Paying the Price for Cipro

As the casualties from the anthrax attacks continue to build—most recently with the deaths of two postal workers in Washington and the illness of another in Trenton, N.J.—the need for an increased supply of the antibiotic Cipro has become more apparent. No one yet knows how extensive a biological attack might be—and if any significant attack occurred, hoarding of the antibiotic by those unaffected only would only make a shortage of the drug worse. Although Bayer A.G., the German-based company that holds the Cipro patent, has assured the public that it has the capacity to meet demand, the U.S. must be prepared if its order for 100 million tablets by mid-December cannot be filled—or if more Cipro is needed.

However, one approach to maintaining American preparedness was indicated by yesterday’s agreement between Bayer and the Canadian government. Last week, citing “extraordinary and unusual times,” the Canadian government announced it would ignore the Bayer patent and authorized the production of 1 million generic tablets by a Canadian company. After high-intensity negotiations, Canada yesterday reversed its position as Bayer agreed to supply the tablets within 48 hours—before the generic tablets would have been ready—at a discounted price.

Canada’s original proposal would have increased Cipro supplies, but at a heavy cost. Anthrax is not the only threat that we face, and as concerning as the current attacks may be, the U.S. would be in even greater danger if drug companies ended their anti-bioweapons research for fear that their patents would be ignored if the drugs were ever actually needed.

No one likes the idea of the pharmaceutical industry profiting off of a biological attack. But pharmaceutical development is immensely expensive, and the govenment cannot create effective medicines by fiat. Until the U.S. has sufficient government-funded research to combat bioweapons effectively, ignoring patents outright will only increase the danger from future attacks—attacks for which drugs will not be developed.

Should Bayer’s production capacity prove insufficient, the U.S. should not hesitate to mandate licensing of the patent and authorize production by other companies in order to ensure Americans’ safety. At the same time, however, it should pay Bayer a fair price for the drugs—such as the below-market price it has already negotiated. The added cost of compensating Bayer for its losses would be more than offset by the continued development of medicines that are needed to protect Americans from bioterrorism.

By retreating from its extraordinary step and by coming to a compromise, Canada has managed to protect its people from future attacks as well as present ones. The U.S. should similarly keep Americans’ long-term safety in mind—and be prepared to respond to any short-term needs.