Dataset Information

Intellectual property and access to medicines: mapping public attitudes toward pharmaceuticals during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiation process.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transparency and accountability are essential components at all stages of the trade negotiation process. This study evaluates the extent to which these principles were upheld in the United States' public consultation process during the negotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with respect to public comments about the pharmaceutical sector and access to medicines.

Results

The public consultation process occurred before the start of official negotiations and was overseen by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). It included both written comments and oral testimony about US trade negotiation objectives. Of the written comments that specifically discussed issues relating to pharmaceuticals, the majority were submitted by private individuals, members of the pharmaceutical industry, and civil society organizations. Nearly all comments submitted by non-industry groups indicated that access to medicines was a priority issue in the renegotiated agreement, with specific reference to price affordability. By contrast, more than 50% of submissions received from members or affiliates of the pharmaceutical industry advocated for strengthened pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, greater regulatory data protections, or both. This study reveals mixed outcomes with respect to the level of transparency achieved in the US trade negotiation process. Though input from the public at-large was actively solicited, the extent to which these comments were considered in the content of the final agreement is unclear. A preliminary comparison of the analyzed comments with the USTR's final negotiating objectives and the final text of the USMCA shows that several provisions that were advanced exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately adopted in the final agreement were opposed by the majority of non-industry stakeholders.

Conclusions

Negotiators could increase public transparency when choosing to advance one competing trade objective over another by actively providing the public with clear rationales for their negotiation positions, as well as details on how public comments are taken into account to form these rationales. Without greater clarity on these aspects, the public consultation process risks appearing to serve as a cursory government mechanism, lacking in accountability and undermining public trust in both the trade negotiation process and its outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Wong ASY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379891 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Providing universal access to high-cost medications like anticancer drugs is not an easy feat. Although basic medical insurance has covered over 95% of China's population since 2012, reimbursement for high-priced medicines is limited. In 2015, the Chinese government proposed establishing an open and transparent price negotiation mechanism for some patented and expensive drugs, where oncology was among the prioritized areas. In 2016, three drugs (gefitinib, icotinib, and tenofovir disoprox) underwent negotiation with the government, eventually reducing their prices by over 50% so that they could be prioritized during reimbursement processes. Focusing on anticancer medicines, this study comprehensively summarizes the progress in drug price and national reimbursement negotiation in China. Furthermore, we investigated the changes and development regarding negotiated anticancer medicines from quantity negotiated, classification, indication coverage, utilization, and procurement spending. Our findings could provide a reference for follow-up negotiations and reimbursement policies for high-value anticancer medications in other countries. From 2016 to 2021, 82 anticancer medicines were newly incorporated into the national reimbursement drug list (NRDL) via 6 rounds of negotiation. The majority of these were innovative pharmaceutics (ie, protein kinase inhibitors (28) and monoclonal antibodies (13)). Drug pricing and national reimbursement negotiation led to a marked decrease in prices and a sharp increase in the utilization of negotiated anticancer medicines. Following negotiations, the defined daily doses (DDDs) of innovative anticancer medicines experienced remarkable growth. Their proportion in total anticancer drugs DDDs also increased from 3.4% in 2014 to 20.9% in 2019. However, although drug prices decreased substantially after the negotiations, insurance spending still showed an upward trend owing to the significant increase in utilization. This calls for the government to carefully monitor the rational use of these expensive medicines and explore innovative payment models.

Project description:Biobanks are repositories that collect, store and distribute large quantities of biological samples and associated data (collectively called biobank `material'). Although biobanks have different modes of operation, all face a variety of similar challenges. Some of these challenges, such as donor consent and privacy, have been rigorously debated, but comparatively less attention has been paid to biobanks' intellectual property (IP) practices. IP rights (particularly patents) are integral to the translation of research into clinically relevant outcomes and, therefore, are key features in the business models of many biobanks. As a foundation for such research, commentators have identified five IP clauses of interest: (i) non-obstruction clauses; (ii) march-in clauses; (iii) grant-back clauses; (iv) return-of-results clauses and (v) reach-through clauses (also commonly called `reach-through rights'). In the limited literature that discusses the five clauses, commentators have largely debated their advantages and disadvantages in the abstract. The IP terms that biobanks actually use have not been empirically examined, apart from some small case studies. In particular, no industry-wide evidence exists on three points of biobanks' IP practice: (i) if and how biobanks implement these five types of IP clauses, (ii) whether any norms or standards have emerged, and (iii) whether the norms and standards align with commentators' recommendations for using the five IP clauses. To address these three gaps, the authors conducted a systematic, global survey of the IP clauses used by large, human biobanks. The results indicate that biobanks draft bespoke policies to meet their own needs, and probably do so without knowledge of the gamut of IP terms available. This study also revealed that, in general, biobanks are using IP terms differently from the advice of the commentators. On reviewing the differences, we encourage the use of march-in and grant-back clauses, discourage biobanks from using redundant non-obstruction clauses, and call for more research on return-of-results clauses. We also encourage the use of reach-through clauses to claim royalties (not IP), but only in limited circumstances; for example, where user access fees do not cover a biobanks' operational costs.