A/HRC/36/19 negotiate global agreements on the coordination, financing and development of health technology. That included negotiations for a convention on research and development that delinked the costs associated with such activities from end prices in order to promote access to health technologies. A number of representatives suggested that more attention should be given to engaging the pharmaceutical companies in efforts to ensure greater access to medicines. 36. Shadowing the concerns of the Panel report, many representatives of States underlined the importance of cooperation and coordinated action at all levels to ensure access to medicines. Several delegations urged UNCTAD to continue its cooperation programmes with small vulnerable economies. They also highlighted that countries should cooperate, and there needed to be a call on pharmaceutical companies to cooperate with United Nations agencies. 37. A few representatives, however, regretted the panellists’ strong focus on the Panel report. They pointed out that access to medicines, as covered in Human Rights Council resolution 32/15, was broader than the issues that had been raised in the Panel report. One representative argued that the panellists’ narrow focus deprived States of an opportunity to consider the reasons why essential medicines that were off-patent were not reaching patients in certain countries. Other possible barriers to consider included inappropriate tax and tariff policies, inadequate health systems, insufficient access to financing and lack of procurement systems. 38. Among some of the general challenges limiting access to medicines that were mentioned were lack of staff, discrimination, stigma, exclusion, limited supply chains, conflict zones and the related problems of providing humanitarian assistance to stricken communities. One representative drew attention to the imposition of unilateral coercive measures and the impact that had had on people who were in vital need of medicines. The representative asked panellists to address how such measures and/or sanctions had violated the right to health. IV. Conclusions 39. In their concluding comments, the panellists again focused on the intellectual property regime and the need for more coherence so that the right to health was respected and protected. While stressing the importance of the intellectual property system in ensuring innovation, some panellists articulated the need to “flex the flexibilities”. In demonstrating the benefits that competition could bring, Mr. Kirby cited the example of HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals, which had initially cost each patient $10,000 a year. The price had substantially decreased once competition had been introduced by allowing generics to be legally produced. 40. Several panellists highlighted the need to make sure that economic considerations were no longer prioritized over human rights. They also highlighted the need for improved transparency of both costs and pricing, and called on States to require health technology companies to reveal their actual investment in research and development. They asked Governments to disclose the price they paid for medicines and health technologies. Ms. Kieny noted the phenomenon of social value-based pricing when prices were not based on cost but on perceived social value. The prices of drugs to treat hepatitis C, for instance, were not indexed to research and development but to the cost of a liver transplant. 41. With regard to the possible convening of a special session of the General Assembly on that topic, Mr. Zhan stressed that there was a need to gather the views of stakeholders, including Governments and pharmaceutical industries, on the fundamental changes that needed to be made to the current model. He asked, for instance, what other models of funding were possible, such as push mechanisms (for example, grants) and pull mechanisms (for example, tax breaks). Panellists reiterated the call for the Secretary-General to establish an inter-agency task force on health technology innovation and access. 8