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.
World Bank Group. Global Economic Prospects, January 2016: Spillovers Amid Weak Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2016.
2.
LexchinJ. Relationship between pharmaceutical company user fees and drug approvals in Canada and Australia: a hypothesis-generating study. Ann Pharmacother2006; 40(12): 2216–2222.
3.
ClementFHarrisALiJYongKLeeKMannsB. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA2009; 302(13): 1437–1443.
4.
BaeGBaeEBaeS. Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea. Health Policy2015; 119(5): 577–587.
5.
LexchinJMintzesB. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care2008; 14(9): 581–588.
Knowledge Ecology International. US, AU and CA try to block WTO LDC drug patent waiver because PhRMA’s not happy enough with the TPP. http://keionline.org/node/2337. Published 2015. Accessed November 17, 2015.
LexchinJ. Harmony in drug regulation, but who’s calling the tune? An examination of regulatory harmonization in Health Canada. Int J Health Serv2012; 42(1): 119–136.
JøldalB. Regulation for need – the Norwegian experience. J Soc Adm Pharm1984; 2(2): 81–84.
12.
LexchinJ. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010?Arch Intern Med2012; 172(21): 1680–1681.
13.
Bruser D, McLean J. Canadians kept in dark about defective drugs. Toronto Star. September 11, 2014.
Eberhardt P, Olivet C. Profiting From Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom. Brussels, Belgium: Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute; 2012.
Schneiderman D. A CETA investment court is not the solution. Globe and Mail. March 5, 2016, page B7.
20.
Secret TPP investment chapter unveiled: it’s worse than we thought. Analysis of specific TPP investment provisions and their threats to the public interest: scope of ISDS challenges expanded, promised procedural reforms absent. http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-investment-chapter-november-2015.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed November 10, 2015.
LabontéRSchramARuckertA. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: is it everything we feared for health. Int J Health Policy Manage2016; 5(8): 487–496.
23.
Baker BK, Geddes K. Corporate power unbound: investor-state arbitration of IP monopolies on medicines – Eli Lilly v. Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 242-2015. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2667062. Accessed July 28, 2016.
24.
LexchinJGagnonM-A. CETA and pharmaceuticals: impact of the trade agreement between Europe and Canada on the costs of prescription drug. Global Health2014; 10: 30.
25.
LexchinJ. Intellectual property rights and the Canadian pharmaceutical marketplace: where do we go from here?Int J Health Serv2005; 35(2): 237–256.
26.
LexchinJ. Canada’s patented medicine notice of compliance regulations: balancing the scales or tipping them?BMC Health Serv Res2011; 11: 64.
Moir H. The promise to the public: Generic competition. Submission to the Pharmaceutical Patents Review. April 30, 2013.
34.
ScassaT. Patents for second medical indications and their potential impact on pharmacare in Canada. Health Law J2001; 9: 23–59.
35.
GleesonDMoirHLopertR. Costs to Australian taxpayers of pharmaceutical monopolies and proposals to extend them in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Med J Aust2015; 202(6): 1–4.
36.
Harris T, Nicol D, Gruen N. Pharmaceutical Patents Review report. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.
KimH. Trouble spots in online direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion: a content analysis of FDA warning letters. Int J Health Pol Manag2015; 4(12): 813–821.
39.
LopertRGleesonD. The high price of “free” trade: U.S. trade agreements and access to medicines. J Law Med Ethics2013; 41(1): 199–223.
