantities; and the culture of risk, which is connected to the evolution of diagnostic tools, because it is now always possible to be at risk of something.

The parts of life today considered pathological or quasi-pathological are ever increasing shyness, sadness, imperfect blood pressure, or glucose levels. Progressing editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) – the text from which diagnoses of mental illnesses are made – reveal a growing number of syndromes. These “diseases” are diagnosed on the grounds of certain symptoms and the number of weeks they last (quantification). Smartphones, with their tremendous capacity for data collection, contribute to a growth in self-diagnoses. For example, invited to log our every moment of sadness through a “trustworthy” avatar from our app (gamification), we can easily make too much of normal moments of discomfort, immediately seeing them – with a simple computation – transformed into something pathological in need of a cure.

From the very beginning of medical practice, physicians have enjoyed a degree of autonomy which exceeds that of almost any other profession. Although regulated by state medical boards, and limited by the threat of litigation, physicians are generally held in high esteem by society and allowed to practice medicine as they see fit. Physicians have usually been allowed to prescribe any drug for any disease, including the so-called “off-label” uses for which Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been obtained. They can also use new or untested medical devices and surgical procedures, as long as they obtain informed consent from the patient. Society has trusted doctors to do the right thing for their patients, and thus tried not to interfere with the sacred doctor–patient relationship.