- Peter Drahos, professor of law,
- David Henry, professor of clinical pharmacology (mddah@mail.newcastle.edu.au)
- Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia
- School of Medical Practice and Population Health, University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
Undermines Australian public health and protects US interests in pharmaceuticals
On 4 March 2004 Australia and the United States released the text of a bilateral trade agreement designed to reduce trade barriers between the countries.1 Surprisingly, the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme (the national drug subsidy programme operated by the federal government of Australia) was part of the deal, with Australian negotiators conceding to several US demands. These included the creation of an independent review body to examine drugs rejected by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Under existing legislation only the advisory committee can recommend listing of drugs for subsidy. However, the dissenting views of another review body, supported by publicity and lobbying, may undermine the famously tough stance of this committee concerning the cost effectiveness and prices of pharmaceutical products. In addition, Australia has agreed to changes in intellectual property protection that, among other things, increase the risk of delayed entry of generic drugs on to the Australian market. The use of the trade agreement to push the interests of US pharmaceutical companies is one in a long list of hostile moves that have included legal challenges to the decisions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to reject drugs for …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27