On 12/27/06, Rom Feria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 27, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Hi Sir Feria!
>
Wow! I have yet to be knighted by the queen... wait for her podcast!
Hahah
Sir Rom? :D
> On 12/27/06, Rom Feria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Because the government was buying generic drugs, the drug being
>> > generic imposes that the formula was out in public. Had the drug
>> not
>> > been generic, would government require the formula in the
>> procurement
>> > of the drug?
>>
>> The government favors generic over non-generic drugs. If there is no
>> generic available, then the government can purchase non-generics.
>
> Aha!
>
> But it's not required that in the procurement of the drugs that the
> formula be revealed right? And that the reason generics are favored is
> that the cost of generics is generally smaller than the non-generics,
> right?
>
> Is there a specific law which states this, or is there just a
> "convention" commonly practiced and observed by the DOH?
RA 6675 I think is the basis of the DOH's preference over non-
generics. Whilst it is not in the procurement guidelines, it will not
make sense for DOH not to support it.
I've skimmed through, and the pertinent parts I've taken the liberty to quote:
SECTION 2. Statement of Policy – It is hereby declared the policy of the State:
To promote, encourage and require the use of generic terminology
in the importation, manufacture, distribution, marketing, advertising
and promotion, prescription and dispensing of drugs;
To ensure the adequate supply of drugs with generic names at the
lowest possible cost and endeavor to make them available for free to
indigent patients;
To encourage the extensive use of drugs with generic names through
a rational system of procurement and distribution;
To emphasize the scientific basis for the use of drugs, in order
that health professionals may become more aware and cognizant of their
therapeutic effectiveness; and
To promote drug safety by minimizing duplication in medications
and/or use of drugs with potentially adverse drug interactions.
From: http://www.doh.gov.ph/ra/ra_6675.htm
I like the use of the words "encourage", "emphasize", "promote".
Though I think this refers to the marketing of drugs to the public
requiring the generic name to be prominently made visible or to prefer
using the generic term over the non-generic name.
> In the same light, cant the CICT just make a pronouncement and not
> have it written as law that the Philippine government favors FOSS over
> non-FOSS? And just please have the FOSS bill fix the laws and
> rules/protocols that need fixing to recognize FOSS, and not have the
> mandate of FOSS only in government written as law?
Remember that we have three branches in the government and that the
FOSS bill is only from ONE branch. CICT has its own take on this
issue and it is doing what it believes is proper for all parties
concerned. Even if the CICT mandates otherwise, if the FOSS bill is
passed, CICT will have to abide by it if it is signed by the President.
That makes sense.
The FOSS bill, afaic, indirectly requires that government CIOs be
more informed about software. The bill ensures, at least I think it
does, that CIOs decide on the merits of each solution based on a
software under FOSS license as a baseline. If a proprietary solution
is proven to be much more effective, the bill does not prevent it
from being purchased and used. Case in point, your DBMS example --
FOSS as a baseline (MySQL or PostgreSQL), if the software requirement
does not demand the full features of an Oracle RDBMS, then there is
no point in buying Oracle. The burden to analyze the technical merits
lies on the CIO and its staff -- which, unfortunately, is often
influenced by commercial software companies with its deep marketing/
sales pockets. As it is today, most government CIOs do not know what
FOSS is all about.
In the above case of the DBMS, I wouldn't go so far as to say that
FOSS would be used as a baseline, but rather a very viable alternative
-- even be the preferred solution, only because it really fits the
requirement (and is really cheaper to procure) not because of the
license.
But I do agree that there should be a way to educate government CIO's
of FOSS and what good it can do for everyone. I just don't know if a
law is the right way to do it.
Perhaps "the FOSS Promotion Act of 2010" ala "Generics Act of 1988" ? :D
On the other front, CICT is doing its best to educate these
government IT folks about FOSS. Whilst the HRDG of CICT is favoring
FOSS at this point, it is not closing its book on proprietary/
commercial software. What CICT wants, I think, is for each government
agency to be able to effectively compare FOSS and non-FOSS solutions
before making a procurement decision.
I like the part where it reads "What CICT wants, I think, is for each
government agency to be able to effectively compare FOSS and non-FOSS
solutions before making a procurement decision.". :)
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
