[Asymmetries between national articulation and the autonomy of state governments in implementing health technologies to fight COVID-19 in Argentina]. / Asimetrías entre la coordinación nacional y la autonomía de los gobiernos estatales en la adopción de tecnologías sanitarias frente a la COVID-19 en Argentina.

Argentina, as other countries, showed several public policies related to the health technologies implemented to fight and treat the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to analyze how articulation vs. cooperation and autonomy vs. division of powers between entities occurred in Argentina, exploring asymmetries between several entities in implementing public policies related to health technologies during the pandemic and the influences of other actors. For this, a documentary research was carried out related to 2020-2021 (technical reports published by the World Health Organization, national agencies and scientific societies, laws, court decisions, press, and research and in-depth interviews with members of the Argentine Ministries of Health). The processes and results of decision-making in the Ministries of Health were analyzed, outlining the coverage and orientations of each technology and the political party in power in the province. This study found heterogeneous results and processes between Ministries and disputes within them. It also observed the poor adherence to official guidelines due to technical-political criteria (power relations, social, media, academic, judiciary, and legislative pressure). Some cases showed a strong tension between the government and its opposition over the discussion of technologies. Each province in Argentina has autonomously defined its policies on health technologies for COVID-19, and decision-making in public administration was disorderly, complex, and non-linear during the pandemic.

En pandemia, en Argentina y en otros países se observó variabilidad en las políticas públicas implementadas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para prevención y tratamiento de la COVID-19. El objetivo fue analizar cómo se procesaron en Argentina los movimientos de coordinación vs. cooperación, y de autonomía vs. reparto de autoridad entre entidades, explorando asimetrías entre diferentes entidades en la implementación de políticas públicas sobre tecnologías sanitarias en pandemia y las influencias de otros actores. Se realizó una revisión documental del período 2020-2021 (informes técnicos publicados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud, organismos nacionales y sociedades científicas, leyes, fallos judiciales, prensa, encuestas y entrevistas en profundidad a miembros de los Ministerios de Salud de Argentina). Se indagó sobre procesos y resultados de la toma de decisiones en los Ministerios de Salud, mapeando la cobertura y recomendación de cada tecnología y el partido político provincial gobernante. Hubo heterogeneidad en resultados y procesos entre los Ministerios, y disputas en el interior de los mismos. La adherencia a recomendaciones oficiales fue baja, influyendo distintos criterios técnico-políticos (relaciones de poder, presión social, de los medios, académicos, poder Judicial y Legislativo). En algunos casos se observó una fuerte tensión entre oficialismo y oposición al partido gobernante a partir de la discusión sobre tecnologías. Cada provincia argentina definió sus políticas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para COVID-19 con autonomía, y la toma de decisiones en la administración pública en pandemia fue desordenada, compleja y no lineal.

Na Argentina, assim como em outros países, houve uma variabilidade de políticas públicas relacionadas às tecnologias de saúde implementadas no combate e tratamento da COVID-19 durante a pandemia. Este estudo buscou analisar como ocorreram a articulação vs. cooperação, e a autonomia vs. divisão de poderes entre as entidades na Argentina, explorando assimetrias entre diferentes entidades na implementação de políticas públicas relacionadas a tecnologias de saúde na pandemia, bem como as influências de outros atores. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa documental para o período de 2020-2021 (relatórios técnicos publicados pela Organização Mundial da Saúde, agências nacionais e sociedades científicas, leis, decisões judiciais, imprensa, pesquisas e entrevistas em profundidade com membros dos Ministérios da Saúde da Argentina). Os processos e os resultados da tomada de decisão nos Ministérios da Saúde foram analisados, traçando a cobertura e orientações de cada tecnologia e o partido político no poder na província. Observou-se uma heterogeneidade nos resultados e processos entre os Ministérios, e disputas em seu interior. Houve uma baixa adesão às orientações oficiais, influenciada por diferentes critérios técnico-políticos (relações de poder, pressão social, midiática, acadêmica, do poder Judiciário e do Legislativo). Em alguns casos, observou-se uma forte tensão entre governo e oposição a partir da discussão das tecnologias. Cada província da Argentina definiu suas políticas sobre tecnologias de saúde para a COVID-19 de forma autônoma, e a tomada de decisões na administração pública foi desordenada, complexa e não linear durante a pandemia.

Biobank donation in search of public benefits and the potential impact of intellectual property rights over access to health-technologies developed: A focus on the bioethical implications.

The availability of biomaterials is a key component of health research and the development of new health-technologies (including, diagnostics, medicines, and vaccines). People are often encouraged by biobanks to donate samples altruistically to such biobanks. While empirical evidence suggests many donors are motivated by the desire to contribute towards developing new health-technologies for society. However, a tension can arise as health-technologies whose development is contributed to by donors' biomaterials will often be protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs), including patents. Patents give rightsholders control over how patented technologies are used and can be used in a way that impedes public access to technologies developed. Yet, there are no binding European legal obligations mandating disclosure to donors of how IPRs can operate over downstream health-technologies and how they could impact access to health-technologies developed, nor are there legally binding obligations to ensure public accessibility of technologies developed. Focusing on the bioethical implications posed, this article argues that the current situation can impact donors' autonomy and dignity interests. A more holistic approach is needed for biobank donation, which embeds a consideration of donors' expectations/interests from the point of donation through to how such samples are used and how health-technologies developed are accessed. We put forward avenues that seek to address such issues.

The Evolving Regulatory Paradigm of AI in MedTech: A Review of Perspectives and Where We Are Today.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies in the MedTech sector hold the promise to transform healthcare delivery by improving access, quality, and outcomes. As the regulatory contours of these technologies are being defined, there is a notable lack of literature on the key stakeholders such as the organizations and interest groups that have a significant input in shaping the regulatory framework. This article explores the perspectives and contributions of these stakeholders in shaping the regulatory paradigm of AI-enabled medical technologies. The formation of an AI regulatory framework requires the convergence of ethical, regulatory, technical, societal, and practical considerations. These multiple perspectives contribute to the various dimensions of an evolving regulatory paradigm. From the global governance guidelines set by the World Health Organization (WHO) to national regulations, the article sheds light not just on these multiple perspectives but also on their interconnectedness in shaping the regulatory landscape of AI.

Overcoming the Patent Gap: A Guide to Patenting for Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Patenting protects innovation, fosters academic incentives, promotes competition, and generates new revenue for clinician-inventors and their institutions. Despite these benefits, and despite plastic surgery's history of innovation, plastic surgery-related patent applications are few. The goal of this article was to use unpublished data and formulate a robust discussion. METHODS: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's boolean search was investigated between the timeline of 1975 and June 23, 2020, to identify patents related to the key phrases to contrast patent (both, issued and filed) tally in each specialty. Queries for two key phrases related to plastic surgery and a core plastic surgical activity, both with and without the added term "plastic surgery," were performed. RESULTS: Total patents with "cardiology" outnumber those with "plastic surgery" by 22,450 versus 7749 (i.e., almost 3:1). The overwhelming number of patents with "cosmetic" are non-plastic-surgery related: 87,910 total versus 2782 for those with plastic surgery. The corresponding numbers for "wound healing" are 36,359 versus 2703. Reasons for the patent gap between clinical innovations in plastic surgery and number of patents in our field are identified. Clear steps to bridge this gap are delineated that include a step-by-step process for patenting, from idea creation through commercialization. The authors propose "breakthrough to bank," a framework wherein academic medical centers can create an environment of innovative freedom, establish the infrastructure for technological transfer of intellectual property, and generate a pipeline toward commercial applications. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation and inventions are important hallmarks for the progress of plastic surgery. Using a stepwise process, it may be possible to convert ideas into patents.

A legal overview of the use of messaging platforms in healthcare.

Medical interventions are becoming more complex day by day. Moreover, compared with the past, more healthcare professionals take part in the same intervention in the field of medicine. The use of technology in medical interventions has also increased. This change in the health sector brings together several legal discussions. In this study, the legal consequences that arise from the treatment processes carried out by the residents and resident educators (registerers / attending physicians), the exchange of information between them, and the usage of some messaging platforms, especially WhatsApp, in this process will be analyzed.

Natural hydrogels R&D process: technical and regulatory aspects for industrial implementation.

Since hydrogel therapies have been introduced into clinic treatment procedures, the biomedical industry has to face the technology transfer and the scale-up of the processes. This will be key in the roadmap of the new technology implementation. Transfer technology and scale-up are already known for some applications but other applications, such as 3D printing, are still challenging. Decellularized tissues offer a lot of advantages when compared to other natural gels, for example they display enhanced biological properties, due to their ability to preserve natural molecules. For this reason, even though their use as a source for bioinks represents a challenge for the scale-up process, it is very important to consider the advantages that originate with overcoming this challenge. Therefore, many aspects that influence the scaling of the industrial process should be considered, like the addition of drugs or cells to the hydrogel, also, the gelling process is important to determine the chemical and physical parameters that must be controlled in order to guarantee a successful process. Legal aspects are also crucial when carrying out the scale-up of the process since they determine the industrial implementation success from the regulatory point of view. In this context, the new law Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on biomedical devices will be considered. This review summarizes the different aspects, including the legal ones, that should be considered when scaling up hydrogels of natural origin, in order to balance these different aspects and to optimize the costs in terms of raw materials and engine.

Divergence and Convergence of Royalty Determinations between Compulsory Licensing under the TRIPS Agreement and Ongoing Royalties as an Equitable Remedy.

Patent rights are recognized as a property asset with an attendant right to exclude. However, recent policy developments highlight that the right to exclude is not inviolable. This paper explores two rapidly evolving exceptions to patent exclusivity, both of which take the form of compulsory licenses. First, under the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS"), national governments can compel patent owners to out-license technology in service of greater good. These egalitarian compulsory licenses improve access to technology but undermine patent value. Second, compulsory licenses are increasingly relied upon as an equitable remedy in U.S. patent litigation. Typically referred to as "ongoing royalties," these court-mandated compulsory licenses are a modern alternative to injunctions against adjudged infringers. TRIPS compulsory licenses and ongoing royalties arise under independent legal frameworks, but necessarily invoke parallel economic considerations. While the wisdom of each has been discussed at length by others, this paper explores principles of royalty determination employed in each context. Considering both frameworks, an analysis of where each succeeds and fails is provided, together with an exploration of optimized royalty frameworks.

The Streetlight Effect: Regulating Genomics Where the Light Is.

Regulatory policy for genomic testing may be subject to biases that favor reliance on existing regulatory frameworks even when those frameworks carry unintended legal consequences or may be poorly tailored to the challenges genomic testing presents. This article explores three examples drawn from genetic privacy regulation, oversight of clinical uses of genomic information, and regulation of genomic software. Overreliance on expedient regulatory approaches has a potential to undercut complete and durable solutions.

Early patient access to health technologies: Is innovation needed for early management?

The question of early patient access to innovative health technologies arises from the assumption that, once a certain level of effectiveness or efficiency is achieved, waiting for mainstream coverage would represent a loss of opportunity for patients or for the community. This was the premise on which the round table based its dialogue. Early access is understood as the funding of a technology that comes within this field and is CE-marked but has not yet attained "mainstream" coverage. There are several early access schemes in France ("forfait innovation", early coverage, exceptional coverage, RIHN). This round table was an opportunity to establish mapping, extended to devices not dedicated to early access but which could nevertheless provide some patients with access to non-mainstreamed technologies (Article 51, ETAPES experiments, DGOS call for projects, local schemes). It is an initial step that would need to be further developed and complemented by the dissemination of common communication materials available to all, including patients. The existing schemes are in fact still poorly known. Consideration would also have to be given to the advisability of developing these schemes in order to adapt them to the new European requirements. More generally, early access schemes must be integrated into an ecosystem that is conducive for their relevance: consideration of procedures associated with medical devices benefiting from early access; short time frames of examination; patient information. Finally, the round table proposes the creation of a new early access scheme, complementary to those that exist and that would be positioned, after CE marking, between the "forfait innovation" and mainstreaming: PRESTO (Prise En charge Sécurisée et Temporaire de technologies innOvantes) (secure and temporary coverage for innovative technologies).

Models of Governance for Innovation in Medicine and Health Research.

Personalised medicine, digital innovations, and neuro-technologies all offer significant potential benefit for human health and welfare, but also raise complex governance challenges. A variety of approaches have been adopted in the governance of innovative medicines and health technologies, including risk assessment, ethics and self-governance. Recently anticipatory or 'upstream' modes of governance have garnered favour. Anticipatory regulation demands a closer relationship between regulators and innovators, to shape the trajectories of the technology. In the EU context, responsible research and innovation has emerged as a key mechanism of governance. This is linked but distinct from a human rights governance which has the advantage of exerting both legal and moral force. What is needed in the healthcare context are governance models which ensure human rights considerations are taken into account from the earliest stages of innovation, to maximise the likelihood that developments are from the outset beneficial and oriented towards protecting ethical values.

Regulation of Stem Cell Technology in Malaysia: Current Status and Recommendations.

Stem cell technology is an emerging science field; it is the unique regenerative ability of the pluripotent stem cell which scientists hope would be effective in treating various medical conditions. While it has gained significant advances in research, it is a sensitive subject involving human embryo destruction and human experimentation, which compel governments worldwide to ensure that the related procedures and experiments are conducted ethically. Based on face-to-face interviews with selected Malaysian ethicists, scientists and policymakers, the objectives and effectiveness of the current Guideline for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (2009) are examined. The study's findings show that the guideline is rather ineffective in ensuring good ethical governance of the technology. A greater extent of unethical conduct is likely present in the private medical clinics or laboratories offering stem cell therapies compared with the public medical institutions providing similar services, as the latter are closely monitored by the governmental agencies enforcing the relevant policies and laws. To address concerns over malpractices or unethical conduct, this paper recommends a comprehensive revision of the current stem cell guideline so that adequate provisions exist to regulate the explicit practices of the private and public stem cell sectors, including false advertising and accountability. The newly revised Malaysian stem cell guideline will align with the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (2016) of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) containing secular but universal moral rules. However, a regulatory policy formulated to govern the technology remains the main thrust of empowering the guideline for compliance among the stakeholders.