Case Memo: Merck Global Health and Access to Medicines
Case Memo: Merck Global Health and Access to Medicines
The topic, human rights responsibilities of the drug companies, which is always controversial, however, is almost sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. 1
The ‘‘Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines’’ include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing.
When today we ask the pharmaceutical giants about the question: how drug companies could live up to the human rights responsibilities, I think the Merck case gave out a vivid example of how and what to do from this case. However, there are three recommendations on the current model Merck adopt to accelerate the access: lessening initiatives in pricing, constantly valuating the projects, and innovatively reversely innovating.
First, I think Merck should take a more cooperative method with various organizations when make the differentiated pricing strategy. As illustrated in the case, Merck was one of the first in the industry to have a formal policy of differential pricing for its antiretroviral medicines and newest vaccines. However, Merck took “some time” to develop such differentiated pricing strategy through tiering countries. My idea is that Merck should establish dedicated teams to each project and let the team propose the pricing strategy. The team could composed of different parties: Merck, NGOs (WHO, UN), local organizations, Funds and project consultants. The team will propose the pricing strategy and valuation (mentioned in the second point) based upon different projects while Merck (the business unit of the medicine or vaccine)
The topic, human rights responsibilities of the drug companies, which is always controversial, however, is almost sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. 1
The ‘‘Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines’’ include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing.
When today we ask the pharmaceutical giants about the question: how drug companies could live up to the human rights responsibilities, I think the Merck case gave out a vivid example of how and what to do from this case. However, there are three recommendations on the current model Merck adopt to accelerate the access: lessening initiatives in pricing, constantly valuating the projects, and innovatively reversely innovating.
First, I think Merck should take a more cooperative method with various organizations when make the differentiated pricing strategy. As illustrated in the case, Merck was one of the first in the industry to have a formal policy of differential pricing for its antiretroviral medicines and newest vaccines. However, Merck took “some time” to develop such differentiated pricing strategy through tiering countries. My idea is that Merck should establish dedicated teams to each project and let the team propose the pricing strategy. The team could composed of different parties: Merck, NGOs (WHO, UN), local organizations, Funds and project consultants. The team will propose the pricing strategy and valuation (mentioned in the second point) based upon different projects while Merck (the business unit of the medicine or vaccine)