The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Pharmaceutical Regulation in Canada and Australia

Prospective policy analysis-a critical interpretive synthesis review

Most policy analysis methods and approaches are applied retrospectively. As a result, there have been calls for more documentation of the political-economy factors central to health care reforms in real-time. We sought to highlight the methods and previous applications of prospective policy analysis (PPA) in the literature to document purposeful use of PPA and reflect on opportunities and drawbacks. We used a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach as our initial scoping revealed that PPA is inconsistently defined in the literature. While we found several examples of PPA, all were researcher-led, most were published recently and few described mechanisms for engagement in the policy process. In addition, methods used were often summarily described and reported on relatively short prospective time horizons. Most of the studies stemmed from high-income countries and, across our sample, did not always clearly outline the rationale for a PPA and how this analysis was conceptualized. That only about one-fifth of the articles explicitly defined PPA underscores the fact that researchers and practitioners conducting PPA should better document their intent and reflect on key elements essential for PPA. Despite a wide recognition that policy processes are dynamic and ideally require multifaceted and longitudinal examination, the PPA approach is not currently frequently documented in the literature. However, the few articles reported in this paper might overestimate gaps in PPA applications. More likely, researchers are embedded in policy processes prospectively but do not necessarily write their articles from that perspective, and analyses led by non-academics might not make their way into the published literature. Future research should feature examples of testing and refining the proposed framework, as well as designing and reporting on PPA. Even when policy-maker engagement might not be feasible, real-time policy monitoring might have value in and of itself.

Patenting and patent challenges in South Korea after introducing a patent linkage system

Background

South Korea introduced the patent linkage system in 2015 as part of the implementation of free trade agreements with the United States. This study assessed trends in brand-name drug patenting and generic patent challenges in South Korea after the introduction of the system.

Methods

From 2012–19, we constructed a novel dataset that combines information about listed patents with their corresponding brand-name drugs and patent challenges against these brand-name drugs. We analyzed brand-name drug patenting and generic patent challenges and elucidated factors in timely patent challenges using event history analysis.

Results

During the study period, 659 brand-name drugs listed their patents in the K-Orange Book and patent challenges against 95 brand-name drugs were initiated. The number of listed patents and their nominal patent term varied by the characteristics of the brand-name drugs. Patent challenges of generic drugs were marginal in South Korea even though the surge of patent challenges of generics were noticed right after the introduction of the patent linkage system.

Conclusions

Patenting and patent challenges are critical factors when introducing generic drugs into the market under the patent linkage system. However, the impact of the patent linkage system on patenting and patent challenges could be varied by the specific form of the patent linkage system and the contexts of pharmaceutical markets.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-022-00887-5.

Challenges to sovereign ambitions: forces of convergence and divergence within the global pharmaceutical sector and the UK's withdrawal from the European Union

This paper maps key regulatory, governance and legal challenges associated with the UK's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) in terms of convergent and divergent pressures within the global pharmaceutical sector. These include (i) convergent regulatory pressures associated with the European framework for pre-market licensing; (ii) convergent and divergent industry pressures with regard to drug discovery and manufacturing; and (iii) divergent and convergent market pressures associated with the supply, pricing and assessment of medicines. The UK's sovereign ambitions risk a loss of influence over the licensing and surveillance of pharmaceuticals under convergent regulatory and industry pressures to engage in unilateral participation in the European regime. Further, they also risk a loss of influence over processes for pricing and assessing the effectiveness of new treatment regimens under divergent market pressures from larger pharmaceutical markets outside the EU, notably the United States.

Understanding the trends in international agreements on pricing and reimbursement for newly marketed medicines and their implications for access to medicines: a computational text analysis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines.

METHODS

We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines.

RESULTS

Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

Understanding the trends in international agreements on pricing and reimbursement for newly marketed medicines and their implications for access to medicines: a computational text analysis

Background

Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines.

Methods

We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines.

Results

Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions.

Conclusions

Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

Analyzing the impact of trade and investment agreements on pharmaceutical policy: provisions, pathways and potential impacts

Background

Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways.

Results

An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways.

Conclusions

The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.

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.

Financial costs associated with monopolies on biologic medicines in Australia

Objectives The aim of the study was to estimate the potential savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) in 2015–16 if biosimilar versions of selected biologic medicines (biologics) had been available and listed on the PBS. Methods The research involved retrospective analysis of Australian Medicare expenditure data and PBS price data from 2015–16 for biologics, for which biosimilar competition may be available in future, listed on the PBS. Results Australian Government expenditure on biologics on the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars in 2015–16. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS in 2015–16, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved in PBS and RPBS subsidies. Modelling based on price decreases following listing of biosimilars on the PBS suggests that annual PBS outlays on biologics could be reduced by as much as 24% through the timely introduction of biosimilars. Conclusions Biologic medicines represent a large proportion of government expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Reducing the length of monopoly protections on these medicines could generate savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. What is known about the topic? Biologics take up an increasing share of pharmaceutical expenditure, but no previous published studies have examined Australian Government expenditure on biologics or the potential savings from reducing the duration of monopoly protection. What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence about Australian Government expenditure on biologics and potential savings for selected medicines that are still subject to monopoly protection and thus are not yet subject to biosimilar competition. In 2015–16 Australian Government expenditure on biologics through the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS at that time, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved. What are the implications for practitioners? Reducing the duration of monopoly protection on biologic medicines could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually that could be redirected to other areas of the healthcare system.

A suggestion for evolution of Canada’s health regulatory system

Aspects of Canada’s health regulatory system are currently being reviewed. This is timely, as the regulation and definition of drugs, foods, and natural health products (NHPs) is in need of revision to facilitate greater transparency and less ambiguity. A number of studies have illustrated the importance of a nutritious diet to prevent and manage chronic disease. Therefore, legislation surrounding food health claims needs to be adjusted so that it is more informative for disease prevention and, in some cases, treatment. Canada is modernizing the regulation of self-care products, under which NHPs, including probiotic products, are listed. With the growing appreciation for the role that microbes play in human health and the recognition that many foods, including those containing probiotic organisms, can prevent or mitigate disease, this provides an opportunity to reassess regulatory categories.

A conceptual framework for investigating the impacts of international trade and investment agreements on noncommunicable disease risk factors

We developed a conceptual framework exploring pathways between trade and investment and noncommunicable disease (NCD) outcomes. Despite increased knowledge of the relevance of social and structural determinants of health, the discourse on NCD prevention has been dominated by individualizing paradigms targeted at lifestyle interventions. We situate individual risk factors, alongside key social determinants of health, as being conditioned and constrained by trade and investment policy, with the aim of creating a more comprehensive approach to investigations of the health impacts of trade and investment agreements, and to encourage upstream approaches to combating rising rates of NCDs. To develop the framework we employed causal chain analysis, a technique which sequences the immediate causes, underlying causes, and root causes of an outcome; and realist review, a type of literature review focussed on explaining the underlying mechanisms connecting two events. The results explore how facilitating trade in goods can increase flows of affordable unhealthy imports; while potentially altering revenues for public service provision and reshaping domestic economies and labour markets-both of which distribute and redistribute resources for healthy lifestyles. The facilitation of cross-border trade in services and investment can drive foreign investment in unhealthy commodities, which in turn, influences consumption of these products; while altering accessibility to pharmaceuticals that may mediate NCDs outcomes that result from increased consumption. Furthermore, trade and investment provisions that influence the policy-making process, set international standards, and restrict policy-space, may alter a state's propensity for regulating unhealthy commodities and the efficacy of those regulations. It is the hope that the development of this conceptual framework will encourage capacity and inclination among a greater number of researchers to investigate a more comprehensive range of potential health impacts of trade and investment agreements to generate an extensive and robust evidence-base to guide future policy actions in this area.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, intellectual property and medicines: Differential outcomes for developed and developing countries

The final text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), agreed between the 12 negotiating countries in 2016, included a suite of intellectual property provisions intended to expand and extend pharmaceutical company exclusivities on medicines. It drew wide criticism for including such provisions in an agreement that involved developing countries (Vietnam, Peru, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile and Brunei Darussalam) because of the effect on delaying the introduction of low-cost generics. While developing nations negotiated transition periods for implementing some obligations, all parties would have eventually been expected to meet the same standards had the TPP come into force. While the TPP has stalled following US withdrawal, there are moves by some of the remaining countries to reinvigorate the agreement without the United States. The proponents may seek to retain as much as possible of the original text in the hope that the United States will re-join the accord in future. This article presents a comparative analysis of the impact the final 2016 TPP intellectual property chapter could be expected to have (if implemented in its current form) on the intellectual property laws and regulatory regimes for medicines in the TPP countries. Drawing on the published literature, it traces the likely impact on access to medicines. It focuses particularly on the differential impact on regulatory frameworks for developed and developing nations (in terms of whether or not legislative action would have been required to implement the agreement). The article also explores the political and economic dynamics that contributed to these differential outcomes.

Market Exclusivity Time for Top Selling Originator Drugs in Canada: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study looks at market exclusivity time for the top selling originator drugs in Canada. Total sales for drugs without competition were also calculated.

METHODS

A list of the top selling originator drugs by dollar sales from 2009 to 2015 inclusive, except for 2010, was compiled along with their annual sales. Health Canada databases were used to extract the following information: generic name, date of Notice of Compliance (NOC, date of marketing authorization), whether the product was a small molecule drug or a biologic, and date of NOC for a generic or biosimilar. Market exclusivity time was calculated in days for drugs.

RESULTS

A total of 121 drugs were identified. There were 96 small molecule drugs (63 with a generic competitor and 33 with no generic competitor) and 25 biologics (none with a biosimilar competitor). The 63 drugs with a competitor had a mean market exclusivity time of 4478 days (12.3 years) (95% CI 4159-4798). The 58 drugs without competition had total annual sales of Can$8.59 billion and were on the market for a median of 5357 days (14.7 years) (interquartile range 3291-6679) as of January 31, 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Top selling originator drugs in Canada have a considerably longer period of market exclusivity than the 8 to 10 years that the research-based pharmaceutical industry claims.

Advancing Public Health on the Changing Global Trade and Investment Agenda Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

Concerns regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have raised awareness about the negative public health impacts of trade and investment agreements. In the past decade, we have learned much about the implications of trade agreements for public health: reduced equity in access to health services; increased flows of unhealthy commodities; limits on access to medicines; and constrained policy space for health. Getting health on the trade agenda continues to prove challenging, despite some progress in moving towards policy coherence. Recent changes in trade and investment agendas highlight an opportunity for public health researchers and practitioners to engage in highly politicized debates about how future economic policy can protect and support equitable public health outcomes. To fulfil this opportunity, public health attention now needs to turn to strengthening policy coherence between trade and health, and identifying how solutions can be implemented. Key strategies include research agendas that address politics and power, and capacity building for both trade and health officials.