The leak of the contracts between Colombia, Pfizer and AstraZeneca revives concerns about the lack of transparency in business with pharmaceutical companies. While here US $ 12 and US $ 6 were paid for each dose, respectively, in the world the range is between US $ 2 and US $ 37.
© Provided by El Espectador Coronavirus vaccines
According to the contracts disclosed by the Anticorruption Institute, the government would have paid US $ 12 for each dose of Pfizer ($ 35,000) and US $ 6 for each dose of AstraZeneca ($ 20,000). (Archive/)
One of the great debates that has accompanied the vaccination process in the world is the unknown behind the prices that the pharmaceutical companies have charged for each of the doses of the biological against the coronavirus. Experiences around the world have varied significantly: some countries, such as India and Argentina, published their bilateral contracts voluntarily, but Colombia's delicate negotiations were unknown to the country until just a few days ago, thanks to the leak of a confidential document detailing the negotiation with the pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BionTech. (In context: The price Colombia paid for the Pfizer vaccine and other details of the contract )
According to the contracts disclosed by the Anticorruption Institute, the Government would have paid US $ 12 for each dose of Pfizer ($ 35,000), in addition to agreeing an advance of almost US $ 20 million before receiving the first batches, and US $ 6 for each dose of AstraZeneca ($ 20,000). The Government's response was immediate, warning of the risk of the publication of these documents: “These contracts are not just any contract and there is no firm court ruling in this regard. Irresponsibility in handling the information on vaccines puts the National Vaccination Plan at risk, ”warned Víctor Muñoz, director of the Administrative Department of the Presidency, on his Twitter account.
The Minister of Health, Fernando Ruiz, pointed out that the leakage of this confidential information always represents a problem, taking into account that within the clauses of the contracts, the Government promised not to disclose it. The Swedish-British pharmaceutical AstraZeneca referred to the issue assuring that so far there had not been “any type of affectation” to the negotiation it holds with Colombia, while the American Pfizer decided to take the matter to its legal area and has no pronouncement in this moment. (You may be interested in: Coronavirus, vaccines and more from the Health section here )
According to Jonatthan García, a Dejusticia researcher, with the disclosure of the contracts, there had been no violation of the confidentiality agreement that would affect the negotiation process. "These agreements generally say that everything must be confidential and that neither party can reveal the information that is contained there." However, he clarified, they also have exceptions, because countries and laboratories know that information can be requested through a court order. "Colombia has complied." (You may be interested: Circulation of the Delta variant of the coronavirus in Antioquia confirmed )
Other authorities of the Judicial Branch, such as the magistrate of the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca Moisés Rodrigo Mazabel, in an interview with the newscast CM & assured that, in his opinion, with the disclosure of confidential information there would be no impact on international companies. “I think there is no harm to pharmaceutical companies or harm to the Government. Not a damage to the plan. On the contrary, the more things are known, doubts are removed and false information or information that is sometimes generated maliciously is removed "
A similar situation arose in Europe at the end of 2020, when Eva De Bleeker, Minister of Budget in Belgium, published on her Twitter account a table with the number of doses and the price per dose of each vaccine that the European Union acquired with Pfizer. After the event, the American pharmaceutical company complained about an alleged breach of the confidentiality of the contract, however, it did not stop supplying them with the biological. (You can read: Vaccination for young people from 20 to 24 years old will start on Saturday, announced Minsalud )
The confidentiality of contracts is not something new, it is in fact a historical debate that has accompanied pharmaceutical companies. According to García, one of the main determinants of prices is purchasing power. In other words, what is sought is that poor and middle-income nations do not pay the same price as those with more resources. But, he warned, this is not what always happens. “All this is what the theory says, but what has happened in recent years is that many middle-income countries, mainly, pay more than high-income countries. And that is a problem".
An example of this was what happened in 2013 with the regulation of drug prices promoted by the former Minister of Health Alejandro Gaviria. “They set about making an international reference to the prices of medicines sold here and in 17 other countries, and they discovered that Colombia was paying for many medicines two, three or even four times more expensive than in the United States, in Spain or Norway. ”Garcia recalled. also public health worker.
For Carolina Gómez, founder of the National University's Center for Medicines, Information and Power Thought, the drug negotiations are the best kept secret and one of the main reasons, as she explains, would be the lack of transparency. “It is not known with certainty what the costs of vaccine production are. In the case of the pharmaceutical AstraZeneca, it made an announcement that its vaccine was going to be sold at cost price, that is, at US $ 2 and they sold it to us at US $ 6. There is no transparency about costs, and this arises because, in fact, the way these prices are formulated is disconnected from what is customary in the market, ”he explained.
"Transparency seeks to give the opportunity to those who pay, usually with public resources, to know if they are doing a good business or a bad business," concludes García. For now, and while more information is known, the debate about transparency in the negotiations of the vaccines against the coronavirus remains open.
