Biomedical Industry Says Nay to California Stem Cell Affordability

The California biomedical industry has served notice that it will mightily resist current efforts to ensure the affordability of treatments that result from embryonic stem cell research funded by the California stem cell agency.

The industry's "letter of intent" comes in the form of a legal opinion written by a heavyweight Sacramento law firm, Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, on behalf of the California Healthcare Institute, the state's leading biomedical industry group. Wilke, Fleury's other clients in the past have included Big Pharma companies such as Novartis and Glaxo Wellcome.

The firm's letter to CIRM addresses the proposed intellectual property rights regulations that would apply to CIRM grants to nonprofit organizations. The IP proposal is attempting to implement the expectation that low and middle income persons will not be frozen out of Prop. 71 therapies because of their high cost.

Writing on behalf of his firm and CHI, John Valencia attacks the following CIRM language:

"…licensees will agree to provide to patients whose therapies and diagnostics will be purchased in California with California funds or fund of any political subdivision of the state the therapies and diagnostics at a cost equal to that resulting from the provisions of Title 42, United States Code section 1396r-8, subdivisions (c)(1)(A)-(B) and subdivision (c)(2)."

The law firm's 10-page argument says that CIRM is bent on a course that will not stand up to tough legal scrutiny, with the implication that its proposal is likely to meet a vigorous legal challenge.

Wilke, Fleury says CIRM's proposal is "largely redundant" and "susceptible to failure." The law firm states:

"The apparent objective of the proposed regulation – to provide California purchasers with preferred product acquisition pricing for 'therapies and diagnostics' resulting from CIRM-funded research -- lacks adequate certainty and definiteness to meet the general purpose of state agency regulatory adoptions to define, clarify, interpret and implement statutory enactments. Outpatient prescription drugs which result from CIRM-funded research will be readily available to virtually every state and local agency purchaser, at preferred product acquisition cost levels guaranteed by federal or state law, or the designed combination of the two. The proposal requires further detail in relation to key elements (i.e., definitions for key operational elements of the proposed regulation, such as 'therapies,' 'diagnostics,' 'California funds,' and 'political subdivision') in order to avoid failure upon review by the state Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for lack of clarity."

Wilke, Fleury continues:

"In virtually every instance, the proposed regulation is of questionable value until greater certainty is provided regarding the cost guarantee that will attend to CIRM-funded discoveries other than eventual outpatient prescription drugs."

Wilke, Fleury does a have a point in its letter concerning the CIRM language. More artful drafting is needed so that it will stand up to challenges and be fully understood by grant recipients.

But fundamentally the biomedical industry does not want to be hampered in any way in its efforts to extract the maximum profit from its inventions, whether they are funded by taxpayers or by the industry itself. That is certainly a justifiable position for a business, whose first loyalty is and should be to its bottom line.

That said, if business wants to dine at the public trough, it will have to abide by the etiquette of government and not its self-interest.

It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the CIRM IP debate, given its far-reaching impact in a fledgling field of research and medicine. But the discussion concerning IP and access and affordability to CIRM-financed stem cell therapies is invisible to the public. The major media have ignored the tussle over who is going to benefit economically and medically from CIRM's $6 billion worth of taxpayer-funded stem cell therapies. Even groups representing the poor and minorities are missing from CIRM's IP discussions, although they would seem to have a substantial stake in ensuring affordability.

In public policy discussions such as this, effective representation, as offered by Wilke, Fleury, is likely to carry the day regardless of the best intentions of the rule makers and many of the supporters of Prop. 71.