Tory health minister deliberately blocks law to give NHS cheap drugs when patents expire

Alistair Burt denied accusations that the parliamentary manoeuvre was 'disgraceful'

A Conservative health minister has deliberately blocked a new law to provide cheap and effective drugs for the NHS by championing medicines whose patents have expired.

Alistair Burt spoke for nearly half an hour to “filibuster” the proposed Off-Patent Drugs Bill, a plan that had cross-party support from backbenchers.

Because the proposed law is not supported by the Government it only has a limited amount of time to be debated in Parliament, or has to be shelved.

Mr Burt deliberately used up the bill’s time by speaking at length for 27 minutes, despite heckles and jeering from Labour, SNP, and Conservative benches.

The proposed law would have compelled the Government to seek new licences for medicines that were not covered by patents but which could benefit patients.

Currently, such medicines tend to go un-licensed because there is no profit incentive for pharmaceutical companies to bring forward an application for a licence.

“I will talk until half past two and I make that very clear,” Mr Burt told MPs at the beginning of his speech – indicating that he would force parliament to reject the law.

At one point the minister accused MPs who supported the bill of “shroud waving” – exploiting a death for political gain.
He later apologised after he was told by a colleague that the comment was “at the very least inappropriate” in the context of a bill that could save lives.

The law was brought forward by newly elected Labour MP Nick Thomas-Symonds, and had previously been proposed in the previous Parliament by Jonathan Evans.

Mr Thomas-Symonds wrote in the Independent in July: “Having the chance to introduce legislation this early in my political career is a real honour.

Proponents, including charities, say the bill would open up a range of treatments for diseases such as breast cancer, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s – and save the NHS millions of pounds.

But the Government said it did not support the bill because “there is another pathway”.

“I will talk until half past two and I make that very clear,” Mr Burt told MPs at the beginning of his speech – indicating that he would force parliament to reject the law.

At one point the minister accused MPs who supported the bill of “shroud waving” – exploiting a death for political gain.
He later apologised after he was told by a colleague that the comment was “at the very least inappropriate” in the context of a bill that could save lives.

The law was brought forward by newly elected Labour MP Nick Thomas-Symonds, and had previously been proposed in the previous Parliament by Jonathan Evans.

Mr Thomas-Symonds wrote in the Independent in July: “Having the chance to introduce legislation this early in my political career is a real honour.

“I wanted to bring forward a Bill that would have the greatest impact on the lives of my constituents and I believe that the Off-patent Drugs Bill will do just that.

“I also know this first-hand, having lost my grandmother to breast cancer. She inspired me to go into politics and then to become a breast cancer ambassador, and passing this Bill would be a wonderful tribute to her.”

But the Minister said, to heckles: “The government doesn't support the Bill, still doesn't support the Bill. And I will defend that position.

“No sensible government would seek to resist people's access to drugs in any way and the reason for resisting is the government believes there is another pathway.

“It is not always the case that something brought forward by a charity and advocated passionately by colleagues is always the answer. It's not disgraceful - it's the right answer.”

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of the MS Society, said: “The Government needs to stop dragging its heels on this crucial issue and start taking action – it has missed two opportunities to pave the way for cheap, promising drugs that could make such a difference to the lives of so many people with MS.

“But the Government has pledged to work with organisations such as the MS Society to find a solution. We will continue to campaign to ensure that it lives up to that promise.”

The incident follows outrage over Conservative MP Philip Davies filibustering a bill to scrap hospital car parking charges for carers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-health-minister-blocks-law-to-give-the-nhs-cheap-drugs-whose-patents-have-expired-a6724526.html

Just when you think the conservatives can't get any more disgusting, they show you that they can.

Typical and coming on the back of the Tory that spoke for ages to block carers getting parking facilities just shows how low these people will stoop.

I've had people on the phone to me absolutely incenced.  Dirty trick that is going to cost the NHS a fortune, but will line the pockets of his 'mates'.

Oddly, the patent office is the last and final frontier for unabashed, capitalist monopolistic practices. It happens mostly in the pharma business because with the neo-religious awe that the public has for the medical establishment, only they can get away with such outrageous bullshit.

Original Quill wrote:Oddly, the patent office is the last and final frontier for unabashed, capitalist monopolistic practices.  It happens mostly in the pharma business because with the neo-religious awe that the public has for the medical establishment, only they can get away with such outrageous bullshit.

What would you suggest as an alternative then? That a pharma company develops a drug for 10-15 years and spends billions of dollars, and then anyone can come along and just copy the drug and flog it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Oddly, the patent office is the last and final frontier for unabashed, capitalist monopolistic practices.  It happens mostly in the pharma business because with the neo-religious awe that the public has for the medical establishment, only they can get away with such outrageous bullshit.

What would you suggest as an alternative then? That a pharma company develops a drug for 10-15 years and spends billions of dollars, and then anyone can come along and just copy the drug and flog it?

Excellent question…and one that affords me the opportunity to explain more fully.

Pharma companies develop very little, on their own.  Nearly all discoveries and innovations in pharmacology come from universities and government labs.  The development support is born by those institutions, generally in promotion of public education and public health.

Although pharma companies pile high and deep the bullshit that they spend $-gzallions on research and development, in actual fact their efforts amount of a few men in little offices, who work in the Department of Clinical Development.  Usually they are physicians and lawyers, who track research projects going on in the economy, and draw up contracts.

Parma companies are capitalist machines.  They hear of some professor, who has developed some new medicine, and they approach him and offer a joint partnership deal.  It provides that the pharma company will receive the rights to the patent, in return for which the professor receives a lifetime annuity equal to a proportion of the profits.  

Because of the religious-like homage we pay toward scientific research, we the public do not grouse when the pharm company jacks up the price to tens-of-thousands of times the actual costs.  It would be like questioning God, and they know it.  Go look up Understanding Generic Drugs, a publication of the United States Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/. Pharma companies are using the umbrella of good will created by the importance of life-saving medicines, to gouge astronomical profits from the public.

In the final analysis, the university has borne the cost of the R&D, and while the individual researcher has been rewarded handsomely, the overwhelming bulk of the profits go into the coffers of the capitalistic machine.

As I said, the Patent Office is the last bastion of monopolistic practices.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What would you suggest as an alternative then? That a pharma company develops a drug for 10-15 years and spends billions of dollars, and then anyone can come along and just copy the drug and flog it?

Excellent question…and one that affords me the opportunity to explain more fully.

Pharma companies develop very little, on their own.  Nearly all discoveries and innovations in pharmacology come from universities and government labs.  The development support is born by those institutions, generally in promotion of public education and public health.

Although pharma companies pile high and deep the bullshit that they spend $-gzallions on research and development, in actual fact their efforts amount of a few men in little offices, who work in the Department of Clinical Development.  Usually they are physicians and lawyers, who track research projects going on in the economy, and draw up contracts.

Parma companies are capitalist machines.  They hear of some professor, who has developed some new medicine, and they approach him and offer a joint partnership deal.  It provides that the pharma company will receive the rights to the patent, in return for which the professor receives a lifetime annuity equal to a proportion of the profits.  

Because of the religious-like homage we pay toward scientific research, we the public do not grouse when the pharm company jacks up the price to tens-of-thousands of times the actual costs.  It would be like questioning God, and they know it.  Go look up Understanding Generic Drugs, a publication of the United States Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/.  Pharma companies are using the umbrella of good will created by the importance of life-saving medicines, to gouge astronomical profits from the public.

In the final analysis, the university has borne the cost of the R&D, and while the individual researcher has been rewarded handsomely, the overwhelming bulk of the profits go into the coffers of the capitalistic machine.

As I said, the Patent Office is the last bastion of monopolistic practices.

Pharma companies do develop their own drugs - that's why they take out patents to protect them. Even if someone else discovers a compound, it takes years and years of tests and trials to bring a drug to the market, and it costs a load of money. They have to be very sure that a drug works, and that it's safe, and they don't do that overnight. Then there's the money they spend testing a drug only to discover that it's not good enough or not safe enough.

Quite right rags, you beat me to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Excellent question…and one that affords me the opportunity to explain more fully.

Pharma companies develop very little, on their own.  Nearly all discoveries and innovations in pharmacology come from universities and government labs.  The development support is born by those institutions, generally in promotion of public education and public health.

Although pharma companies pile high and deep the bullshit that they spend $-gzallions on research and development, in actual fact their efforts amount of a few men in little offices, who work in the Department of Clinical Development.  Usually they are physicians and lawyers, who track research projects going on in the economy, and draw up contracts.

Parma companies are capitalist machines.  They hear of some professor, who has developed some new medicine, and they approach him and offer a joint partnership deal.  It provides that the pharma company will receive the rights to the patent, in return for which the professor receives a lifetime annuity equal to a proportion of the profits.  

Because of the religious-like homage we pay toward scientific research, we the public do not grouse when the pharm company jacks up the price to tens-of-thousands of times the actual costs.  It would be like questioning God, and they know it.  Go look up Understanding Generic Drugs, a publication of the United States Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/.  Pharma companies are using the umbrella of good will created by the importance of life-saving medicines, to gouge astronomical profits from the public.

In the final analysis, the university has borne the cost of the R&D, and while the individual researcher has been rewarded handsomely, the overwhelming bulk of the profits go into the coffers of the capitalistic machine.

As I said, the Patent Office is the last bastion of monopolistic practices.

Pharma companies do develop their own drugs - that's why they take out patents to protect them. Even if someone else discovers a compound, it takes years and years of tests and trials to bring a drug to the market, and it costs a load of money. They have to be very sure that a drug works, and that it's safe, and they don't do that overnight. Then there's the money they spend testing a drug only to discover that it's not good enough or not safe enough.

You are a part of the naive public that gets ripped off every day.  The patents are taken out directly by the pharmas only when they get to the actual researcher soon enough.  The tests and trials are performed by the university and government labs--why not, they did the development and are the best qualified to do them..  Even the FDA process is undertaken by the research labs.

Believe me, one of my good friends was the Director of Clinical Research for one of the major pharmas.  We often took trips together when I was in school and I got to see first-hand what they do.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Pharma companies do develop their own drugs - that's why they take out patents to protect them. Even if someone else discovers a compound, it takes years and years of tests and trials to bring a drug to the market, and it costs a load of money. They have to be very sure that a drug works, and that it's safe, and they don't do that overnight. Then there's the money they spend testing a drug only to discover that it's not good enough or not safe enough.

You are a part of the naive public that gets ripped off every day.  The patents are taken out directly by the pharmas only when they get to the actual researcher soon enough.  The tests and trials are performed by the university and government labs.  Even the FDA process is undertaken by the research labs.

Believe me, one of my good friends was the Director of Clinical Research for one of the major pharmas.  We often took trips together when I was in school and I got to see first-hand what they do.

Which pharma company?

I think I know a bit more than you do actually. Try doing some more research.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are a part of the naive public that gets ripped off every day.  The patents are taken out directly by the pharmas only when they get to the actual researcher soon enough.  The tests and trials are performed by the university and government labs.  Even the FDA process is undertaken by the research labs.

Believe me, one of my good friends was the Director of Clinical Research for one of the major pharmas.  We often took trips together when I was in school and I got to see first-hand what they do.

Which pharma company?

I think I know a bit more than you do actually. Try doing some more research.

I think it's normally inappropriate to specify, for recognition purposes.  But a lot has happened since then, so all that has dissipated.  

It was then known as Smith Kline and French Laboratories, based in Philadelphia.  Today it is known as SmithKline Beecham, I'm sure with totally new ownership.

I have know idea what you know.  This is not a competition.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Which pharma company?

I think I know a bit more than you do actually. Try doing some more research.

I think it's normally inappropriate to specify, for recognition purposes.  But a lot has happened since then, so all that has dissipated.  

It was then known as Smith Kline and French Laboratories, based in Philadelphia.  Today it is known as SmithKline Beecham, I'm sure with totally new ownership.

I have know idea what you know.  This is not a competition.

Well you made it into a competition by saying I was "naive". Do not presume that you know more than I do about anything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it's normally inappropriate to specify, for recognition purposes.  But a lot has happened since then, so all that has dissipated.  

It was then known as Smith Kline and French Laboratories, based in Philadelphia.  Today it is known as SmithKline Beecham, I'm sure with totally new ownership.

I have know idea what you know.  This is not a competition.

Well you made it into a competition by saying I was "naive". Do not presume that you know more than I do about anything.

You can explain why you are not among the naive without turning this discussion into a competition.  If you have some special expertise, by all means we welcome that into the exchange.  But my thesis is that the general public is naive, and the pharma companies actually depend upon that naiveté to victimize the public.

Perhaps we could get back to what the minister actually DID.  The fact that the companies have patents is NOT the point.  The patents had run out,, and the drugs are now cheaper, but the Health Minister blocked a bill that would mean those drugs that are cheaper because there patent had run out, are used, instead of drugs that are more expensive and still under patents, which are bringing in money for his mates.  That will cost the Health Service millions, millions that could be used on other treatments.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you made it into a competition by saying I was "naive". Do not presume that you know more than I do about anything.

You can explain why you are not among the naive without turning this discussion into a competition.  If you have some special expertise, by all means we welcome that into the exchange.  But my thesis is that the general public is naive, and the pharma companies actually depend upon that naiveté to victimize the public.

Well then don't sit there saying I'm part of the naive public because I'm not naive. You assume that you know everything, and that others know nothing - it's really bad form on your part.

sassy wrote:Perhaps we could get back to what the minister actually DID.  The fact that the companies have patents is NOT the point.  The patents had run out,, and the drugs are now cheaper, but the Health Minister blocked a bill that would mean those drugs that are cheaper because there patent had run out, are used, instead of drugs that are more expensive and still under patents, which are bringing in money for his mates.  That will cost the Health Service millions, millions that could be used on other treatments.

How is that not in furtherance of precisely what Raggs and i were discussing?

sassy wrote:Perhaps we could get back to what the minister actually DID.  The fact that the companies have patents is NOT the point.  The patents had run out,, and the drugs are now cheaper, but the Health Minister blocked a bill that would mean those drugs that are cheaper because there patent had run out, are used, instead of drugs that are more expensive and still under patents, which are bringing in money for his mates.  That will cost the Health Service millions, millions that could be used on other treatments.

Other pharma companies are free to produce generic versions of those drugs where the patent has run out.

I don't like this business where people can talk and talk so that time runs out on a bill though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Perhaps we could get back to what the minister actually DID.  The fact that the companies have patents is NOT the point.  The patents had run out,, and the drugs are now cheaper, but the Health Minister blocked a bill that would mean those drugs that are cheaper because there patent had run out, are used, instead of drugs that are more expensive and still under patents, which are bringing in money for his mates.  That will cost the Health Service millions, millions that could be used on other treatments.

Other pharma companies are free to produce generic versions of those drugs where the patent has run out.

I don't like this business where people can talk and talk so that time runs out on a bill though.

The point is because the patent has run out they are cheap.  The bill was to make sure they are used instead of more expensive ones and save the NHS millions.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Other pharma companies are free to produce generic versions of those drugs where the patent has run out.

I don't like this business where people can talk and talk so that time runs out on a bill though.

The point is because the patent has run out they are cheap.  The bill was to make sure they are used instead of more expensive ones and save the NHS millions.

They're cheaper when they're generic anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

The point is because the patent has run out they are cheap.  The bill was to make sure they are used instead of more expensive ones and save the NHS millions.

They're cheaper when they're generic anyway.

I know Rags, but because of him, they are not going to be used.  The next time they say that a child can't have a particular drug that can help them because it's too expensive, he'll be the reason.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're cheaper when they're generic anyway.

I know Rags, but because of him, they are not going to be used.  The next time they say that a child can't have a particular drug that can help them because it's too expensive, he'll be the reason.

Not if another pharma company has produced a generic version. This was a bill to compel the Government to take out licenses for off-patent drugs for new indications isn't it? It's also therefore about off-label use. I presume the Government could do that anyway, or sponsor pharma companies to do so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I know Rags, but because of him, they are not going to be used.  The next time they say that a child can't have a particular drug that can help them because it's too expensive, he'll be the reason.

Not if another pharma company has produced a generic version. This was a bill to compel the Government to take out licenses for off-patent drugs for new indications isn't it? It's also therefore about off-label use. I presume the Government could do that anyway, or sponsor pharma companies to do so.

 
Nope they can't now, why do you think there is all the fuss.   The NHS will have to use drugs that are under patent.  The NHS has a list of drugs they are allowed to use, if it's not on the list, they can't use it.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not if another pharma company has produced a generic version. This was a bill to compel the Government to take out licenses for off-patent drugs for new indications isn't it? It's also therefore about off-label use. I presume the Government could do that anyway, or sponsor pharma companies to do so.

 
Nope they can't now, why do you think there is all the fuss.   The NHS will have to use drugs that are under patent.  The NHS has a list of drugs they are allowed to use, if it's not on the list, they can't use it.

What is stopping the Government from licensing a drug themselves, or from sponsoring a pharma company to do so?

To my mind, this is really about off-label use of drugs, whether off patent or not. Perhaps that issue should be addressed instead?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:
 
Nope they can't now, why do you think there is all the fuss.   The NHS will have to use drugs that are under patent.  The NHS has a list of drugs they are allowed to use, if it's not on the list, they can't use it.

What is stopping the Government from licensing a drug themselves, or from sponsoring a pharma company to do so?

That is exactly what the bill was asking them to do.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What is stopping the Government from licensing a drug themselves, or from sponsoring a pharma company to do so?

That is exactly what the bill was asking them to do.

It was asking for them to be compelled to do so. Could they not do it voluntarily?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

That is exactly what the bill was asking them to do.

It was asking for them to be compelled to do so. Could they not do it voluntarily?

You think they would do anything voluntarily that would help the NHS.  They want it to fail so they can say 'I told you so' and sell it off, and they have already shown.

Anyway, if an off-patent drug was to be used for a new indication, the Government would be liable for any mishaps because of off-label use. Is that the basis of the objection?

Lot of questions answered here http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/2015/11/off-patent-drugs-bill-debate.html

sassy wrote:Lot of questions answered here http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/2015/11/off-patent-drugs-bill-debate.html

Cheers! That's a lot of reading so I might be some time.