[:pt]Leituras recomendadas[:]

[:pt]Leituras recomendadas de 30/04 a 15/05:

“Every day, Médecins Sans Frontières staff confront significant gaps in the availability of medical tools to address the health needs of the people we aim to care for, in crisis-affected communities in more than 60 countries. These gaps – which have persisted for as long as MSF has been in operation – contribute to preventable deaths and exacerbate ongoing humanitarian and medical crises”.

“[S]ecuring access to effective antimicrobials has finally gained a place on the global political agenda, and we call on policy makers to develop, endorse, and finance new global institutional arrangements that can ensure robust implementation and bold collective action”.
“We propose that if antibiotic vouchers are to be considered, the design should include dollar and time caps to limit their volatility, sufficient advance notice to protect generic manufacturers, and market-based linkages between the value of the voucher and the value of the antibiotic innovation. We also explore a second option: The federal government could auction vouchers to the highest bidders and use the money to create an antibiotics innovation fund”.
“[W]e propose a payment model using a graded array of benchmarked rewards designed to encourage the development of antibiotics with the greatest societal value, together with appropriate worldwide access to antibiotics to maximise human health”.
“In this article, we use the dispute in U.S. antitrust law between the U.S. antitrust authorities and various U.S. courts about how to deal with patent settlements with reverse payments as a starting point for an economic analysis of this problem. We particularly focus on two aspects: (1) Patent settlements have also to be seen as potentially endangering the already weak mechanisms within patent law for challenging and weeding out weak patents. (2) The incentives for originator and generic firms for negotiating patent settlements depend crucially on the entire institutional framework in pharmaceutical markets”.
“An appropriability defense should be questioned, and often rejected, if the dominant firm would be expected to increase its own R&D effort in response to increased R&D by its rivals after liability on a dominant firm is imposed. An analytical framework for determining whether a dominant firm would behave this way is provided, based on evaluating the firm’s likely incremental gain from new product development if its rivals also introduce new products relative to its gain if its rivals do not upgrade their products, and potentially observable factors relevant to making this assessment are identified”.
“We conducted a prospective health impact analysis to identify and assess a selected array of potential health risks of the TPP. We adapted the standard protocol for Health impact assessments (HIAs) (screening, scoping, and appraisal) to our aim of assessing potential health risks of trade and investment policy, and selected a health impact review methodology (...) Our analysis shows that there are a number of potentially serious health risks associated with the TPP, and details a range of policy implications for the health sector”.
“We propose that the federal government invoke its power under an existing “government patent use” law to reduce excessive prices for important patent-protected medicines. Using this law would permit the government to procure generic versions of patented drugs and in exchange pay the patent-holding companies reasonable royalties to compensate them for research and development”.
“Pharmaceutical companies argue that price regulation abroad forces pharmaceutical companies to charge more for patented medications in the United States to fund research and development of new and improved medicines. However, R&D expenditures hover around 20% of sales, less than pharmaceutical companies typically allocate toward marketing. And cuts in pharmaceutical R&D spending are regularly reported. Pharmaceutical companies refuse to substantiate their arguments by providing information about the cost of developing new medicines. These circumstances undermine the credibility of such arguments. At the same time, enough profit is required to incentivize investment in pharmaceutical innovation”.
“[T]he aim of this article is to instigate that the issue of legalization of Health in the Brazilian case is complex, not being enough the occasional interventions in the Judiciary, but a set/group of actions to measure the real dilemmas/quandaries and argue/fight/work towards effective actions to solve it through the balanced performance of all actors, governmental and social involved”.

[:]

Print Friendly
  1. Boletim de notícias, 30/04 a 15/05 | left a comment on 16/05/2016 at 19:44

    […] Leituras recomendadas […]

Qual a sua opinião sobre isso?

Receba as novidades da UAEM Brasil!Entrar na lista de e-mails
+ +
%d blogueiros gostam disto: