IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Extension of market exclusivity and its impact on the accessibility to essential medicines, and drug expense in Thailand: Analysis of the effect of TRIPs-Plus proposal

Listed author(s):
  • Akaleephan, Chutima
  • Wibulpolprasert, Suwit
  • Sakulbumrungsil, Rungpetch
  • Luangruangrong, Paithip
  • Jitraknathee, Anchalee
  • Aeksaengsri, Achara
  • Udomaksorn, Siripa
  • Tangcharoensathien, Viroj
  • Tantivess, Sripen
Registered author(s):

    Background In Thailand and the US negotiating FTA, the 'TRIPs-Plus' is one of the US proposal which would result in an extension of market exclusivity of innovative drugs. In addition, it would foreseeably lead to high and unaffordable medicine prices and inaccessibility to essential medicines.Objective To quantify the impact on medicine expense and medicine accessibility.Methods Based on 2000 to 2003 Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s and the Drug & Medical Supply Information Center (DMSIC), costs and accessibility were estimated upon the price and quantity costing between innovative drugs and their generics plus some parameters found from their competitive behaviour. Thereafter, we simulated the 10-year potential additional expense on the 2003 unit price of the patented and monopolized non-patented medicines.Results In 2003, the availability of generics helped to save 104.5% of actual expense and the accessibility would increase by 53.6%. By extension of market exclusivity, given that there were 60 new items approved annually, the cumulative potential expense was projected to be $US 6.2 million for the first year to $US 5215.8 million in tenth year.Conclusion The TRIPs-Plus proposal would result in a significant increase in the medicine expense; and a delay in the increase in drug accessibility via generics. Several options as well as other related mechanisms to help reduce the negative impact are proposed.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 91 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 2 (July)
    Pages: 174-182

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:91:y:2009:i:2:p:174-182
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Richard G. Frank & David S. Salkever, 1997. "Generic Entry and the Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, 03.
    2. Lexchin, Joel, 2004. "The effect of generic competition on the price of brand-name drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 47-54, April.
    3. Magazzini, Laura & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2004. "Dynamic Competition in Pharmaceuticals: Patent Expiry, Generic Penetration, and Industry Structure," MPRA Paper 15968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Hudson, John, 2000. "Generic take-up in the pharmaceutical market following patent expiry: A multi-country study," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 205-221, June.
    5. Garattini, Livio & Tediosi, Fabrizio, 2000. "A comparative analysis of generics markets in five European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 149-162, April.
    6. Danzon, Patricia M. & Chao, Li-Wei, 2000. "Cross-national price differences for pharmaceuticals: how large, and why?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 159-195, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:91:y:2009:i:2:p:174-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    or ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.