An argument is brewing over the potential effect on the pharmaceutical sector and the UK NHS of international trade talks aimed at stimulating European Growth.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is intended to stimulate trade between the US and Europe, by removing trade barriers in a wide range of economic sectors. The question is whether including the pharmaceutical sector would be good for UK firms (who currently face trade barriers in the US) or be a threat to the UK National Health Service.
Those in favour of the deal argue that removing trade barriers can only be a good thing for UK exporters. This will in turn boost growth and job creation in the UK and the rest of the European Union by expanding US sales.
On the other hand, critics say that TTIP is little more than a tool intended to boost the profits of bloated multinationals and that it will not help workers in Europe. There have been accusations of a lack of transparency and accountability.
Campaigning group, 38 Degrees, claims that there is a threat to the health service. Last week there was a call at the Trades Union Congress for the UK Government to seek a formal exemption for the NHS from the trade talks.
Timothy Cook, Lilly’s Vice President, Oncology International is firmly in the “yes” camp – believing that TTIP will be a particular benefit to patients. He attributes progress in cancer treatment not to a single game-changing breakthrough but through a process of continuous innovation with one step building on another over time.
For this to continue, he believes that continuous innovation needs to be enshrined in TTIP. Industry recommends a “pharmaceuticals annex” to TTIP similar to the one included in both the US and EU trade agreements with Korea. Such an annex would enshrine principles that reward innovation and promote fair, predictable and transparent processes for deciding which medicines patients can have access to.
The argument against is that TTIP is likely to give US healthcare providers the legal right to bid for all government spending, including spending on health where private companies are already running those services. It also includes provisions to allow companies to sue governments if they take action that adversely affect future profits. Such actions could potentially include the imposition of regulations to improve safety in hospitals, protection of public health or the environment and protection of the rights of those working in the privatised industries.
Those in favour of including pharmaceuticals in TTIP say that there is already an exemption for “public services.” However, the term "public service" usually refers in free trade agreement only to those services that are not supplied on a commercial basis, or are not in competition with other service providers.
The debate rumbles on…
|
|
 |
|
|
Share on LinkedIn |
