The Labour party, the United Kingdom’s official opposition party, revealed during a conference that it plans to reduce the cost of drugs by setting up a government-owned generic drug manufacturer that would supply medicine to the National Health Service and by employing compulsory licensing to use drug makers’ intellectual property to develop generics.
The Labour party, the United Kingdom’s official opposition party, revealed during a conference that it plans to reduce the cost of drugs by setting up a government-owned generic drug manufacturer that would supply medicine to the National Health Service (NHS) and by employing compulsory licensing to use drug makers’ intellectual property to develop generics.
Speaking during the Labour conference, party leader Jeremy Corbyn announced the policy proposal by invoking the headline-generating case of the cystic fibrosis (CF) drug lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Orkambi), which has been the focal point of a long-running battle over price between the National Institute for Health, the UK drug pricing watchdog, and drug company Vertex. To date, England and the drug maker have not been able to reach an agreement on the price of the drug, although the Scottish government has reached a deal that will provide about 400 patients with CF access to the product.
Under the Labour proposal, said Corbyn, compulsory licenses would be used to grant a state-owned entity the right to use a drug maker’s intellectual property so that a generic version of a high-cost drug like Orkambi could be produced cheaply, and so that England could join Wales in making all prescriptions free to patients.
The party has released a paper, titled “Medicines for the Many,” that outlines its plans in more detail, and explains that the government would use Crown use licenses, provided for in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPs Agreement, which allow the government to issue licenses. (These provisions are similar to Bayh-Dole march-in rights in the United States.)
The Labour paper also explains that Bolar provisions could also be used to allow the government to run clinical trials for its products without infringing patents on innovator drugs.
The paper also states that AbbVie’s brand-name adalimumab, Humira, was developed in part by a government-funded lab in the United Kingdom, and while the government receives a royalty on adalimumab’s sales, “This case highlights that while we have been successful in generating great new science, current lab-to-market structures often fail to fully capture the economic and social benefits of those inventions, or the returns to UK government investments in medical research.”
In the case of drugs like Humira, the public should receive a share of the financial returns from successful innovations in which public funding played a major role, according to the paper. Other strategies discussed include open licensing of intellectual property rights and a requirement that drug developers provide transparency on their incurred costs.
The paper does not address whether biologics like Humira would be subject to government-sponsored biosimilar development attempts.
The pharmaceutical industry was quick to respond to the proposed plan; Richard Torbett, PhD, the executive director of commercial policy at the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said in a statement that while the Orkambi negotiations represent a “clearly unacceptable” situation, “‘compulsory licensing’—the seizure of new research—is not the answer. It would completely undermine the system for developing new medicines. It would send a hugely negative signal to British scientists and would discourage research in a country that wants to be a leader in innovation.”
Warwick Smith, director general of the British Generic Manufacturers Association and the British Biosimilars Association, in a letter addressed to Corbyn, said that his group agrees that generics are the most sustainable way to keep drug prices down, but noted that the United Kingdom’s market has allowed for some of the lowest generic drug prices in Europe. Substantial savings have also been achieved through biosimilars, he notes, and the current UK system “works extremely well.”
Smith added that “we do not understand how a state-owned generics manufacturer—operating to the same requirements as others in the marketplace—would be able to have a positive impact.”
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Dr Sophia Humphreys Provides Calls to Action to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 30th 2024During her presentation during Festival of Biologics USA, Sophia Humphreys, PharmD, director of formulary management at Sutter Health, gave an overview of current challenges and opportunities for the biosimilar market and offered calls to action for multiple stakeholders.