Drug companies under siege

There could be, offhand, some unethical considerations unearthed if and when the Senate inquiry comes full circle. This involves a drug firm alleged to have a significant number of doctors as its incorporators, managers, investors, and prescribers.

At least, insofar as the Senate is concerned, a looming conflict of interest could be a cause for concern. Ideally, though, this must first worry the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health, and the Intellectual Property Office unless the issue has not yet been brought to their attention.

When the reputation of a pharmaceutical firm, in this case, Bell-Kenz Pharma Inc., is cast in a bad light, it might follow that other drug companies could be into it as well. Then, it makes sense that the Senate committee undertake a thorough and determined probe and, based on the findings, effect drastic measures to preclude other companies from committing the same.

There has been confirmation lately of fake or “falsified” drugs being sold in the market, the problem being a global reality but often framed as a “third world” concern even by the World Health Organization. Apparently, there are “analysts who estimate the global counterfeit market to be worth between US$200 and US$432 billion.” Even worse, it is said that “there is no universally accepted definition for a counterfeit medicine.”

This might drive home the point of a clear and present danger in the realm of health care delivery if doctors prescribe drugs for their patients sourced from pharmaceutical companies that they invariably manage, are a shareholder of, or have a clear business interest in. One cannot have an assurance of safety in the face of the fact that “counterfeit medicine trafficking has become one of the world’s fastest-growing criminal enterprises.”

As news accounts have it, Bell-Kenz Pharma Inc. is reportedly “giving incentives and support” to doctors who include in their generic prescriptions lifestyle (i.e. cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes) drugs and by so doing receive rebates, firm-sponsored foreign trips, and clinic equipment.

A quick profile of BellKenz Pharma Inc. reveals its company core values of “integrity, sense of ownership, compassion, accountability, loyalty, excellence, unity, and professionalism” which its 300 employees live by. They proudly claim to be committed to “making more lives better.”

The public, in general, gives wide latitude to House and Senate inquiries (i.e. “in aid of legislation”). But when the Senate, for example, keeps its inquiry at bay, it would have irreversible consequences on the beleaguered drug firm and the physicians summoned for questioning.

Since the medicines prescribed by doctors affiliated with a pharmaceutical firm are presumably safe, at least insofar as they cannot be classified as “fake, falsified, or counterfeit,” it stands to reason that health care delivery, a patient’s life and safety, the efficacy of the drug prescribed are all in order.

If drug companies are influencing medical practitioners by bribing them — “buying” them — and as a consequence compromising the patients under their care, their acts violative of existing ethical norms, then the state has all the right to intervene.

It cannot be taken for granted that noble institutions are in place and contemplated policy reforms could only be attained if driven by empirical or evidence-based data to avoid the appearance of a “disconnect” between the regulator and the regulated, if the rule-making — in proverbial knee-jerk reaction — always trips up the entire policy process.

Time to up the ante, seriously so. dis-incentivization of local farmers. Picture this scenario: If imported rice becomes readily available and is cheaper than locally produced rice, Filipino farmers may face a decline in demand and income. This could disincentivize them from investing in their farms, if not push them to the brink of selling their lands to subdivision developers.

There are also corruption risks. We need only reach back to the distant past to recall that the NFA’s previous control over rice importation was marred by accusations of corruption and inefficiency. The reintroduction of import powers could create new opportunities for abuse, with unscrupulous individuals potentially manipulating import quotas for personal gain.

Let’s not forget that even without importation upping the ante or the opportunities to make money on the side, the Office of the Ombudsman has suspended dozens of top NFA officials over the questioned sale of its buffer stock to private traders.

Another sour note could be NFA intervention in the rice market resulting in it distorting natural price mechanisms. Flooding the market with cheap imports may suppress domestic rice prices, even during periods when local production is sufficient. This can further hurt Filipino farmers’ competitiveness.

But probably the biggest argument against not only NFA importation but importation as a whole is that it could spur long-term dependence which can weaken the country’s food security in the long run.

Geopolitical events or changes in global rice markets could disrupt import flows, leaving the Philippines vulnerable to price shocks and potential shortages.

Amid this push and pull, the decision to allow the NFA to import rice requires careful consideration and a Solomonic decision by no less than President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

While the potential benefits of price stabilization and food security are attractive, the risks to domestic farmers and the potential for market distortions cannot be ignored.

Instead of simply handing importation powers back to the NFA, the government should explore alternative solutions.

These could include strengthening the Anti-Agricultural Economic Sabotage Act by cracking down on rice cartels to free up the market and potentially lower prices for consumers. Also, investing in farm modernization could be key to future growth and sustainability.

Improving irrigation systems, providing farmers with access to better technology, and supporting research on high-yield rice varieties can boost domestic production and make Filipino rice more competitive.

Instead of blanket import controls, the NFA could focus on strategic reserves and targeted market interventions during periods of genuine shortage or price spikes. This approach could help stabilize prices without disrupting the domestic rice market.

Ultimately, the goal should be to achieve a balance between ensuring food security, protecting Filipino farmers, and promoting a healthy and competitive domestic rice market. This requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses both the short-term need for stability and the long-term need for a sustainable rice production sector in the Philippines.

“The public, in general, gives wide latitude to House and Senate inquiries (i.e. ‘in aid of legislation’).

“If drug companies are influencing medical practitioners by bribing them — ‘buying’ them — and as a consequence compromising the patients under their care, their acts violative of existing ethical norms, then the state has all the right to intervene.

“While the potential benefits of price stabilization and food security are attractive, the risks to domestic farmers and the potential for market distortions cannot be ignored.