Fact Check: "Gilead's scheme excludes countries with a third of new HIV cases."
What We Know
Gilead Sciences recently announced a licensing agreement that allows six generic pharmaceutical companies to produce and sell lenacapavir, a new HIV prevention drug, in 120 countries, primarily in Asia and North Africa. This agreement aims to provide affordable access to the drug in regions with the highest HIV rates, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. However, the deal notably excludes many middle- and high-income countries, including Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, China, and Russia, which together account for approximately 20% of new HIV infections globally (New York Times).
Experts have criticized this exclusion, stating that it reflects a growing disparity in healthcare access. For instance, Dr. Othoman Mellouk from ITPC Global emphasized that the deal benefits the poorest countries but neglects those in the middle-income bracket, where many vulnerable populations reside (New York Times). The licensing agreement also prevents generic manufacturers from exporting the drug to countries not included in the deal, further limiting access for countries like Brazil, which has a significant HIV burden (New York Times).
Analysis
The claim that Gilead's licensing scheme excludes countries with a significant proportion of new HIV cases is partially true. While Gilead's agreement does indeed cover many low-income countries with high HIV rates, it also excludes several upper-middle-income countries that contribute notably to global HIV infections. For example, Brazil and Mexico, which have been identified as critical countries in the HIV epidemic, are not included in the licensing agreement (STAT News).
Critics argue that the exclusion of these countries is particularly concerning given that they have substantial populations at risk and that clinical trials for lenacapavir were conducted in some of these very nations (New York Times). The licensing model used by Gilead, which relies on World Bank income classifications, has been criticized for failing to account for the complexities of health access in middle-income countries where significant inequalities exist (New York Times).
The sources cited in this analysis are credible, including major news outlets like the New York Times and STAT News, which have a history of reporting on pharmaceutical industry practices and public health issues. However, it is essential to note that while these sources provide valuable insights, they may also reflect certain biases inherent in their reporting on pharmaceutical companies and healthcare access.
Conclusion
The claim that Gilead's scheme excludes countries with a third of new HIV cases is partially true. While the licensing agreement does facilitate access to lenacapavir in many low-income countries, it also excludes several middle-income countries that account for a significant share of new HIV infections. This exclusion raises concerns about equitable access to essential medications and highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing health disparities globally.
