There is a large amount of literature that analyzes the potential negative effects of intellectual property rules contained in various trade agreements on access to medicines and how these rules work (cf.B. [1, 4.5, 6]). A handful of empirical studies have discussed the impact on the market entry date of generic drugs, drug prices or expenditures, or access to drugs (cf. B [7.8,9,10,11]). Lexchin JR, Gagnon M-A. CETA and medicines: the impact of the Trade Agreement between Europe and Canada on the cost of prescription drugs. globalization and health. 2014;10(30). doi: doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-30. Of particular concern is the use of ISDS to enforce IP rights .
Mental protection assistance is included in the definition of investments in each agreement (see.B. TPP Art 9.1). Article 9.8.5 of the TPP aims to exclude mandatory licences and «revocation, limitation or creation of intellectual property rights» from the scope of ISDS as long as these measures are in accordance with the TPP-IP chapter and the TRIPS agreement . However, the interpretation of the ON TRIPS agreement outside the WTO context is risky: ISDS panels often provide narrow interpretations that may not contain the full intent (or provisions) of TRIPS . Figure 1 Impact of deeper trade agreements on the integration of GVC 3 The workhorse model in this literature is Grossman and Helpman (1995), which applies the «Sales Protection» framework to study lobbying by industry groups for a proposed free trade agreement. In this model, lobbying is exogenous: it is simply assumed that some industries are organized, while others are not. In addition, contributions are paid ex-post (i.e. after the government of the day has decided whether or not to ratify the agreement), while actual lobbying fees are paid ex-ante (i.e. before the agreement is ratified). The analytical framework highlights the provisions of trade and investment agreements that need to be studied, the avenues to be explored and the possible consequences that should be taken into account in terms of pharmaceutical policy. This can be a checklist or useful model for assessing health and human rights impacts and researching the impact of trade agreements on medicines.
One limitation of our study is that the framework is based exclusively on the content of four recently negotiated trade agreements. Other trade agreements that have been negotiated recently or are under negotiation may include amendments to the provisions described here or may contain new provisions that are not included in previous agreements. What we have presented is an overview of the potential avenues and implications for the development of the analytical framework, rather than a detailed assessment of the health impact of the likely effects of trade agreements in certain contexts. Banik N, Stevens P. Tariffs on pharmaceuticals, trade flows and emerging countries. Geneva: Geneva network; U.S. Trade Representative`s Office. Agreement between the United States of America, the United States of Mexico and Canada.
ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between. Access 14 Dec 2018. Trip plus rules can also affect prices and access through other mechanisms such as restrictions on compulsory licensing and parallel imports, patent and revocation restrictions, patent exclusion restrictions and supplementary certificates of protection. While such provisions are included in other trade agreements (and some were originally proposed for the TPP), none of the four agreements examined contain such provisions in the final text.