SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 23 2015, 01:45pm EDT
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
A Year After Trump Package, Report Shows Rich 'Got a Handout, and Working Families Got the Bill'
"I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said one Pennsylvania state lawmaker.
Jul 10, 2026
Last week marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump signing H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
But a new report from the progressive advocacy group Defend America Action, obtained exclusively by Common Dreams, demonstrates that while the bill has indeed been beautiful for the richest households, it has been anything but for working-class Americans.
"Republicans sacrificed the American people's financial future, healthcare, and food security to pay for massive tax breaks for big corporations and the ultrawealthy," the report said. "The richest people on the planet got a handout, and working families got the bill."
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the richest 1% of Americans will see $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, an average windfall of roughly $66,000 each and more than the entire bottom 60% will receive combined.
At the same time, the law contained the largest cuts to federal healthcare funding in US history, slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next decade.
The report found that as of March 2026, less than a year after the bill passed, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had already fallen by 3.8 million.
And after Republicans allowed ACA marketplace subsidies to expire, insurance premiums are projected to increase 114% on average, leading one in five enrollees—over 4.2 million people—to drop their coverage entirely.
Additionally, 11 million low-income Americans no longer receive zero-dollar premiums through the marketplace, while deductibles rose an average of 37% for those buying insurance on their own.
In total, more than 8 million people are estimated to have lost insurance coverage due to cuts to these programs, according to Protect Our Care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that as many as 15 million could lose insurance by 2034 as a result of the law and other policy changes over the next decade.
US Rep. Dina Titus (D) said that the cuts have hit her state of Nevada especially hard, as many people work in the service industry and don't receive employer-sponsored insurance.
"An estimated 100,000 Nevadans are impacted by this, [could be] kicked off Medicaid, including 22,000 just in my one congressional district, and it's children, it's seniors, and it's people with disabilities who are going to be impacted so directly."
"The failure to continue the [ACA] tax credits... has knocked more people off," she said. "Then people who do have it pay higher rates to cover that. So it doesn't just impact the people who are on Obamacare. It impacts everybody."
According to an analysis by Protect Our Care, more than 1,000 hospitals, nursing homes, maternity wards, and other critical care facilities around the country have either shut down, are at risk of closing, or have cut essential services since the law went into place.
"In my more than 25 years as a practicing physician and now a legislator for the last four years, I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), an emergency physician who represents the suburbs outside Pittsburgh.
"There are a number of hospitals in Pennsylvania that have closed or are under threat to close as a result of the devastation that's being caused by this legislation," he said.
After $187 billion was cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more than 4 million low-income people—10 % of enrollees—no longer receive food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Millions more are expected to also lose benefits as stringent new work requirements go into effect. This includes 3 million people aged 18-24, according to a report from the Urban Institute, which noted that young adults often have greater difficulty finding stable jobs that allow them to meet the work requirements.
An analysis from ProPublica last month found that across just 12 states that break down data based on age, at least 776,000 children are no longer appearing on SNAP rolls.
"I think when we're talking about SNAP, we should start from the fact that the average benefit per person is [less than] $3 per meal," said Jared Bernstein, who served as the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.
"Nobody's getting rich off of SNAP," he said. "What's happening is people, including a lot of children, are getting fed."
"There's a long line of careful research showing long-term benefits for not just the beneficiaries themselves, but for the broader society," he said, noting that receiving benefits early in life is associated with "better academic performance, long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency."
The report from Defend America Action also said the Trump budget law squashed "an unprecedented American clean energy and manufacturing boom" that began during the Biden years, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The law eliminated clean energy tax credits and led hundreds of projects to be canceled. Citing an analysis by Climate Power, the report said that over 140,000 clean energy jobs have been lost, are at risk, or have been delayed due to H.R. 1, stemming from 382 canceled or delayed projects that represented $69 billion in investment.
This has also contributed to the $92 billion spike in energy bills since Trump took office, the report said. Those canceled projects could have powered more than 17 million homes.
The law also killed the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, which has locked consumers into driving gas-powered cars that cost more to power, especially as Trump's war with Iran has sent gas prices soaring.
Bernstein noted that EV sales "fell off a cliff" after the tax credits were canceled.
"I can't begin to describe how shortsighted this is," he said. "Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of the US ever having a chance to capture market share in what I believe already is a do-or-die product development for the auto sector."
He noted that the US abandonment of clean energy, even as its use grows worldwide, has led China to dominate the market.
"This isn't China just eating our lunch," Bernstein said. "This is us serving our lunch to them."
Defend America Action's report notes that at the time of its passage, H.R. 1 was the most unpopular piece of legislation to pass through Congress since at least 1990, with just 31% approving and 55% disapproving, according to an average of four major polls.
Just months before the midterm elections, the bill remains equally unpopular, with only 33% of Americans saying they favor it and 48% opposing it, according to a recent survey by Navigator Research.
Titus told Common Dreams that one year ago, her colleagues in the GOP were very excited to pass H.R. 1.
Now, she said, "They don't really talk about it."
"They always are up for cutting programs," Titus said. "They call it fraud, waste, and abuse, but it's not. It's benefits that people needed."
"I think as you get closer to the election, there will be more concern about it," Titus said. "You know they cleverly made some of these cuts not go into effect until after the election, so they had to have been aware that they weren't very popular."
"I think we need to get the message out as much and as often as we can," she said, "and that's been kind of focused on affordability because all these different programs that we mentioned tie together."
"It's not just one little hit," Titus said. "It's across-the-board hits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Death Knell for America's Wildlife,' Trump Admin Guts Habitat Protections for Endangered Species
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," said one critic.
Jul 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday paved the way for letting US corporations destroy the habitats of endangered species by rescinding a longtime interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.
As reported by The New York Times, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced that they were narrowing the law's definition of what constitutes harming endangered species.
Whereas the law has for decades been interpreted as protecting endangered animals' habitats from significant "modification or degradation," the administration said that offenders would have to directly injure or kill an endangered animal to be considered in violation of the law.
"The change could open the door for fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers, and others," wrote the Times, "to disturb or even destroy the habitats of vulnerable species."
The Endangered Species Act has been interpreted as protecting animals' habitats for decades, and that interpretation upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1995.
Environmental advocates expressed horror in response to the rule change, which they said would put endangered species at unprecedented risk.
Kristen Boyles, attorney for Earthjustice, vowed that the administration would face legal challenges for its rule change, which she said would jeopardize endangered animals' ability to "raise their young, or search for food."
"Let’s be clear: There is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule—no scientific support, no legal support, no public support," Boyles said. "We will see the Trump Administration in court."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the rule changed "a direct attack on the foundation of the Endangered Species Act" that, if kept in place, would put species "on a path to extinction."
"This rule ignores that reality in an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats, wildlife be damned," Greuel emphasized. "The Endangered Species Act is a bedrock law that must be followed."
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that "habitat destruction is the number one threat to endangered species," while calling the Trump administration's new policy "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," Zuardo said. "Spotted owls, Atlantic salmon, Florida panthers, and thousands of other species need protections for the wild places where they make their homes."
Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, accused the Trump administration of embracing an "erroneous and nonsensical interpretation" of the Endangered Species Act that he vowed to challenge in court.
"We intend to fight back with the full force of the law," said Bowman, "to defeat this attack and innumerable others by the administration on the statutes and regulations that protect America’s cherished wildlife."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Accused of ‘Mugging’ Americans as War on Clean Energy Set to Cost US Economy $55 Billion a Year
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going. He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies," said former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
Jul 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's obsession with canceling clean energy projects is bad not just for the climate, but for the US economy as a whole.
An analysis released Thursday by nonprofit green energy advocate E2 and conducted by consulting firm BW Research estimates that clean energy projects that have been shut down or downsized during Trump's second term would have added $55 billion to the annual gross domestic product (GDP).
The analysis finds that, in addition to delivering a hit to GDP, scrapping the projects lead to 470,000 fewer jobs, including 42,000 construction jobs related to battery storage, 33,000 construction jobs related to solar projects, and 28,000 construction jobs related to electric vehicle projects.
The cancelations will also hit governments' coffers, as they are projected to deliver a $12 billion annual reduction in tax revenues.
The report points to two big components in Trump White House's attack on clean energy: the Republican Party's 2025 budget law, which rolled back tax credits for clean energy programs, and the administration's own policies, including payoffs to companies to halt project development and a permitting ban on new solar and wind projects.
Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, said the numbers outlined in the analysis show that "making it harder to build clean energy projects means lost jobs, lost investments, lost electricity supplies, and lost local tax revenues."
"Add it all up and it’s clear," Keefe added, "that federal actions to stop clean energy are costing all of us—consumers, businesses and our national economy—big time."
Michael Timberlake, director of research and publications at E2, commented that Trump's policies are "hitting exactly the kinds of projects America needs most: domestic manufacturing, battery storage, solar, wind, and electric vehicles."
“The losses go far beyond the direct jobs announced by companies," Timberlake said. "Every cancelled factory or power project means fewer construction workers on site, fewer suppliers filling orders, fewer dollars flowing through local economies, and fewer tax revenues for schools, fire departments, roads, and public services."
A Friday report in The Guardian similarly highlighted the economic damage being done by Trump's war on clean energy, with a particular focus on the Trump administration's unprecedented policy of paying energy companies to relinquish leases for offshore wind projects they had already purchased.
Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior director for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress, told The Guardian that the administration is "trying to snuff out an entire form of energy," which she said was a particularly irrational thing to do when Americans' utility bills are spiking.
"It’s at a time when the United States needs more energy," said Rowland-Shea. "As people’s rates are going up for electricity, as we see data centers gobbling up more energy."
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, whose 2020 presidential campaign focused heavily on combating the climate crisis, accused Trump and his administration of "mugging" the American public by forcing them to needlessly pay more for energy.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going,” said Inslee. “He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular