Pfizer puzzle

Okay, this column admits it underestimated giant drug-maker Pfizer’s resolve to go into a price war scheme in the anti-hypertensive treatment arena following the entry of the highly affordable Amvasc made by Filipino firm United Laboratories (Unilab).

Weeks back, we aired the view of our coffee shop colleagues that Pfizer, the maker of Norvasc, cannot compete with the price of the Unilab product. Norvasc sells at P 44.75 per five-milligram tablet. The Unilab product sells at P17.50. A clear 60- percent difference. We echoed what our media colleagues said that there was no way Pfizer can match the selling price of the Filipino product since to do so would raise a howl in the market. Patients who sacrificed a lot just to stay on Norvasc would surely question a downward price movement, they pointed out. The puzzle is, if Pfizer can afford to lower Norvasc’s cost today, why didn’t they do so a long time ago?

The Barako gang may have overlooked the fact that Pfizer may have prepared for the advent of Amvasc and had devised schemes to meet the price challenge. The Pfizer scheme, however, is rather puzzling and has triggered a lot of question in the mind of the high-blood pressure-plagued public.

The Pfizer puzzle revolves around a discount card scheme that offers 50 percent off on Norvasc purchases. The current view among coffee shop habitués is that the discount card is actually Pfizer’s disguised engagement in the drug price war.

The scheme, however, has really puzzled many. There are an estimated 7.76 million hypertensive adults in the country. But how many of them are enjoying the 50-percent discount. In fact, how many of them actually know there is a discount card? Many of our hypertensive friends swear they do not know about the discount card.

Who decides who gets the discount card, whose scheme seems complicated. Does everyone know where this precious discount card can be obtained? Who qualifies? By making the scheme highly-selective, wouldn’t the discount card source actually be playing God by deciding who gets cheaper treatment and who does not? Is the discount card dispenser obligated to give the card to whoever asks for it? Or is the doling out of this card purely discretionary, sort of like a Divine Favor only the blessed are entitled to? Wouldn’t those who failed to be in the favor of the demi-gods who dispense the discount card be consigned to a life of suffering just because they cannot afford to buy the treatment?

Wouldn’t those who failed to be in the favor of the demi-gods who dispense the discount card be consigned to a life of suffering just because they cannot afford to buy the treatment sans the discount? Wouldn’t they have been sentenced to a life of debilitating hypertension when their only crime is that they cannot afford Norvasc and were not informed about the discount?

If Pfizer had intended to help Filipinos who have long endured the pricey drug, why did it raise Norvasc’s price by an average of 21.5 percent in March this year, just a few months before Amvasc came to the market? Doesn’t the March 2006 jack up of Norvasc prices reduce the discount to a mere 28.5 percent effectively? Doesn’t the jack up reduce the Pfizer discount scheme to a mere display of marketing savvy rather than a show of mercy and compassion to ailing Filipinos?

Another puzzle: Assuming Pfizer is willing to give the 7.76 million hypertensive Filipinos access to the 50-percent discount, why does the company have to go through a complicated process? Wouldn’t it be simpler if it merely slashes the tag of this pricey drug by 50 percent? Fifth puzzle: Why is Pfizer cutting Norvasc prices only now? Plain and simple price war? Our coffee shop pals say people don’t care whether or not Pfizer’s scheme is part of a price war. People just want affordable medicine. That’s all. What Filipinos are simply smarting from is the fact that Pfizer may have opted for a complicated and highly-selective scheme that’s depriving the more needy patients with access to treatment and, consequently, a more productive life.

There’s one more thing that’s aggravating the Filipino ire. While they are yet to find out how they can access the discount, they feel Pfizer is giving them a double whammy by using its muscle to stop the government from bringing in treatment that they can afford. The issue, however, is water under the bridge. Philippine International Trading Corp. president Obet Pagdanganan says the government is no longer bent on importing the cheaper drugs from India since an affordable choice is already in the local market.

Which leads to a sixth puzzle: Why is PITC is still being vilified in media regarding that planned importation. Shouldn’t the PITC statement regarding the halt to anti-hypertensive importation put the issue to rest? Or does Pfizer merely want to position itself as the aggrieved party? Or this is the only recourse for the firm in the wake of a simmering price war? We hope Pfizer just gives the market a clean discount. Across the board. Across all market segments. This way, Filipinos are given a chance to choose fairly and intelligently.

Gov’t admits foul play

Was there a violation of the rights of the Asia Emerging Dragons Corp. (AEDC), the original proponents of the NAIA Terminal 3 project?

This seemed to be the case when in its submissions to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration, the Philippine government detailed how then Transportation Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez, PBAC technical committee chairman, colluded with Piatco in disregarding public bidding rules to defeat AEDC’s bid and to obtain a contract hugely favorable to Piatco but extremely detrimental to the government.

Fraport AG of Germany has a pending $425-million investment claim filed with ICSID against the Philippines for the construction of NAIA-3.

According to the government panel, Alvarez exerted efforts to get Jeff Cheng as investor into the AEDC but which the corporation rejected saying it has enough financial resources to fund the construction and operation of the proposed terminal. The Philippine legal panel is composed of Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura, retired Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano and Carolyn Lamm of US-based based White and Case LLP.

Later, a joint venture known as Piatco headed by Cheng which challenged AEDC’s unsolicited proposal ended up winning the Swiss challenge and getting the concession for the terminal from the PBAC headed by Alvarez in gross disregard of public bidding rules, the panel added

The panel also said Piatco’s offer of P17.75 billion guaranteed payment to the government over a 25 year-period was unrealistic because it was based on a 13 million passengers annually and speculative retail, casino, hotel revenues and duty free spending assumptions. AEDC’s annual guaranteed payment on the other hand was based on a more realistic 10 million yearly passengers.

The Philippine government likewise told ICSID that the PBAC failed to ensure transparency in the bidding process when it disregarded AEDC’s objections to tampered documents of Piatco’s bid documents and denied the original proponent’s request for the challenger’s financial proposal for purposes of matching it.

Piatco has another pending $565 million claim before the Singapore-based International Chamber of Commerce. If government loses in both arbitral courts, the Philippines would be liable for about $1 billion for a facility which Japanese contractor Takenaka said only cost some $275 million.

Working without fanfare

Former senator Loren Legarda has topped all the last three non-commissioned surveys by private polling firms pulse Asia and Social Weather Station (SWS), including surveys on who Filipinos would vote for if an election for senators is held now.

In the latest of the three surveys by Pulse Asia conducted from Oct. 21 to Nov. 8, Loren emerged No. 1 again, leaving by a mile incumbent public officials, and edging boxing champion Manny Pacquiao and billiards king Efren "Bata" Reyes.

While Pacquiao and Reyes have been hogging the sports headlines, Loren’s quixotic fight to expose the massive electoral fraud in 2004 has clearly not escaped the public radar. That’s to be expected since many Filipinos appreciate those who silently work, those who serve without fanfare.

In Pulse Asia’s "trustworthiness survey," Loren got a trust rating of 67 percent, followed by Pacquiao with 66 percent and Reyes with 65 percent. The majority of the 1,200 respondents ticked off the following qualities to describe Loren: "intelligence, helpfulness to others, kindness and public service untainted by any scandal," among others.

Rounding up the top 10 are Sen. Mar Roxas (64 percent), Sen. Ralph Recto (60 percent), former senator Vicente Sotto III(57 percent), Senate President Manny Villar (52 percent), Sen. Rodolfo

Biazon (48 percent), Rep. Francis Escudero (47 percent), and Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay with 41 percent. Getting a dismal 21 percent trust rating was President Arroyo, who also received a 50 percent "small or no trust" rating in the survey.

As a senator, Loren was credited for the passage of landmark laws, including the Clean Air Act and the law on proper disposal of solid waste. Lest we forget, Loren is also the driving force behind Luntiang Pilipinas, the environmental group which has planted over a million trees nationwide, in an effort to combat pollution. She also authored the violence against women and children law and was the first female majority leader in the Senate.

Fishy meat deal

Last Nov. 28, PNP-CIDG operatives swooped down on the Kayabe Cold Storage in Mexico, Pampanga. The morning raid yielded some 62,000 kilos of pork worth P12 million believed to have been smuggled from China. The meat was later certified by quarantine officials as part of four reefer vans loot that slipped from a Customs warehouse one Sunday morning.

The operatives took some time to "meet" with the owner of the cold storage – a certain Allan David, where the contraband was found. Initial report says a certain Ronald Polintan owns the shipment, but Kayabe supervisor Mar Cunanan believes this is just an assumed name. Also present during the four hour meeting, according to our grapevine, is one Mr. G, a known personality in the meat trading industry. As to why Mr. G. is in the meeting with the operatives is a question he himself can only answer. Mr. G, according to our grapevine, happens to be connected with a popular meat processor based in the province.

The Philippine Association of Meat Processors Inc. (PAMPI) has urged Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap to intervene to ensure that those involved in compromising the country’s livestock biosecurity are identified and punished to the full extent of the law. PAMPI likewise called upon its 35 member-companies not to buy this China-sourced pork meat believed to be part of the disappearing cargo as the group will not tolerate smuggling.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]