January, 23 2015, 01:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tim Shenk,Press Officer,Direct: 212-763-5764,E-mail:,tim.shenk@newyork.msf.org
Ahead of Obama Visit, MSF Warns US Pressure on India Could Impact Access to Medicines for Millions
Ahead of US president Obama's visit to India, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) expressed deep concern over the US government's heightened efforts to undermine access to affordable medicines from India--often called the "pharmacy of the developing world." Millions of people across the globe rely on Indian low-cost generics, just as MSF relies on these to carry out its medical work.
NEW DELHI
Ahead of US president Obama's visit to India, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) expressed deep concern over the US government's heightened efforts to undermine access to affordable medicines from India--often called the "pharmacy of the developing world." Millions of people across the globe rely on Indian low-cost generics, just as MSF relies on these to carry out its medical work.
The US has been scaling up pressure on India and increasing visits to the country over the last several months in order to aggressively campaign against India's patent law. The country's law sets a high bar for what merits a patent in an effort to prevent abusive pharmaceutical patenting practices, such as "evergreening," which put profit over public health by blocking production of more affordable generics. The US is pushing for India to adopt intellectual property (IP) measures similar to those common in the US and EU, which would ultimately result in unaffordable medicine prices for both India and the countries that rely on affordable medicines made in India.
"The alarm bells should be going off for the new Indian government," said Dr. Manica Balasegaram, executive director of MSF's Access Campaign. "The US is pushing India to play by its rules on intellectual property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people."
US pressure already appears to be having an impact: the new Indian government has been delaying a decision to allow generic production of an exorbitantly priced patented anti-cancer medicine that is unaffordable in the country--an action recommended by a Health Ministry expert committee to increase access to affordable versions. A "compulsory licence" issued by the Patent Controller in 2012 for an unaffordable cancer drug brought its price down by 97 percent almost instantly.
Click Here to Read the Briefing Document: PERSISTENT US ATTACKS ON INDIA'S PATENT LAW & GENERIC COMPETITION
Also in response to US pressure, the Indian Commerce Minister in November set up a high-level "think tank" to draft national IP policy. The first draft of the policy recently released is alarming. It emphasizes patent monopolies as the key driver of innovation, when such claims have been refuted by numerous studies and experts at the World Health Organization, which have found IP in fact to be a barrier to both access to affordable medicines and innovation for medicines desperately needed by developing countries for diseases such as tuberculosis.
"We need the Indian government to pay very careful attention to what the US is up to right now," said Rohit Malpani, director of policy and analysis for MSF's Access Campaign. "India has been a leader in promoting access to affordable medicines and new innovation models, but this could all unravel very fast if the Indian government caves in to US pressure. The think tank so far seems to be singing to Big Pharma's tune of undermining global efforts to finally overhaul today's system of how medicines are developed and priced."
At the same time, the Obama visit comes in the wake of a critical decision by India's Patent Controller to deny a patent to pharmaceutical company Gilead for the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir--an example of how important India's law is to encouraging price-lowering generic competition. The drug is priced in the US at US$84,000 for a three-month treatment course ($1,000 per pill), though studies estimate its production for a three-month course could cost as little as $101 (about $1 per pill). The UK's National Health Service is delaying introduction of the drug because of its cost, and protests have erupted in Spain over the drug's rationing as a result of its price.
Unsurprisingly, discontent is already being expressed, and the patent rejection is likely to be brought up by US officials accompanying President Obama.
"India's decision to reject the patent for the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir could unleash fierce competition among Indian companies to launch affordable versions of the life saving drug this year," said Leena Menghaney, South Asia Manager of MSF's Access Campaign. "Let the exorbitant prices being charged for this hepatitis C drug in many countries serve as a cautionary tale to India--this is what could happen here if the US succeeds and gets India to change its policies. India now faces a challenge: future access to essential medicines for millions of people will depend on the new Indian government's decisions and the kind of patent and innovation system it endorses."
Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
LATEST NEWS
Fearing Mass Job Loss, Working-Class US Voters Believe Government Must Act to Prevent Economic Disaster
The findings of a new poll could bolster the case made by many progressive politicians about the need to vigorously regulate the AI industry.
Jun 23, 2026
A poll commissioned by Working Families Power reveals deep anxiety among US workers about the impacts of artificial intelligence, as well as support for the government intervening to prevent potential mass unemployment.
The survey of just over 2,500 working-class American voters, conducted by Justice Research Group, finds that 73% said they were worried that AI would lead to job losses in the US, while 62% said they were concerned that AI would personally affect them or people close to them.
Workers expect that AI will negatively impact a broad number of industries, with majorities saying it will hurt truckers and delivery drivers; retail and service workers; writers, designers, and other creative workers; and office and administrative workers, according to the poll. Pluralities, meanwhile, expect AI to hurt teachers, education workers, and healthcare support workers.
With so many workers fearing massive jobs losses due to AI, they also support major government interventions to alleviate the harms caused by the technology.
Overall, 84% of those surveyed support free training or education for all workers displaced by AI, while 79% support rules to force companies to share AI productivity gains with their workers in the former of higher pay, stronger benefits, and shorter hours.
Even the least popular policy idea presented in the poll—taxing large companies that replace workers with AI and using the money to create a worker unemployment fund—received 69% support among US workers.
The poll's findings could bolster the case made by many progressive politicians about the need to vigorously regulate the AI industry to prevent it from hurting working-class Americans.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) last month proposed a tax on the use of AI to pay for jobs programs for affected workers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Than 5 Million People Have Lost Health Coverage Under Trump-GOP Law
According to a new report, the crisis is "only going to get worse."
Jun 23, 2026
Not even a year after President Donald Trump signed the largest healthcare cuts in US history into law, around five million Americans have lost insurance coverage, according to a report out Monday from Protect Our Care, which predicted that the crisis was "only going to get worse."
The massive budget and tax legislation passed by Republicans last July, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) over the next decade while introducing tax breaks that are expected to hand an additional $1 trillion to the richest 1% of Americans.
“Five million and counting. That’s the human toll of the spiraling Republican healthcare affordability crisis,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “Just one year after Trump and congressional Republicans made the largest cuts to healthcare in history to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations on Wall Street, millions have lost the care they depended on to stay alive and healthy."
Citing the most recent data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and state agencies, the report found that the number of Americans enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP had fallen to just 76.9 million, down from 80.8 million a year before—a decline of more than 3.8 million people.
Another 1.2 million are also estimated to have lost coverage due to the massive spike in premiums after Republicans voted not to renew tax credits for consumers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that lowered costs for Americans who purchased coverage through ACA marketplaces.
During open enrollment in 2025, 24.3 million Americans selected insurance plans through the ACA. This year, as the average premium was projected to more than double on average, the number of Americans enrolled through the ACA fell to just 23.1 million—a drop of nearly 1.2 million.
The millions of other families still enrolled in insurance through the ACA exchanges saw an average increase of $780, and according to KFF, it's only been that low because many families have opted to switch to cheaper, less comprehensive plans.
The loss of insurance coverage "is only a small piece of the puzzle," Woodhouse said.
"Millions more are making impossible choices every day to keep their coverage, including skipping rent or cutting back on groceries so they can see a doctor," he said. "Their pain and suffering are incalculable."
The report said the coverage losses over the first year are "just the beginning" and that "millions more will lose coverage once deeper cuts go into effect."
The full slate of changes to Medicaid from the GOP bill has not yet been enacted. Next year, many adult recipients will be required to submit proof that they are doing at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activity each month in order to maintain benefits, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated could increase the uninsured population by 5.3 million by 2034.
Another paperwork hurdle, the requirement that certain Medicaid expansion enrollees prove their eligibility every six months, is expected to result in another 700,000 people becoming uninsured by 2034.
In total, CBO analyses estimate that over the next decade, roughly 15 million Americans would lose their insurance coverage as a result of the legislation.
"These are our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones. These are small business owners and farmers. These are seniors. Veterans. Moms," Woodhouse said. "These are millions of working people now scrambling to find insulin pumps, taking thousands out of retirement just to see a doctor for that cough that’s not getting better, or, worse, not getting care at all."
With healthcare costs now a top concern among voters—66% of whom said they were worried about affording it, according to a KFF poll in January—cuts to healthcare spending appear to be a glaring liability for Republicans entering the midterm elections.
Another KFF poll from April found that 37% of voters said they trusted Democrats to address healthcare costs, while just 26% said they trusted Republicans. Meanwhile, 67% of voters said they disapproved of the Trump administration's handling of healthcare costs.
"Every single day, the affordability crisis mounts, and more Americans will find themselves joining the five million struggling to keep up with skyrocketing healthcare costs," Woodhouse said. "The American people won’t forget this betrayal in November.”
Democrats have seized on Monday's report as part of their election pitch, including Rep. Greg Landsman, who faces a competitive reelection fight in Ohio's 1st Congressional District.
He wrote on social media Tuesday that Republicans "cut healthcare by nearly a trillion to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy... five million people no longer have healthcare."
"The healthcare crisis in America is dominating the lives of millions, and will soon dominate all of our lives," he said. "We need a new Congress to restore people’s healthcare and to end this crisis. There is no other way."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ's Use of Subpoenas Against Journalists Is 'Straight Out of the Dictator's Playbook': Press Freedom Group
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," said one press freedom advocate.
Jun 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice's attempt to compel journalists to testify before a grand jury is drawing blowback from a top press freedom group, which is accusing President Donald Trump's administration of behaving like an authoritarian regime.
According to a Tuesday report in The New York Times, the DOJ earlier this month issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.
"The Justice Department had sought information from three reporters at The Journal about an article detailing how top officials warned... Trump of the risks of a major military campaign against Iran," reported the Times. "It also sought information from a reporter at The Post, Ellen Nakashima, about reporting related to US military action in Venezuela."
As the Times noted, it is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters' ability to gather information.
After the details of the subpoenas and news of their withdrawal broke, Reporters Without Borders slammed the Trump DOJ for hitting a "new low" in its attempt to "suppress information from the American people."
"Subpoenaing journalists to appear before a grand jury under the guise of ‘national security’ is straight out of the dictator's playbook," the group said. "Fortunately, in the United States, newsrooms are fighting back and winning."
A Tuesday CNN report claimed that Trump had personally pushed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to subpoena the journalists, going so far as to hand Blanche "a sticky note—with the word 'Treason' written in Sharpie—placed atop a stack of printed articles."
CNN also reported that both the Post and the Journal "remain on guard against the possibility that the subpoenas will be reissued in the future."
A spokesperson for the Post ripped the Trump DOJ for issuing "an unwarranted subpoena of our reporter," which the newspaper described as "a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom."
"We will continue to stand fully behind the journalism of The Washington Post," the spokesperson added, "and fight all efforts by any administration that violate our First Amendment rights."
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in an interview with the Post that issuing grand jury subpoenas to reporters puts core First Amendment rights at risk because "once you are up in front of the grand jury, the testimony can go in many different ways and can inquire into stories that are unrelated to the underlying investigation."
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," Rottman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular