1 February 2002
Animal medicines are a positive benefit for society- and the Government recognises this fact.This is the clear message from the Governments response to the MarshReport reviewing veterinary medicines dispensing.
Speaking at the AnimalHealth Distributors Association Conference in Blackpool, Roger Cook, NOAHdirector, said that both Marsh and the Government in its response recognisedthat regulation is key to animal medicine availability. "Bad and/orexcessive regulation can add to costs, reduce availability and encourage lawbreaking, while good regulation can encourage progress while protecting thevulnerable. The Marsh report makes it clear that they have got the message as,I am pleased to say, have the Government in their response," he said.
Mr Cook added: " If webelieve that animal medicines are a positive benefit to society, then it isimportant to remove all non-essential barriers, either to them reaching themarket, or reaching the animal patient.Marshs recommendations and Governments response shows that they bothunderstand and agree." In the pastanimal medicines appeared to be sometimes regarded as a problem rather than asolution. "As an economist, JohnMarsh clearly appreciates that freer supply of an economic good must result inlower prices," he said.
Looking at some of thespecific recommendations by Government, Mr Cook highlighted two where thesewere more practical than those made in the Marsh Report. NOAH supports theprinciple of Continuous Professional Development, but it can have costimplications. "Companies alreadyinvest considerably in training their own staff, particularly through the AMTRAscheme, and in education for vets, farmers, merchants etc. The RUMA Alliance, of which NOAH is a part,is examining the training of farmers and staff as their next initiative topromote the responsible use of
medicines in agriculture, said Mr Cook. But headded that it must be remembered that ultimately the end user will bear suchadditional costs, so proposing that CPD should be further extended may increasethe total cost of animal care.
NOAH had strongly opposedthe recommendation to use human generics in companion animals originallyproposed by Marsh. "This," said Mr Cook, "would have threatenedthe future development and availability of many products for companion animals(as human generics make no contribution to the cost of veterinary research),while placing too great a burden on the expertise of the individual vet inextrapolating from one species to another. All species, not only those for foodproduction, deserve the benefit of medicines which have been specificallydeveloped and authorised for their treatment.Marshs proposal implied that medicine authorisation only exists toprotect consumers of animal produce - it is very good to see the Governmentsviews are similar to ours."
The Marsh Report wasinitiated because of some disquiet expressed about the cost of medicines to theend user. Mr Cook said: "One keyis to improve availability, to increase competition; the other is to increaseaccess remove barriers. What manyseemed to overlook in the debate was that it is no good simply transferring orre-packaging costs; what really matters is the final cost to the animal owner,as neither farmers or pet owner can pass their costs on to someone else. Also,it is no good cutting the purchase price of the medicine if all the associatedcosts have to rise to compensate".
"Overall,"said Mr Cook, "the recommendations can give us great hope that someover-regulation issues can be solved.Medicine availability and accessibility should also improve ifGovernment is able to carry through the points it has accepted. But so much will depend on what can beachieved in Brussels, as the whole authorisation process for animal medicine isunder review as part of the EU Review 2001 process." The potential threatto the flexible yet controlled medicine distribution system that exists in theUK, by the EU proposal to make all farm animal medicines POM (prescriptiononly), needs to be borne in mind.
Thereare also many questions about what the effect will be on the cost of animalmedicines to the end user. "My ownexpectation is that the overall cost is unlikely to reduce, but what we willget is more transparency in pricing, better trained people at every step in thechain, and medicines that are better appreciated, better cared for and so usedmore effectively. If I am right, ifthese benefits can be achieved, then I believe the whole Marsh process can beregarded as a success, and looked back on with pride and satisfaction by allthose who took part," concluded Mr Cook.
Ends
Notes for editors
1. Forfurther information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon on 020 8367 3131, ore-mail noah@noah.co.uk or visit theNOAH website www.noah.co.uk
2. TheNational Office of Animal Health was formed on 1 January 1986 to represent theUK companies which research, develop, manufacture and market licensed animalhealth products. The association now has 38 corporate members and 11 associatemembers. In 2000 NOAH's members accounted for around 95% of the 357 million UKanimal health market, with additional valuable exports.