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

Author:

Wong Anna S. Y.ORCID,Cole Clarke B.,Kohler Jillian C.

Abstract

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.

Funder

Connaught Fund

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference35 articles.

1. OHCHR. Access to medicines and the right to health [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/health/pages/accesstomedicines.aspx.

2. Transparency International. What is corruption? [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption

3. Vian T, Kohler JC. Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA): Pathways to Transparency, Accountability and Access Cross-Case Analysis and Review of Phase II [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.who.int

4. Vian T, Kohler JC, Forte G, Dimancesco D. Promoting transparency, accountability, and access through a multi-stakeholder initiative: Lessons from the medicines transparency alliance. J Pharm Policy Pract [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 3]. 2017;10(1):18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-017-0106-x, 10, 1, 18

5. Brinkerhoff DW. Accountability and health systems: Toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance [Internet]. Vol. 19, Health Policy and Planning. Oxford Academic; 2004. p. 371–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/19/6/371/579576. [cited 2021 Jan 3].

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3