Trade agreements that raise barriers to entry and hinder innovation: Is that what we are seeking in current trade agreements?

Until the Uruguay Round of GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) countries were engaging in trade agreements to increase trade and benefit consumers. The United States was one of the global leaders spreading the message throughout the world that countries should not be afraid of competition; they should leave protectionism behind, reduce tariffs and open their markets to competition, which would lower prices and thus benefit consumers.

However, that is no longer true in today’s trade agreements as they relate to medicines. Somehow, somewhere we have lost our north and today almost the opposite is true as many trade agreements include intellectual property chapters that directly affect pharmaceutical laws and regulations. For instance, the IP text proposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement includes a number of provisions that would delay the entry of generic medicines into the market thus delaying competition. A few of them are:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Patent term extensions	Delay the entry of generic medicines
Patent Linkage	Delays the entry of generic medicines
Exclusivity period for data and broadening the scope of protection	Delay the entry of generic medicines
Broadening the scope of patentable subject matter	Delays the entry of generic medicines

The time has come to take a step back and reflect on what we are truly trying to achieve in these trade agreements. Who are we benefiting if as a result of these provisions patients would actually be denied access to safe and more affordable drugs for longer periods of time? We need to go back to the drawing board, take a critical look and question assumptions. We have been told that longer patent terms would lead to more pharmaceutical innovation and new drugs but after the adoption of 20-year patent terms under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the Uruguay Round of GATT, we have faced declining drug pipelines. Why is that? Could one of the reason be that too much protection without striking the right balance with competition does not provide enough incentives for companies to really invest in new research and development?

The current IP templates in trade agreements reflect the interests of economic groups of 10 and 20 years ago when trade in pharmaceuticals was dominated by originator companies. But today’s trade agreements must be questioned and reviewed. Consumers deserve to have expedited access to quality, safe and more affordable drugs and not be faced with maneuverings to delay competition. Governments need balanced budgets and having access to generic drugs plays a critical role to achieve that goal. Finally, the generic industry deserves to have access to foreign markets (wherever they are). Restoring the necessary balance in trade agreements will make our societies better and more productive, and avoiding further delays to the entry of generic medicines into the market will also contribute to foster innovation.