innovation plus access
This morning the 62nd session World Health Assembly agreed to a resolution on public health, innovation and intellectual property that, among other things, settled outstanding issues regarding the “stakeholders” for various parts of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action. (GS/PoA). With regard to the issue of a possible medical R&D treaty, the outcome of the negotiation was something of a split decision. On the one hand, the WHA agreed that the WHO would not be a stakeholder, in terms of the specific element of the WHO Global Strategy document.
This is the statement that the government of Bolivia delivered today to the 62nd World Health Assembly at the conclusion of the discussions on the Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (WHA 61.21).
Statement of Bolivia on resolving outstanding elements of agenda item 12.8
Joint Statement on behalf of
Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia and Suriname, and
Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela
21 May 2009
Today at the World Health Assembly (WHA) the US and EU are opposing that the WHO have a mandate on global research and development norms, including the possibility for Member States to negotiate at WHO a global biomedical R&D treaty.
Developing countries governments made very strong interventions this morning on this issue (among them India, Bolivia, Barbados, Suriname, Bangladesh, Ghana, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba and Jamaica) and are wondering where are the promises of multilateralism made by the new Obama administration.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Delegates at the World Health Assembly will have to grapple with how best to deploy their delegations to simultaneously cover pandemic influenza and resolving the outstanding elements of the WHO IGWG Plan of Action.
Today’s WHO Journal lists the following morning schedule for Committee A.
Item 11 (continued) Medium-strategic plan, including Proposed Programme budget 2010-2011
To consider appropriation resolution for financial period 2010-2011
Item 12 (continued) Technical and health matters
WHA: Draft resolution to finish Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual PropertySubmitted by Judit Rius on 20. May 2009 - 3:19
This morning a draft Resolution proposed by the Delegations of Canada, Chile, Iran (Islamic Republic), Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Norway and Switzerland was distributed to the 62nd WHA as document A62/A/Conf.Paper No.4
If approved in its current form, the resolution will conclude the Plan of Action with the stakeholders, time frames and progress indicators proposed by the documents distributed by the WHO PHI secretariat this week.
May 18, 2009
Open Letter to WHO Member States on outstanding components of Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
Dear WHO Member States,
During the 2008 World Heath Assembly WHO Member States reached unanimous consensus on resolution WHA 61.21 that adopted a Global Strategy and unfinished Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual property.
WHO releases document detailing stakeholder implementation of Global Strategy: Public health, innovation and IPSubmitted by thiru on 18. May 2009 - 2:47
On Monday, 18 May 2009, WHO released document A62/16 Add.3 entitled “Open paragraphs on stakeholders“.
The link for this document is: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A62/A62_16Add3-en.pdf
The cover sheet of this document states:
The contributions from WHO Member States and other Stakeholders to the Expert Working Group on R&D financing are now available on the WHO website.
The following extract is taken from the WHO public hearing website:
Prizes and Grants, Type I, II and III diseases, rich and poor countries, open and closed medicine developmentSubmitted by James Love on 10. May 2009 - 4:42
In efforts to introduce the topic of innovation inducement prizes into the discussions about drug development, there are inevitably questions about the relationship between grants and prizes.
In some cases, prizes are being offered as a reform of “pull” mechanisms, and can usefully be compared to the grant of a marketing monopoly, which is the primary pull mechanism used today. In this context, a question is, should drug or vaccine developers be rewarded with monopolies or cash? And if cash, where does the money come from, and how much money is given to a particular project?