Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,910 posts)
Wed Jun 10, 2015, 10:59 AM Jun 2015

U.S. Shifts Stance on Drug Pricing in Pacific Trade Pact Talks, Document Reveals

Source: NY Times

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON — Facing resistance from its Pacific trading partners, the Obama administration is no longer demanding protection for pharmaceutical prices under the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, according to a newly leaked “transparency” annex of the proposed trade accord.

But American negotiators are still pressing participating governments to open up the process that sets reimbursement rates for drugs and medical devices. Public health professionals, generic drugmakers and activists opposed to the trade deal, which is still being negotiated, contend that it will empower big pharmaceutical firms to command higher reimbursement rates in the United States and abroad, at the expense of consumers.

They also say that it could expose international markets to the direct consumer appeals that Americans have experienced.

“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency; it was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia, who has seen the leaked document. And even though it has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/business/international/us-shifts-stance-on-drug-pricing-in-pacific-trade-pact-talks-document-reveals.html?referrer=



Thanks to cali for the original post!



Heather Bresch, chief executive of the generic drug maker Mylan, said that the proposed trade accord would help brand-name pharmaceuticals.
JEFF SWENSEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. Shifts Stance on Drug Pricing in Pacific Trade Pact Talks, Document Reveals (Original Post) Omaha Steve Jun 2015 OP
K&R! marym625 Jun 2015 #1
that says it all. ChairmanAgnostic Jun 2015 #4
There sure isn't much in the Annex that should cause criticism, for anyone who actually reads it. Hoyt Jun 2015 #2
Boy, is there a corporation Obama doesn't bow to these days? ananda Jun 2015 #3
what side is Pres.Obama on? quadrature Jun 2015 #5
I'm asking myself the same question... damyank913 Jun 2015 #7
The money side FiveGoodMen Jun 2015 #8
What side is Obama on. chev52 Jun 2015 #6
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
2. There sure isn't much in the Annex that should cause criticism, for anyone who actually reads it.
Wed Jun 10, 2015, 11:37 AM
Jun 2015

There might be stuff in other sections of the TPP, but that Annex merely says a drug or device company needs to be told why adverse decisions have been made about their product, and be afforded an opportunity to appeal to the countries healthcare authority.


The Annex specifically says, "For greater certainty, the Parties confirm that the purpose of this Annex is to ensure transparency and procedural fairness of relevant aspects of Parties’ systems relating to pharmaceutical products and medical devices as specified herein, without prejudice to the obligations in Chapter , and not to modify a Party’s system of health care in any other respects or a Party’s rights to determine health expenditure priorities"

"{xx propose; xx considering: For greater certainty, subparagraph (f) does not require a Party to provide more than a
single review process for a request regarding a specific proposal or to review, in conjunction with the request, other
proposals or the {analysis} {assessment} related to such other proposals. Further, a Party may elect to provide the
review process specified in subparagraph (f) either with respect to a draft final recommendation or determination, or
with respect to a final recommendation or determination.} 10 Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a Party to review or change decisions regarding specific applications ."

_________________

I can hear the howls if CMS just said we are not going to cover a new drug, with no opportunity for appeal or comments by people that might be helped by that drug and others.

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
5. what side is Pres.Obama on?
Wed Jun 10, 2015, 06:49 PM
Jun 2015

( please help me out here,
yes, I read the article)

Pres. Obama wants higher prices or
lower prices?

Pres. Obama stands with the US people
or with drug companies?

damyank913

(787 posts)
7. I'm asking myself the same question...
Thu Jun 11, 2015, 09:32 AM
Jun 2015

...the Dems seem more and more to be swayed by corporate American money. Bernie Sanders is sounding better to me with every passing day.

 

chev52

(71 posts)
6. What side is Obama on.
Wed Jun 10, 2015, 08:19 PM
Jun 2015

Hard to explain Obama's actions other than he's being blackmailed over something in his past. That, or he's just a conservative at heart. Imagine if he had pushed for single payer with the zeal that he's pushing this TransObama partnership.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. Shifts Stance on Dru...