Patent protection for prescription drugs has a long and contentious history in Canada. Bills C-22 and C-91, passed as part of Canada's commitment to various trade deals, first weakened and then abolished compulsory licensing. In order to decide on a future course of action that Canada should take on intellectual property rights (IPRs), it is useful to review downstream effects that resulted from C-22 and C-91. This article examines changes to employment, Canada's balance of trade in pharmaceuticals, investment in research and development, and drug expenditures. The author then reviews the arguments advanced by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of stronger protection for IPRs, the recent complaints made against Canada at the World Trade Organization regarding pharmaceutical IPRs, and the continuing argument about the “evergreening” of patents. Also discussed are the second-draft text agreement of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which will, if implemented, have significant repercussions for pharmaceutical IPRs in Canada, and some ways in which patents distort the marketplace for drugs. The article concludes with some alternative recommendations on the future of IPRs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
House of Commons, Standing Committee on Industry. Review of Section 14 of the Patent Act Amendment 1992 (Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada, 1993). Ottawa, April 1997.
2.
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada—Final Report. Ottawa, 2003.
DuncanR.BlakerD.Trends in the Pharmaceutical Industry in Canada in the Post 1987 Environment. Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, Ottawa, no date.
8.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. 1996–1997 Annual Review: A Decade of Achievement. Ottawa, no date.
9.
Statistics Canada. Industrial Research and Development Statistics. Catalogue No. 88-202. Ottawa, 2002.
10.
JewessonP.HerarS.Activities of pharmaceutical industry representatives at a major teaching hospital. Can. J. Hosp. Pharm.49: 256–260, 1996.
11.
JacobzoneS.Pharmaceutical Policies in OECD Countries: Reconciling Social and Industrial Goals. Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers No. 40. OECD, Paris, 2000. www.olis.oecd.org/OLIS/2000DOC.NSF/LINKTO/DEELSA-ELSA-WD (2000)1.
12.
Industry Canada. Sector Competitiveness Frameworks. Pharmaceutical Industry: Part 1—Overview and Prospect. Ottawa, 1997.
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Annual Report 2002. Ottawa, 2003.
15.
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Research and Development Spending. PMPRB Study Series S-0217. Ottawa, December 2002.
16.
ShieldGreen. Report on Prescription Prices. Toronto, 2002.
17.
LexchinJ.The effect of generic competition on the price of prescription drugs in the Province of Ontario. CMAJ148: 35–38, 1993.
18.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975–2001, Report: Executive Summary. Ottawa, 2001.
19.
Statistics Canada. Financial Performance Indicators for Canadian Business. Catalogue No. 61F0058XPE. Ottawa, 1996.
20.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks and Rewards. OTA-H-522. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., February 1993.
21.
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Annual Report 2000. Ottawa, 2001.
22.
Drugs in 2001: A number of ruses unveiled. Prescrire International11: 58–60, 2002.
23.
DiMasiJ. A.HansenR. W.GrabowskiH. G.The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22: 151–185, 2003.
24.
FrankR. G.New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22: 325–330, 2003.
25.
Public Citizen Congress Watch. Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry's R&D “Scare Card.”Washington, D.C., July 2001.
26.
Ernst & Young LLP. Pharmaceutical Industry R&D Costs: Key Findings about the Public Citizen Report. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washington, D.C., August 8, 2001.
27.
Rx&D. S-17: A Necessary First Step to Bring Canada's Patent Act to Internationally Competitive Standards: A Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Ottawa, May 29, 2001.
28.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. 1988–1993: A Five-Year Report on the Canadian Brand-Name Pharmaceutical Industry. Ottawa, 1993.
HuntM. I.Prescription Drugs and Intellectual Property Protection: Finding the Right Balance between Access and Innovation. National Institute for Health Care Management, Washington, D.C., August 2000.
31.
MacKinnonM.WTO rejects patent law appeal. Globe and Mail (Toronto), September 19, 2000.
32.
ScoffieldH.WTO upholds drug patent rule. Globe and Mail (Toronto), March 18, 2000.
33.
Battle to repeal automatic injunctions against generic drug approvals moves to the fall. CDMA Viewpoint, Summer 2001, pp. 1, 6.
34.
AndersonM.ParentK.Timely Access to Generic Drugs: Issues for Health Policy in Canada. Queen's University, Kingston, 2001.
McGregorG.U.S. plan leaves Canada behind on drugs; Bush will eliminate rules that help drug giants keep prices high. Ottawa Citizen, October 22, 2002.
39.
FTAA—Free Trade Area of the Americas. Draft Agreement: Chapter on Intellectual Property Rights. TNC/w133/Rev.2. November 1, 2002.
40.
World Trade Organization. Canada—Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products. Complaint by the European Communities and Their Member States. Report of the Panel. WT/DS114/R. Geneva, March 17, 2000.
41.
Correa, C. Protection of Data Submitted for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals: Implementing the Standards of the TRIPS Agreement. South Centre, Geneva, 2002.
42.
World Trade Organization, Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2. Geneva, November 14, 2001.
43.
BakerD.ChataniN.Promoting Good Ideas on Drugs: Are Patents the Best Way? The Relative Efficiency of Patent and Public Support for Bio-medical Research. Briefing paper. Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, D.C., October 2002.
BlumenthalD.Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA277: 1224–1228, 1997.
47.
HemminkiE.HaileyD.KoivusaloM.The courts—A challenge to health technology assessment. Science285: 203–204, 1999.
48.
Public Citizen Congress Watch. The Other Drug War II: Drug Companies Use an Army of 623 Lobbyists to Keep Profits Up. Public Citizen, Washington, D.C., June 2002.
49.
ClarkC.McCarthyS.Drug-company donations to Manley spark controversy. Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 14, 2003.
AngellM.The pharmaceutical industry—To whom is it accountable?N. Engl. J. Med.342: 1902–1904, 2000.
52.
U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging, Staff Report. The Drug Manufacturing Industry: A Prescription for Profits. Serial No. 102-F. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991.
