Marsh process 'a success', says NOAH

Animal medicines are a positive benefit for society - and the Government recognises this fact. This is the clear message from the Government’s response to the Marsh Report reviewing veterinary medicines dispensing.

Speaking at the Animal Health Distributors Association Conference in Blackpool, Roger Cook, NOAH director, said that both Marsh and the Government in its response recognised that regulation is key to animal medicine availability. "Bad and/or excessive regulation can add to costs, reduce availability and encourage law breaking, while good regulation can encourage progress while protecting the vulnerable. The Marsh report makes it clear that they have got the message as, I am pleased to say, have the Government in their response," he said.

Mr Cook added: " If we believe that animal medicines are a positive benefit to society, then it is important to remove all non-essential barriers, either to them reaching the market, or reaching the animal patient. Marsh’s recommendations and Government’s response shows that they both understand and agree." In the past animal medicines appeared to be sometimes regarded as a problem rather than a solution. "As an economist, John Marsh clearly appreciates that freer supply of an economic good must result in lower prices," he said.

Looking at some of the specific recommendations by Government, Mr Cook highlighted two where these were more practical than those made in the Marsh Report. NOAH supports the principle of Continuous Professional Development, but it can have cost implications. "Companies already invest considerably in training their own staff, particularly through the AMTRA scheme, and in education for vets, farmers, merchants etc. The RUMA Alliance, of which NOAH is a part, is examining the training of farmers and staff as their next initiative to promote the responsible use of medicines in agriculture," said Mr Cook. But he added that it must be remembered that ultimately the end user will bear such additional costs, so proposing that CPD should be further extended may increase the total cost of animal care.

NOAH had strongly opposed the recommendation to use human generics in companion animals originally proposed by Marsh. "This," said Mr Cook, "would have threatened the future development and availability of many products for companion animals (as human generics make no contribution to the cost of veterinary research), while placing too great a burden on the expertise of the individual vet in extrapolating from one species to another. All species, not only those for food production, deserve the benefit of medicines which have been specifically developed and authorised for their treatment. Marsh’s proposal implied that medicine authorisation only exists to protect consumers of animal produce - it is very good to see the Government’s views are similar to ours."

The Marsh Report was initiated because of some disquiet expressed about the cost of medicines to the end user. Mr Cook said: "One key is to improve availability, to increase competition; the other is to increase access – remove barriers. What many seemed to overlook in the debate was that it is no good simply transferring or re-packaging costs; what really matters is the final cost to the animal owner, as neither farmers or pet owner can pass their costs on to someone else. Also, it is no good cutting the purchase price of the medicine if all the associated costs have to rise to compensate".

"Overall," said Mr Cook, "the recommendations can give us great hope that some over-regulation issues can be solved. Medicine availability and accessibility should also improve if Government is able to carry through the points it has accepted. But so much will depend on what can be achieved in Brussels, as the whole authorisation process for animal medicine is under review as part of the EU Review 2001 process." The potential threat to the flexible yet controlled medicine distribution system that exists in the UK, by the EU proposal to make all farm animal medicines POM (prescription only), needs to be borne in mind.

There are also many questions about what the effect will be on the cost of animal medicines to the end user. "My own expectation is that the overall cost is unlikely to reduce, but what we will get is more transparency in pricing, better trained people at every step in the chain, and medicines that are better appreciated, better cared for and so used more effectively. If I am right, if these benefits can be achieved, then I believe the whole Marsh process can be regarded as a success, and looked back on with pride and satisfaction by all those who took part," concluded Mr Cook.

1 February 2002

Notes for Editors

1. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon at NOAH, tel. +44 (0)20 8367 3131.

2. The National Office of Animal Health was formed on 1 January 1986 to represent the UK companies which research, develop, manufacture and market licensed animal health products. The association has 38 corporate members and 11 associate members. In 2000 NOAH's members accounted for around 95% of the £357 million UK animal health market, with additional valuable exports.

3. See the NOAH issues page on the Independent Review of Dispensing for more information and links relating to the Marsh Report.