We Cannot Win the Access to Medicines Struggle Using the Same Thinking That Causes the Chronic Access Crisis.

The inequity in access to COVID-19 vaccines that we are witnessing today is yet another symptom of a pharmaceutical economy that is not fit for purpose. That it was possible to develop multiple COVID-19 vaccines in less than a year, while at the same time fostering extreme inequities, calls for transformative change in the health innovation and access ecosystem. Brought into the spotlight through the AIDS drugs access crisis, challenges in accessing lifesaving medicines and vaccines-because they are either not available or inaccessible due to excessive pricing-are being faced by people all over the world. To appreciate the underlying framing of current access discussions, it is important to understand past trends in global health policies and the thinking behind the institutions and mechanisms that were designed to solve access problems. Contrary to what might be expected, certain types of solutions intrinsically carry the conditions that enable scarcity, rationing, and inequity, and lead us away from ensuring the right to health. Analyzing the root causes of access problems and the political economy that allows them to persist and even become exacerbated is necessary to fix access inequities today and to design better solutions to ensure equitable access to health technologies in the future.

Supplementary protection certificates and their impact on access to medicines in Europe: case studies of sofosbuvir, trastuzumab and imatinib.

In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on public health systems in high-income countries due to high medicines prices, one of the underlying causes of which are the market monopolies granted to pharmaceutical undertakings. These monopolies have been facilitated by expanded forms of intellectual property protections, including the extension of the exclusivity period after the expiration of the patent term concerning medicinal products. In the European Union such an approach lies in the Supplementary Protection Certificate, a mechanism formally introduced under Regulation 1768/92/EEC (now: Regulation 469/2009/EC, amended). After more than 20 years of implementation since it was first introduced, the common justifications for SPCs are being challenged by recent findings as to their functioning and impact. Similarly, legitimate questions have been voiced as to the negative impact of SPCs on timely access to affordable medicines. On the basis of an analysis of three medicines for hepatitis C and cancer treatments, the present article critically engages with the policy justifications underlying SPCs. It then analyses access challenges to a hepatitis C medicine and an HIV treatment in Europe, highlighting the social cost of the introduction of SPCs. Both the normative and empirical analyses have demonstrated that the common justifications supporting the SPC regime are deeply questionable. The addition of SPC exclusivity has also heavily delayed competition and maintained high medicines prices in European countries. Ultimately, the granting of such extended exclusive private rights on medicines may result in unnecessary suffering and be a factor in the erosion of access to medicines for all.

Rationing hepatitis C treatment in the context of austerity policies in France and Cameroon: A transnational perspective on the pharmaceuticalization of healthcare systems.

New powerful drugs against hepatitis C can cure the disease, but they are not widely distributed because their exorbitant prices are destabilizing healthcare systems in both African and European countries. This article takes access to hepatitis C treatments since 2013 in France and in Cameroon as a lens to analyze the rationing of pharmaceutical treatments in relation to recent transformations of health systems. Access to these treatments is analyzed thanks to ethnographic observation and interviews lead in Paris and Yaoundé, with patients, associations, health professionals and public health experts. In Cameroon, rationing takes place through various layers of socio-economic restrictions, and no patient organization advocates for hepatitis treatment. In France, access to hepatitis C treatments has become politicized, and collective mobilizations have denounced rationing as a threat to the promise of universal social security. In this study, we examine Africa's long experience with rationing in the context of structural adjustment, and we bring together experiences in France and Cameroon. This article analyses the phenomenon of the pharmaceuticalization of healthcare systems, that is to say the growing use of pharmaceuticals in healthcare systems, by documenting the social and political construction of scarcity. Indeed, whereas pharmaceuticalization is a concept that has often been used in situations of drugs abundance, a parallel analysis of rationing highlights a political economy of pharmaceuticals that shapes public health debates and policies according to an economy of scarcity, especially in times of austerity.

Free trade negotiations can be harmful to your health.

When negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs), the U.S. uses its considerable power to get countries to agree to intellectual property (IP) provisions that go beyond what is mandated in international IP accords. In this article, which is based on a poster presented at the conference, Gaëlle Krikorian describes the tactics used by the U.S. and explains how the results of its efforts can impede access to newer medicines in developing countries.