The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?

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.

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.

The Influence of Foreign Direct Investment on Physical Health of Rural-Urban Migrants-Empirical Evidence from China Migrants Dynamic Survey

The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on rural-urban migrants' physical health and its influencing mechanism. A total of 134,920 rural-urban migrant samples are matched based on the China Migrants Dynamic Survey in 2017 and the China Urban Statistical Yearbook in 2016. On the basis of the samples, a Binary Probit Model is used to explore the relationship between the degree of FDI and rural-urban migrants' physical health. The results show that compared with migrants who lived in cities with a lower FDI level, rural-urban migrants who lived in cities with a higher FDI level are better in physical health. The results of the mediation effect model show that the degree of FDI has a significant positive impact on employment rights and benefits the protection of rural-urban migrants, improving rural-urban migrants' physical health, which means employment rights and benefits protection plays an intermediary role in the process of FDI affecting rural-urban migrants' physical health. Therefore, when formulating public policies such as plans to improve the physical health of rural-urban migrants, not only the availability of medical services for rural-urban migrants needs to be improved, but the positive spillover effect of FDI should be taken into account. By doing so, FDI can positively affect the physical health of rural-urban migrants.

US and EU Free Trade Agreements and implementation of policies to control tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food and drinks: A quasi-experimental analysis

BACKGROUND

Identifying and tackling the factors that undermine regulation of unhealthy commodities is an essential component of effective noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention. Unhealthy commodity producers may use rules in US and EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) to challenge policies targeting their products. We aimed to test whether there was a statistical relationship between US and EU FTA participation and reduced implementation of WHO-recommended policies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a statistical analysis assessing the probability of at least partially implementing 10 tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food and drink policies in 127 countries in 2014, 2016, and 2019. We assessed differences in implementation of these policies in countries with and without US/EU FTAs. We used matching to conduct 48 covariate-adjusted quasi-experimental comparisons across 27 matched US/EU FTA members (87 country-years) and performed additional analyses and robustness checks to assess alternative explanations for our results. Out of our 48 tests, 19% (9/48) identified a statistically significant decrease in the predicted probability of at least partially implementing the unhealthy commodity policy in question, while 2% (1/48) showed an increase. However, there was marked heterogeneity across policies. At the level of individual policies, US FTA participation was associated with a 37% reduction (95%CI: -0.51 to -0.22) in the probability of fully implementing graphic tobacco warning policies, and a 53% reduction (95%CI: -0.63 to -0.43) in the probability of at least partially implementing smoke-free place policies. EU FTA participation was associated with a 28% reduction (95%CI: -0.45 to -0.10) in the probability of fully implementing graphic tobacco warning policies, and a 25% reduction (95%CI: -0.47 to -0.03) in the probability of fully implementing restrictions on child marketing of unhealthy food and drinks. There was a positive association with implementing fat limits and bans, but this was not robust. Associations with other outcomes were not significant. The main limitations included residual confounding, limited ability to discern precise mechanisms of influence, and potentially limited generalisability to other FTAs.

CONCLUSIONS

US and EU FTA participation may reduce the probability of implementing WHO-recommended tobacco and child food marketing policies by between a quarter and a half-depending on the FTA and outcome in question. Governments negotiating or participating in US/EU FTAs may need to establish robust health protections and mitigation strategies to achieve their NCD mortality reduction targets.

Trade, intellectual property, and the public health bearing

The objective of this article is to describe the current fracture between global trade and public health priorities, as well as examine opportunities for harmonisation. A literature review of public health, global trade, and intellectual property articles describes several issues with recommendations. Currently, there is mixed quality of research and a lack of health impact assessments to accompany the global trade agenda. Human rights concepts continue in debate as flexibilities to trade laws remain without organised surveillance or evaluation. There are specific, relevant recommendations to implement a trade agenda inclusive of public health leadership. Recent trade and intellctual property advances in public health collaborations should be supported and continued. Trade groups should produce impact assessments before decisions on policies are made, with quality to the research. Lastly, a global research and development treaty should be an open, accessed path.

Creating Political Will for Action on Health Equity: Practical Lessons for Public Health Policy Actors

BACKGROUND

Despite growing evidence on the social determinants of health and health equity, political action has not been commensurate. Little is known about how political will operates to enact pro-equity policies or not. This paper examines how political will for pro-health equity policies is created through analysis of public policy in multiple sectors.

METHODS

Eight case studies were undertaken of Australian policies where action was either taken or proposed on health equity or where the policy seemed contrary to such action. Telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 192 state and non-state participants. Analysis of the cases was done through thematic analysis and triangulated with document analysis.

RESULTS

Our case studies covered: trade agreements, primary healthcare (PHC), work conditions, digital access, urban planning, social welfare and Indigenous health. The extent of political will for pro-equity policies depended on the strength of path dependency, electoral concerns, political philosophy, the strength of economic and biomedical framings, whether elite interests were threatened and the success or otherwise of civil society lobbying.

CONCLUSION

Public health policy actors may create political will through: determining how path dependency that exacerbates health inequities can be broken, working with sympathetic political forces committed to fairness; framing policy options in a way that makes them more likely to be adopted, outlining factors to consider in challenging the interests of elites, and considering the extent to which civil society will work in favour of equitable policies. A shift in norms is required to stress equity and the right to health.

International investment liberalization, transnational corporations and NCD prevention policy non-decisions: a realist review on the political economy of tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food

BACKGROUND

Public health concerns relating to international investment liberalization have centred on the potential for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)-related regulatory chill. However, the broader political and economic dimensions that shape the relationship between the international investment regime and non-communicable disease (NCD) policy development have been less well explored. This review aimed to synthesise the available evidence using a political economy approach, to understand why, how and under what conditions transnational corporations may use the international investment regime to promote NCD prevention policy non-decisions.

MAIN BODY

Methods: Mechanisms explaining why/how the international investment regime may be used by transnational health-harmful commodity corporations (THCCs) to encourage NCD prevention policy non-decisions, including regulatory chill, were iteratively developed. Six databases and relevant grey literature was searched, and evidence was extracted, synthesized and mapped against the various proposed explanatory mechanisms.

FINDINGS

Eighty-nine sources were included. THCCs may be incentivised to use the ISDS mechanism since the costs may be outweighed by the benefits of even just delaying regulatory adoption, particularly since the chilling effect tends to ripple out across jurisdictions. Drivers of regulatory chill may include ambiguity in treaty terms, inconsistency in arbitral rulings, potential arbitrator bias and the high cost of arbitration. Evidence indicates ISDS can delay policy adoption both within the country directly involved but also in other jurisdictions. Additionally, governments are adopting standard assessments of public health regulatory proposals for trade and ISDS risk. Various economic, political and industry-related factors likely interact to increase (or decrease) the ultimate risk of regulatory chill. Some evidence indicates that THCCs take advantage of governments' prioritization of foreign investment over NCD prevention objectives to influence the NCD prevention regulatory environment.

CONCLUSIONS

While ISDS-related regulatory chill is a real risk under certain conditions, international investment-related NCD prevention policy non-decisions driven by broader political economy dynamics may well be more widespread and impactful on NCD regulatory environments. There is therefore a clear need to expand the research agenda on investment liberalization and NCD policy beyond regulatory chill and engage with theories and approaches from international relations and political science, including political economy and power analyses.

Glossary on free trade agreements and health part 2: new trade rules and new urgencies in the context of COVID-19

Part 1 of this glossary provided a brief background on the rise of regional/bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) and described the health implications of new trade obligations that figure prominently in current and recent trade negotiations, focusing on those provisions that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them.

Glossary on free trade agreements and health part 1: the shift from multilateralism and the rise of 'WTO-Plus' provisions

The global trading system has undergone a shift away from multilateral trade negotiations to a 'spaghetti-bowl' of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). In this two-part glossary, we discuss why this shift has occurred, focusing on how it poses new challenges for public health. Specifically, we introduce key terms that shape this new trading environment and explain them through a public health lens. Part 1 of this glossary focuses on provisions in FTAs that build on previous agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These provisions are commonly designated as 'WTO-Plus'. This approach continues into part 2 of the glossary, which also considers components of FTAs that have no precedent within WTO treaties. Following a broader discussion of how the current political context and the COVID-19 pandemic shape the contemporary trade environment, part 2 considers the main areas of trade and health policy incoherence as well as recommendations to address them.

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.

A multidisciplinary review of the policy, intellectual property rights, and international trade environment for access and affordability to essential cancer medications

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee approved the addition of 16 cancer medicines to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), bringing the total number of cancer medicines on the list to 46. This change represented the first major revision to the EML oncology section in recent history and reinforces international recognition of the need to ensure access and affordability for cancer treatments. Importantly, many low and middle-income countries rely on the EML, as well as the children’s EML, as a guide to establish national formularies, and moreover use these lists as tools to negotiate medicine pricing. However, EML inclusion is only one component that impacts cancer treatment access. More specifically, factors such as intellectual property rights and international trade agreements can interact with EML inclusion, drug pricing, and accessibility. To better understand this dynamic, we conducted an interdisciplinary review of the patent status of EML cancer medicines compared to other EML noncommunicable disease medicines using the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st editions of the list. We also explored the interaction of intellectual property rights with the international trade regime and how trade agreements can and do impact cancer treatment access and affordability. Based on this analysis, we conclude that patent status is simply one factor in the complex international environment of health systems, IPR policies, and trade regimes and that aligning these oftentimes disparate interests will require shared global governance across the cancer care continuum.

How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy

How health advocates and industry actors attempt to assert their authority as a strategy of influence in policymaking remains underexplored in the health governance literature. Greater exploration of the kinds of authority sources used by health actors vis-à-vis market actors and the role ideational factors may play in shaping access to these sources provides insight into advocates' efforts to exert influence in policy forums. Using the trade domain in Australia as a case study of the way in which the commercial determinants of health operate, we examined the different ways in which health, public interest and market actors assert their authority. Drawing on a political science typology of authority, we analysed 87 submissions to the Australian government during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We identify four types of authority claims; institutional authority, derived from holding a position of influence within another established institution; legal authority through appeals to legal agreements and precedents; networked authority through cross-referencing between actors, and expert authority through use of evidence. Combining these claims with a framing analysis, we found that these bases of authority were invoked differently by actors who shared the dominant neoliberal ideology in contrast to those actors that shared a public interest discourse. In particular, market actors were much less likely to rely on external sources of authority, while health and public interest actors were more likely to appeal to networked and expert authority. We argue that actors who share strong ideational alignment with the dominant policy discourse appear less reliant on other sources of authority. Implications of this analysis include the need for greater attention to the different strategies and ideas used by industry and public health organisations in trade policy agenda-setting for health, which ultimately enable or constrain the advancement of health on government agendas.

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.

Trade, investment and public health: compiling the evidence, assembling the arguments

Trade has long been an axiomatic characteristic of globalization, although international rules governing trade are of more recent vintage. Notably in the post-World War II period, an ever increasing number of countries began negotiating treaties to reduce, first, tariff barriers and, later, non-tariff barriers (government measures of any sort) that could impede the cross-border flow of goods. The rationale, in part, was that countries that became more entwined economically would be less likely to go to war with each other. It wouldn't be in their own economic interests to do so, or at least that of the firms based within their borders but engaged in transnational trade and dependent upon global supply chains. At first primarily an undertaking of developed (high-income) countries, developing (low and middle-income countries) slowly enjoined in what, in 1995, became the World Trade Organization. The WTO locked in scheduled declines in tariffs (border taxes), albeit with lesser obligations on developing country members (a problematic nomenclature given the vast geographic, economic, and development differences between such countries, but which nonetheless persists within the WTO). Importantly, a slew of new agreements that coincided with the establishment of the WTO also sought to liberalize trade in services (not just goods) (The General Agreement on Trade in Services), create new rules for agricultural trade (Agreement on Agriculture), expand intellectual property rights protections (The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), limit trade-distorting government subsidies (Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures), and ensure that government food, health, or environmental regulations would not pose an unnecessary barrier to trade (the Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreements). Outside of the WTO system, bilateral or regional investment treaties granting special rights to foreign investors to sue governments for actions perceived to affect the value of their investment (such as direct expropriation or passage of new laws and regulations considered 'tantamount to expropriation') similarly exploded in number, dispute frequency, and the size of monetary claims. The breadth and depth of these post-1995 Agreements meant that few areas of general public health concern are potentially untouched.

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.

This Is My (Post) Truth, Tell Me Yours Comment on "The Rise of Post-truth Populism in Pluralist Liberal Democracies: Challenges for Health Policy"

This is a commentary on the article ‘The rise of post-truth populism in pluralist liberal democracies: challenges for health policy.’ It critically examines two of its key concepts: populism and ‘post truth.’ This commentary argues that there are different types of populism, with unclear links to impacts, and that in some ways, ‘post-truth’ has resonances with arguments advanced in the period at the beginning of the British National Health Service (NHS). In short, ‘post-truth’ populism’ may be ‘déjà vu all over again,’ and there are multiple (post) truths: this is my (post) truth, tell me yours.

Thinking Out of the Box: A Green and Social Climate Fund Comment on "Politics, Power, Poverty and Global Health: Systems and Frames"

Solomon Benatar's paper "Politics, Power, Poverty and Global Health: Systems and Frames" examines the inequitable state of global health challenging readers to extend the discourse on global health beyond conventional boundaries by addressing the interconnectedness of planetary life. Our response explores existing models of international cooperation, assessing how modifying them may achieve the twin goals of ensuring healthy people and planet. First, we address why the inequality reducing post World War II European welfare model, if implemented state-by-state, is unfit for reducing global inequality and respecting environmental boundaries. Second, we argue that to advance beyond the 'Westphalian,' human centric thinking integral to global inequality and climate change requires challenging the logic of global economic integration and exploring the politically infeasible. In conclusion, we propose social policy focused changes to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and a Green and Social Climate Fund, financed by new global greenhouse gas charges, both of which could advance human and planetary health. Recent global political developments may offer a small window of opportunity for out of the box proposals that could be advanced by concerted and united advocacy by global health activists, environmental activists, human rights activists, and trade unions.

Just Say No to the TPP: A Democratic Setback for American and Asian Public Health Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

The article by Labonté, Schram, and Ruckert is a significant and timely analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) policy and the severe threats to public health that it implies for 12 Pacific Rim populations from the Americas and Asia (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam). With careful and analytic precision the authors convincingly unearth many aspects of this piece of legislation that undermine the public health achievements of most countries involved in the TTP. Our comments complement their policy analysis with the aim of providing a positive heuristic tool to assist in the understanding of the TPP, and other upcoming treaties like the even more encompassing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and in so doing motivate the public health community to oppose the implementation of the relevant provisions of the agreements. The aims of this commentary on the study of Labonté et al are to show that an understanding of the health effects of the TPP is incomplete without a political analysis of policy formation, and that realist methods can be useful to uncover the mechanisms underlying TPP’s political and policy processes.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Should We "Fear the Fear"? Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

RLabonté et al entitle their paper in this issue of the International Journal of Health Policy and Management "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?" Tantalisingly, they do not directly answer the question they pose, and in this commentary, we suggest that it is the wrong question; we should not 'fear' the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) at all, rather we should ask how we are to respond. The public health community is right to be concerned with the potential implications of trade and investment agreements (TIAs) for health, particularly with shifts from multilateral to regional/bilateral agreements including provisions with greater risk to public health. But it is critical to understand also the potential health benefits, and especially the mitigating policy and governance mechanisms to respond to adverse TIA implications. Given entrenched and divergent sectoral worldviews and perspectives between trade and health communities on these issues, achieving the requisite understanding will also likely require characterisation of these perspectives and identification of areas of common understanding and agreed solutions.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Intellectual Property Protection, and Access to Medicines

The inclusion of elevated standards of intellectual property (IP) protection in the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has raised serious public health concerns regarding access to medicines. A lesser-known trade agreement under negotiation in the Asia-Pacific region is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Framed as an attempt to reassert ASEAN's position in response to the United States-led TPP, RCEP includes key players China and India as well as several low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Leaked drafts of IP provisions proposed by Japan and South Korea raise similar concerns in the Asia-Pacific region. This article identifies TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement)-Plus provisions in leaked negotiating texts and examines their implications for LMICs that are not also parties to the TPP: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, China, and India. We find that higher levels of IP protection delay the market entry of generic medicines, giving rise to increased costs to governments and reduced access to essential medicines. The article concludes that the public health community should recognize risks inherent in trade agreements that promote expansions of IP rights and engage with governments to ensure that public health is adequately and explicitly protected in trade and investment negotiations.

Assessing the Health Impact of Trade: A Call for an Expanded Research Agenda Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

Labonté et al provide an insightful analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its impact on a selection of important health determinants. Their work confirms concerns raised by previous analyses of leaked drafts and offers governments serious and timely reasons to carefully consider provisions of the agreement prior to moving forward with ratification. It also contributes more generally to a growing literature focused on identifying the health impacts of trade. This commentary uses the authors' analysis as a starting point to reflect on two interrelated issues relevant both for taking seriously one of the article's main recommendations and future work in the area of trade and health.

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.

Is It Time to Say Farewell to the ISDS System? Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) continues to plague health-oriented government regulation. This is particularly reflected in recent challenges to tobacco control measures through bilateral investment agreements. There are numerous reform proposals circulating within the public health community. However, I suggest that perhaps it is time for the community to explore a stronger position on ISDS. I draw from mounting evidence on the problematic uses of the ISDS to explore the proposition that ISDS is no longer justified. I tackle the normative question of should the ISDS system persist and point out that the ISDS system is not justifiable from a development perspective and because of its nefarious use, is of no added value to a system that could rely on domestic courts.

Trade Policy and Health: Adding Retrospective Studies to the Research Agenda Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

Prospective studies of the potential health consequences of trade and investment treaties, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, are critical. These studies can make visible to trade policy-makers the potential negative impacts associated to such treaties and can influence the outcomes of such negotiations. However, few researchers have examined retrospectively the consequences of trade agreements. With more than 400 trade agreements and more than 2000 investment treaties currently in force, researchers have a large corpus of agreements to analyse in order to assess not only their potential impacts on health system and population health, but also their actual impacts. This comment suggests some research questions that would benefit from retrospective inquiry.

Current Models of Investor State Dispute Settlement Are Bad for Health: The European Union Could Offer an Alternative Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"

In this commentary, we endorse concerns about the health impact of the trans-pacific partnership (TPP), paying particular attention to its mechanisms for investor state dispute settlement. We then describe the different, judge-led approach being advocated by the European Commission team negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, arguing that, while not perfect, it offers significant advantages.

Trade liberalization and social determinants of health: A state of the literature review

The health impacts of trade liberalization are often described in relation to access to medicines, changing dietary patterns, tobacco use and alcohol consumption. The impacts of trade liberalization on the social determinants of health (SDH), are by contrast, less well known. Missing is an account of how liberalizing processes identified across different research areas relate to each other and how the association between trade liberalization and health is conceptualized within each of them, especially with reference to SDH. This paper presents a systematic review which provides a more complete picture of the pathways between trade liberalization and health, with special attention to SDH pathways. This picture captures the interrelationships between different areas of investigation, along with current limitations of our understanding and recommendations for future research.

Trade, Labour Markets and Health

Previous analyses indicate that there are a number of potentially serious health risks associated with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The objective of this work is to provide further insight into the potential health impacts of the TPP by investigating labour market pathways. The impact of the TPP on employment and working conditions is a major point of contention in broader public debates. In public health literature, these factors are considered fundamental determinants of health, yet they are rarely addressed in analyses of trade and investment agreements. We therefore undertake a prospective policy analysis of the TPP through a content analysis of the agreement's Labour Chapter. Provisions of the Chapter are analyzed with reference to the health policy triangle and four main areas through which labour markets influence health: power relations, social policies, employment conditions and working conditions. Findings indicate that implementation of the TPP can have important impacts on health through labour market pathways. While the Labour Chapter is being presented by proponents of the agreement as a vehicle for improvement in labour standards, we find little evidence to support this view. Instead, we find several ways the TPP may weaken employment relations to the detriment of health.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and access to HIV treatment in Vietnam

In the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement negotiations, the USA successfully pursued intellectual property (IP) provisions that will affect the affordability of medicines, including anti-retrovirals (ARV) for HIV. Vietnam has the lowest GDP per capita of the 12 TPP countries and in 2013 provided ARVs for only 68% of eligible people living with HIV. Using the current Vietnamese IP regime as our base case, we analysed the potential impact of a regime making full use of legal IP flexibilities, and one based on the IP provisions of the final, agreed TPP text. Results indicate that at current funding levels 82% of Vietnam's eligible people living with HIV would receive ARVs if legal flexibilities were fully utilised, while as few as 30% may have access to ARVs under the TPP Agreement - more than halving the proportion currently treated.

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

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a large regional trade agreement involving 12 countries. It was signed in principle in February 2016 but has not yet been ratified in any of the participating countries. The TPP provisions place a range of constraints on how governments regulate the pharmaceutical sector and set prices for medicines. This article presents a prospective policy analysis of the possible effects of the TPP on these two points in Canada and Australia. Five chapters of relevance to pharmaceutical policy are analyzed: chapters on Technical Barriers to Trade (Chapter 8), Intellectual Property (Chapter 18), Investment (Chapter 9), Dispute Resolution (Chapter 28), and an annex of the chapter on Transparency and Anti-Corruption (Chapter 26, Annex 26-A). The article concludes that the TPP could have profound effects on the criteria these countries use to decide on drug safety and effectiveness, how new drugs are approved (or not) for marketing, post-market surveillance and inspection, the listing of drugs on public formularies, and how individual drugs are priced in the future. Furthermore, the TPP, if ratified and enforced, will reduce future policy flexibility to address the increasing challenge of rising drug prices.