↓ Skip to main content

Could international compulsory licensing reconcile tiered pricing of pharmaceuticals with the right to health?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC International Health and Human Rights, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Could international compulsory licensing reconcile tiered pricing of pharmaceuticals with the right to health?
Published in
BMC International Health and Human Rights, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12914-014-0037-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gorik Ooms, Lisa Forman, Owain D Williams, Peter S Hill

Abstract

BackgroundThe heads of the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance have recently promoted the idea of an international tiered pricing framework for medicines, despite objections from civil society groups who fear that this would reduce the leeway for compulsory licenses and generic competition. This paper explores the extent to which an international tiered pricing framework and the present leeway for compulsory licensing can be reconciled, using the perspective of the right to health as defined in international human rights law.DiscussionWe explore the practical feasibility of an international tiered pricing and compulsory licensing framework governed by the World Health Organization. We use two simple benchmarks to compare the relative affordability of medicines for governments ¿ average income and burden of disease ¿ to illustrate how voluntary tiered pricing practice fails to make medicines affordable enough for low and middle income countries (if compared with the financial burden of the same medicines for high income countries), and when and where international compulsory licenses should be issued in order to allow governments to comply with their obligations to realize the right to health.SummaryAn international tiered pricing and compulsory licensing framework based on average income and burden of disease could ease the tension between governments¿ human rights obligation to provide medicines and governments¿ trade obligation to comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 13 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,463,250
of 17,053,340 outputs
Outputs from BMC International Health and Human Rights
#195
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,593
of 311,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC International Health and Human Rights
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,053,340 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.