Wemos advocates fair medicines and ethical medicine testing
Need for unbiased research on new medicines’ added value
Clinical research that is carried out by the pharmaceutical industry is often biased. Wemos believes that research on new medicines in clinical trials should be independent. This will yield clearer results, also on the medicines’ ATV. And when new medicines are developed with public money, there should be conditions on the profits, prices and accessibility of medicines.
Critical political stance
We aim to ensure that the Dutch and European policy makers take a critical stance on medicine prices and the lack of ATV in new medicines. It is our intention that more EU Member States will support Dutch efforts to address the increasing prices of medicines and look for policy options to counter this trend. On the global level, we aim for the World Health Organization to fulfill its leading role in addressing the challenge of high drug prices worldwide, for example by proposing fair pricing models and by addressing the issue with Member States in a framework.
Wemos has a track record of many years focusing on ethical clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries, and is one of the few organizations within the EU working on this topic on a policy level. One of our recent lobby successes is that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is required to submit annual reports to the European Parliament detailing its efforts to ensure that medicines intended for the European market are tested ethically. In 2017 we published a report on unethical clinical trials in Africa.
Results of our advocacy
- Early 2018, we co-organized a meeting together with the European Parliament group of the Dutch Socialist Party (GUE/NGL) in the European Parliament on the relation between EMA and the pharmaceutical industry. Over 100 attendees were present, among whom were Members of European Parliament (MEPs), the European Commission and EMA. With fruitful discussions between experts about conflicts of interests and transparency in clinical research, the event definitely sparked the debate on how EMA should stay independent.
- In 2017, MEPs requested EMA to address unethical practices in clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries, referring to our report on this topic. We applaud this, but following EMA Director Guido Rasi’s reply to the letter, we think the EMA can do more to protect clinical trial participants.
- In 2017 we organized an event for Dutch politicians in the Dutch Parliament about conditioning public investments in medicines. Speakers of License to Heal, Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO), Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) and the Council for Health and Society (RVS) exchanged their views on how we can make medicines more affordable and available, especially if they are developed with public money.
- In 2016, we called the attention of five Dutch political parties on biased research carried out by pharmaceutical companies, by inviting the Danish professor Gøtzsche to speak in the Dutch Parliament. Several political parties used his data in medicines debates with the Dutch Minister of Health.
- In 2015, following our position paper on the lack of ATV of new medicines on the EU market, political parties discussed at our lunch meeting with the European Commission about how ATV could be incorporated in EU policy. In the same year, following our contact with European Parliamentary Commissioner Peter Liese (Christian Democrats, EPP), the European Parliament conducted a study on (possible harmonization of) ATV.
- We have collaborated on lobbying towards the Dutch Parliament with organizations and initiatives such as Aidsfonds, Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDI), KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation, Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), Médecins Sans Frontiers (MSF) and Health Action International (HAI).