BREAKING: Wikileaks publishes TPP Transparency Chapter

[cali]

Annex On Transparency And Procedural Fairness For Pharmaceutical Products And Medical Devices

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/press.html

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

[cali]

1. kick. I think the NYT article

explains the potential ramifications well

[djean111]

2. O wow. Free rein on pricing, skipping over the fact that Pharma spends more on advertising than

research (and we subsidize research), all signatories must let Pharma in on any regulations, all disputes must go to the ISDS - no wonder this is being kept secret. All countries must accept the ridiculous drug of the week ads. And other ugly goodies.
Wonder how ugly the rest of this is.
Oh, and again, this won't help those poor Vietnamese farmers - it will make medicine more expensive, actually - unless they own stock in Pharma.

This is NOT a trade agreement between countries. It is corporations telling countries what to do.

[cali]

3. yes, Big Pharma got most of their wish list fulfilled

[MohRokTah]

4. Please change your title.

Wikipedia had zero to do with this. Wikileaks published the chapter.

I'm sure it was just a typo.

Thanks!

[cali]

5. thanks. how I hate auto spell or auto correct or whatever the hell it's called

[truebluegreen]

6. Wow. Even worse than we suspected.

Good thing the administration released this info in the interests of transparency and an informed public...oh, wait.

[erronis]

12. And keep on waiting...

[Hoyt]

7. That Annex sure doesn't include anything one should find onerous.

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’ [xx propose: applicable] systems relating to pharmaceutical products and
medical devices as specified herein, [xx propose: if any,] without prejudice to the obligations in Chapter [ZZ (Transparency)], 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 [xx: or any aspect of national health care or healthcare subsidy programmes]."

_________________

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.

[randome]

8. But Wikileaks published it so...BAD! VERY BAD!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hoyt]

10. Nothing in it to get excited about. I have no problem with Wikileaks publishing it. I would not be

surprised if WL was more or less handed the document to publish to get it out there where people can read it and see it's not anywhere near what folks are saying. Most folks haven't even read the 5 pages in this Annex.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. From the NY Times story

From the very end of it you have to read all of it to get this nugget:


"The annex makes clear that disputes over pharmaceutical listing procedures would not be subject to government-to-government dispute resolution, the World Trade Organization and retaliatory tariffs.

Instead, disputes would be resolved through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement process, which involves three-lawyer extrajudicial tribunals organized under rules set by the United Nations or World Bank.

That could be significant, both for current Medicare practices and future efforts to lower cost, said Peter Maybarduk of Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines project. Drug makers have limited access to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy makers as they decide which drugs to list and how much to reimburse. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change that.

It could also hinder efforts by many Democrats to change federal law precluding the government from negotiating drug prices directly with pharmaceutical makers. To make that work, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would need a “national formulary” — a government list of accepted medications. But each decision is subject to review and appeal, which would make it far more difficult, Mr. Maybarduk said."

[Hoyt]

11. And the NYT piece is wrong if you actually read the Annex. The ISDS tribunals do not appear to apply

From Annex --

"PARAGRAPH X.7: Disputes
The dispute settlement procedures provided for in Chapter BBB (Dispute Settlement) shall not apply to this Annex."


Nor does the Annex impact any federal law that might impact negotiating.

The NYT's authors apparently did not read the Annex.

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 ."

[stonecutter357]

13. .

[LondonReign2]

19. Another of your useful and informative posts

[marym625]

14. K&R all over the place

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Don't you know the only choice is TPP or you are an isolationist that doesn't believe in trade?

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Not to mention a xenophobe

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. And a racist. Don't forget that.

[NuclearDem]

18. Oh dear God the irony.

Having to have your chapter on transparency stolen and published by Wikileaks...

[Enthusiast]

20. This thing is against our best interests. This is only for the corporation's benefit at our expense.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]