The World Health Organization was born as a normative agency: Seventy-five years of global health law under WHO governance.

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO's 75th anniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy.

Pandemics, intellectual property and 'our economy': A worldview analysis of Canada's role in compromising global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric, Canada compromised COVID-19 vaccine equity with policies impeding a proposed global waiver of vaccine intellectual property (IP) rules. To learn from Canada's vaccine nationalism we explore the worldview - a coherent textual picture of the world - in a sample of Government of Canada communications regarding global COVID-19 vaccine sharing. Analysed documents portray risks and disparities as unrelated to the dynamics and power relations of the Canadian and international economies. Against this depoliticised backdrop, economic growth fueled by strict IP rules and free trade is advanced as the solution to inequities. Global vaccine access and distribution are pursued via a charity-focused public-private-partnership approach, with proposals to relax international IP rules dismissed as unhelpful. Rather than a puzzling lapse by a good faith 'middle power', Canada's obstruction of global COVID-19 vaccine equity is a logical and deliberate extension of dominant neoliberal economic policy models. Health sector challenges to such models must prioritise equity in global pandemic governance via politically assertive and less conciliatory stances towards national governments and multilateral organisations. Mobilisation for health equity should transform the overall health-damaging macroeconomic model, complementing efforts based on specific individual health determinants or medical technologies.

A Global Health Law Trilogy: Transformational Reforms to Strengthen Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response.

This is a pivotal moment in the global governance response to pandemic threats, with crucial global health law reforms being undertaken simultaneously in the coming years: the revision of the International Health Regulations, the implementation of the GHSA Legal Preparedness Action Package, and the negotiation of a new Pandemic Treaty. Rather than looking at these reforms in isolation, it will be necessary to examine how they fit together, considering: how these reforms can complement each other to support pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response; what financing mechanisms are necessary to ensure sustainable health governance; and why vital norms of equity, social justice, and human rights must underpin this new global health system.

Health and human rights are inextricably linked in the COVID-19 response.

To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, governments throughout the world have introduced emergency measures that constrain individual freedoms, social and economic rights and global solidarity. These regulatory measures have closed schools, workplaces and transit systems, cancelled public gatherings, introduced mandatory home confinement and deployed large-scale electronic surveillance. In doing so, human rights obligations are rarely addressed, despite how significantly they are impacted by the pandemic response. The norms and principles of human rights should guide government responses to COVID-19, with these rights strengthening the public health response to COVID-19.

Decoding disclosure: Comparing conflict of interest policy among the United States, France, and Australia.

"Sunshine" policy, aimed at making financial ties between health professionals and industry publicly transparent, has recently gone global. Given that transparency is not the sole means of managing conflict of interest, and is unlikely to be effective on its own, it is important to understand why disclosure has emerged as a predominant public policy solution, and what the effects of this focus on transparency might be. We used Carol Bacchi's problem-questioning approach to policy analysis to compare the Sunshine policies in three different jurisdictions, the United States, France and Australia. We found that transparency had emerged as a solution to several different problems including misuse of tax dollars, patient safety and public trust. Despite these differences in the origins of disclosure policies, all were underpinned by the questionable assumption that informed consumers could address conflicts of interest. We conclude that, while transparency reports have provided an unprecedented opportunity to understand the reach of industry within healthcare, policymakers should build upon these insights and begin to develop policy solutions that address systemic commercial influence.

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

AIMS: This study compares physicians' recall of the claims of benefits on cardiovascular disease and diabetes made by pharmaceutical sales representatives for drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate outcome, i.e., an off-label claim, compared with those approved on the basis of a serious morbidity or mortality (clinical) outcome. METHODS: Physicians in primary care practices in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse, who saw sales representatives as part of their usual practice and served a non-referral population, were contacted in blocks of 25 from a randomized list of all physicians practising in the relevant metropolitan area. We compared how frequently physicians reported that sales reps made claims of serious morbidity or mortality (clinically meaningful) benefits for drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes vs. drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 448 promotions for 58 unique brand name cardiovascular and diabetes drugs. Claims of clinically meaningful benefit were reported in 156 (45%) of the 347 promotions for surrogate outcome drugs, constituting unwarranted efficacy claims, i.e., off-label promotion. Claims of clinical benefit were reported in 72 of the 101 promotions (71%) for drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes, adjusted OR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.2, 0.6), P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Claims of efficacy made in sales visit promotions for drugs approved only on the basis of surrogate outcomes extended beyond the regulator-approved efficacy information for the product in almost half of promotions. Unapproved claims of drug efficacy constitute a form of off-label promotion and merit greater attention from regulators.

Regulating Information or Allowing Deception? Pharmaceutical Sales Visits in Canada, France, and the United States.

Diverse legal and regulatory measures are used internationally to control the information provided during pharmaceutical sales visits. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of these measures however. We analyzed the perceptions of regulators, pharmaceutical industry officials, health professionals, and consumer respondents concerning these approaches in Canada, France, and the United States using an empirical realist interests-based approach. Interviews focused on the aims and effectiveness of regulation, barriers and enablers to regulation and suggestions for improvement. An alignment was found in North America regulator and industry respondents' satisfaction with the status quo and their view that further intervention is unfeasible and unnecessary. Health professionals generally expressed a lack of confidence in the impact of regulations on sales visit information while consumer advocates voiced their disappointment in both regulators and health professionals for their failure to counteract the influence of pharmaceutical marketing. Regulator and industry respondents in France differed from their North American counterparts in their willingness to increase and diversify the scope of regulatory interventions. As the first international comparison of regulatory experiences in this sector, the findings highlight the universal need for more focused and inclusive discussions among groups about how to tailor regulations to achieve public health goals.