Once again, the WTO didn't require that as part of the decision, so to me, as long as this is being done ethically—and there hasn't been an indication that it would not be—then I don't believe that lists are necessary. Because we see the problem that's emerging now, for example, with India, let's say. Their patent restrictions are coming into place and the new HIV drugs that are necessary to go to the next level of treatment are going to be problematic. That was the testimony we heard from several organizations here. To me, by putting in those lists, you restrict the formulary necessary to treat people, and that adds another level of barrier. To me, it's critical.
The WTO divines who is a developing nation. We've only seen one case in the last number of years that this has been used; we haven't seen the widespread abuse that was predicted, even under the current model, and the insinuations that places such as Mexico and so forth were going to abuse this type of regime just have not come to fruition, in my opinion.
Putting the drugs on a list requires another level of barrier to add those drugs that often could be the proper formula for treatment. But I'm willing to accept the status quo or a model similar to it for the greater good of trying to improve the bill.