The potential impact of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Prans-Pacific Partnership on Thailand's hepatitis C treatment program.

BACKGROUND: Thailand has expressed interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a twelve-country plurilateral trade agreement whose original incarnation included the United States of America (USA). When the USA withdrew from this agreement, key intellectual property clauses relevant to pharmaceuticals were suspended. These could be reinstated should the CPTPP Parties decide to do so. METHODS: This study uses two scenarios to cost the impact the CPTPP would have had on Thailand's 2020 hepatitis C treatment regime if Thailand joined the CPTPP and suspended clauses were reinstated. RESULTS: Joining the CPTPP could have increased the cost more than tenfold if suspended CPTPP clauses were reinstated and Thailand was not willing or able to issue compulsory licenses. Based on the 2020 budget, the price for this possible scenario could have reduced hepatitis C treatment coverage by 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Acceding to trade agreements such as the CPTPP that require increasing intellectual property protection, could compromise Thailand's hepatitis C program and other national treatment programs reliant on affordable generic medicines. The CPTPP could also prevent Thailand from relying on its own pharmaceutical capabilities to manufacture medicines needed to sustain its treatment programs.

What is the impact of intellectual property rules on access to medicines? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is widely accepted that intellectual property legal requirements such as patents and data exclusivity can affect access to medicines, but to date there has not been a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence on this topic. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires Member States to implement minimum standards of intellectual property protection including patents for pharmaceutical products, but also contains 'flexibilities' designed to address barriers to access to medicines. National intellectual property laws can also include TRIPS-plus rules that go beyond what is required by TRIPS. We aimed to systematically review literature that measures the impact of intellectual property rules on access to medicines, whether implemented as a result of TRIPS, TRIPS-plus provisions in other trade agreements, or unilateral policy decisions. METHODS: We searched Proquest, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, JSTOR, Westlaw and Lexis Nexis. Peer reviewed articles, government reports and other grey literature were included. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were quantitative, in English, included a measure of cost, price, availability of or access to medicines, were about intellectual property or data exclusivity rules and published between January 1995 and October 2020. Ninety-one studies met our inclusion criteria. We systematically reviewed the studies' findings and evaluated their quality using a modified quality assessment template. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Five broad overarching themes and 11 subthemes were identified based on the articles' foci. They were: trade agreements (divided into EU FTAs and those that include the USA); use of TRIPS flexibilities (divided into compulsory licencing and parallel importation); patent expiry/generic entry/generic pathway (divided into comparative studies and single country studies); patent policies (also divided into comparative studies and single country studies) and TRIPS-plus rules (divided into data exclusivity, patent term extensions and secondary patenting). Most studies focused not on specific trade agreements, but on TRIPS-plus provisions, which can also be found within some trade agreements. The main finding of this review is that the stronger pharmaceutical monopolies created by TRIPs-plus intellectual property rules are generally associated with increased drug prices, delayed availability and increased costs to consumers and governments. There is evidence that TRIPS flexibilities can facilitate access to medicines although their use is limited to date. There were few studies that included resource poor settings, signalling a need for greater research in such settings where the impact on access to medicines is likely to be more damaging.

Defending access to medicines in regional trade agreements: lessons from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership - a qualitative study of policy actors' views.

BACKGROUND: The Regional Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) is a mega regional trade agreement signed by fifteen countries on 15 November 2020 after 8 years of negotiation. Signatories include the ten members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus China, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Australia. India was a negotiating party until it withdrew from the negotiations in November 2019. The RCEP negotiations were initially framed as focused on the needs of low income countries. Public health concerns emerged however when draft negotiating chapters were leaked online, revealing pressures on countries to agree to intellectual property and investment measures that could exacerbate issues of access to medicines and seeds, and protecting regulatory space for public health. A concerted Asia Pacific civil society campaign emerged in response to these concerns, and in 2019, media and government reporting suggested that several of these measures had been taken off the table, which was subsequently confirmed in the release of the signed text in November 2020. RESULTS: This paper examines civil society and health actors' views of the conditions that successfully contributed to the removal of these measures in RCEP, with a focus on intellectual property and access to medicines. Drawing on twenty semi-structured qualitative interviews with civil society, government and legal and health experts from nine countries participating in the RCEP negotiations, the paper reports a matrix of ten conditions related to actor power, ideas, political context and specific health issues that appeared to support prioritisation of some public health concerns in the RCEP negotiations. CONCLUSIONS: Conditions identified included strong low and middle income country leadership; strong civil society mobilisation, increased technical capacity of civil society and low and middle income negotiators; supportive public health norms; processes that somewhat opened up the negotiations to hear public health views; the use of evidence; domestic support for health issues; and supportive international public health legislation. Lessons from the RCEP can inform prioritisation of public health in future trade agreement negotiations.

Radical Approaches During Unusual Circumstances: Intellectual Property Regulation and the COVID-19 Dilemma.

The current outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic traces its roots back many decades and is worsened by a number of ill-conceived strategies and policies. The current patent protection regime and its suitability in dealing with the current COVID-19 pandemic need to be questioned. Strengthened intellectual property protection manifested by the rise of TRIPS-Plus standards is having a negative impact on the affordability and accessibility of medicines. Dealing with the current pandemic urgently demands serious reform and collective efforts.

USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the right to regulate for public health.

BACKGROUND: In late 2018 the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed a new trade agreement (most commonly referred to by its US-centric acronym, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA) to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The new agreement is the first major trade treaty negotiated under the shadow of the Trump Administration's unilateral imposition of tariffs to pressure other countries to accept provisions more favourable to protectionist US economic interests. Although not yet ratified, the agreement is widely seen as indicative of how the US will engage in future international trade negotiations. METHODS: Drawing from methods used in earlier health impact assessments of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, we undertook a detailed analysis of USMCA chapters that have direct or indirect implications for health. We began with an initial reading of the entire agreement, followed by multiple line-by-line readings of key chapters. Secondary sources and inter-rater (comparative) analyses by the four authors were used to ensure rigour in our assessments. RESULTS: The USMCA expands intellectual property rights and regulatory constraints that will lead to increased drug costs, particularly in Canada and Mexico. It opens up markets in both Canada and Mexico for US food exports without reducing the subsidies the US provides to its own producers, and introduces a number of new regulatory reforms that weaken public health oversight of food safety. It reduces regulatory policy space through new provisions on 'technical barriers to trade' and requirements for greater regulatory coherence and harmonization across the three countries. It puts some limitations on contentious investor-state dispute provisions between the US and Mexico, provisions often used to challenge or chill health and environmental measures, and eliminates them completely in disputes between the US and Canada; but it allows for new 'legacy claims' for 3 years after the agreement enters into force. Its labour and environmental chapters contain a few improvements but overall do little to ensure either workers' rights or environmental protection. CONCLUSION: Rather than enhancing public health protection the USMCA places new, extended, and enforceable obligations on public regulators that increase the power (voice) of corporate (investor) interests during the development of new regulations. It is not a health-enhancing template for future trade agreements that governments should emulate.

Moderating the impact of patent linkage on access to medicines: lessons from variations in South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patent linkage mechanisms in bilateral and plurilateral trade and investment agreements has emerged as a key element in the United States' TRIPS-Plus intellectual property (IP) negotiating agenda. However, the provisions establishing patent linkage mechanisms in several agreements appear to reflect a degree of ambiguity, potentially enabling some flexibility in their implementation. In this study, we reviewed the features of the prototypic patent linkage mechanism established by the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States, and compared these with the implementation of systems in three countries whose agreements with the US include patent linkage obligations. From these analyses, we draw lessons for moderating the impact of these mechanisms on access to generic medicines. METHODS: We reviewed the features of the patent linkage mechanism in the US, and undertook a detailed analysis of relevant treaty provisions and the manner of implementation in Canada, Australia, and South Korea. RESULTS: A key difference between the US implementation of patent linkage and that of its trading partners is the disparate treatment afforded to biologics. Because of the significant differences in the regulatory frameworks applying to small molecule and biologic medicines in the US, the Hatch- Waxman provisions do not apply to biologics and they are not subject to patent linkage. By contrast, the regulatory frameworks in Canada, Australia and South Korea do not reflect similar distinctions and thus patent linkage mechanisms also capture biologics. Additional variations in implementation, mainly the result of constructive ambiguities in the respective treaty texts, offer potential opportunity for mitigating the adverse impact of patent linkage provisions on market entry of generic medicines. Practical measures include ensuring the availability of an accessible, transparent and easily searchable database of patent information; avoiding automatic stays of generic marketing approval where possible; and requiring certification by rights holders to prevent abuse of the system. CONCLUSIONS: Where countries accept treaty obligations to establish patent linkage mechanisms, the impact on access to generic medicines may be moderated to a degree by retaining and exploiting constructive ambiguities in the treaty text and addressing practical aspects of implementation.

Raising the Barriers to Access to Medicines in the Developing World - The Relentless Push for Data Exclusivity.

Since the adoption of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement in 1994, there has been significant controversy over the impact of pharmaceutical patent protection on the access to medicines in the developing world. In addition to the market exclusivity provided by patents, the pharmaceutical industry has also sought to further extend their monopolies by advocating the need for additional 'regulatory' protection for new medicines, known as data exclusivity. Data exclusivity limits the use of clinical trial data that need to be submitted to the regulatory authorities before a new drug can enter the market. For a specified period, generic competitors cannot apply for regulatory approval for equivalent drugs relying on the originator's data. As a consequence, data exclusivity lengthens the monopoly for the original drug, impairing the availability of generic drugs. This article illustrates how the pharmaceutical industry has convinced the US and the EU to impose data exclusivity on their trade partners, many of them developing countries. The key arguments formulated by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of adopting data exclusivity and their underlying ethical assumptions are described in this article, analyzed, and found to be unconvincing. Contrary to industry's arguments, it is unlikely that data exclusivity will promote innovation, especially in developing countries. Moreover, the industry's appeal to a property rights claim over clinical test data and the idea that data exclusivity can prevent the generic competitors from 'free-riding' encounters some important problems: Neither legitimize excluding all others.