Policy responses to COVID-19: lessons for the global trade and investment regime.

BACKGROUND: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has cost millions of lives around the globe, caused major morbidity and provoked widespread economic and social disruption. In response, governments have enacted policies to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. This research focuses in on policies aimed at increasing access to essential health products and services by comparing them to the global rules governing trade, investment and intellectual property. We have assessed whether these rules have or could have constrained countries in responding to this and future crises. The study identifies the nature and scope of the trade-related health sector policies implemented by our sample group of countries, selected because of their systemic significance: the United States, Germany, France, China, South Africa and India. Each policy is placed into one of five broad categories covered by trade and investment rules so that we could assess their consistency with those rules. RESULTS: We found, among other things, that the types of trade-related health measures were quite diverse. The high-income countries in our study were the most active in the policy space and tended to rely on subsidies-based measures while the middle-income countries relied more heavily on export and import measures. Policies directly relevant to intellectual property protection were virtually non-existent. When evaluating the implemented policies against the global trade and investment rules, we found potential constraints under five different types of rules: those governing subsidies, import and export trade barriers, investment measures, government procurement and trade-related intellectual property. CONCLUSIONS: Given the tension between the global rules and the practices of policymaking during the pandemic, we conclude that the tension must be resolved in favor of governments making policy rather than relying on existing exceptions or pushing national governments to comply more exactly with the rules. Although the pandemic itself does not respect national borders, governance still generally occurs at the national level because national governments are often the only entities with both the legal authority and the practical ability to respond.

Out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines in Bangladesh: An analysis of the national household income and expenditure survey 2016-17.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPE) increases the probability that households will become impoverished or will forgo needed care. The aim of this paper is to study household medicines expenditure and its associated determining factors to develop policies to protect households from financial hardship. METHODS: The present cross-sectional and population-level study used the Bangladesh 2016-17 National Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES). The final sample size was 46,080 households. We analyzed the probability of OOPE for medicines, the share of total OOPE due to medicines out of total OOPE in health (reported as a ratio between zero and one), the OOPE amount for medicines reported (in United States Dollars), and the share of OOPE amount on medicines out of total household expenditure (reported as a ratio between zero and one). Predictors of analyzed outcomes were identified using three regression models. RESULTS: Out of those households who spent on healthcare, the probability of having any OOPE on medicines was 87.9%. Of those who spent on medicines, the median monthly expenditure was US$3.03. The poorest households spent 9.97% of their total household expenditure as OOPE on medicines, nearly double that of the wealthiest households (5.86%). The characteristic which showed the most significant correlation to a high OOPE on medicines was the presence of chronic diseases, especially cancer. Twenty six percent of all surveyed households spend more than 10% of their OOPE on medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that financial protection should be targeted at the poorest quintiles and such protection should include enrollment of rural households. Further, outpatient medicines benefits should include those for non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

Investor-state disputes threaten the global green energy transition.

Global action on climate change could generate upward of $340 billion in legal claims from oil and gas in vestors.

Impacts of intellectual property provisions in trade treaties on access to medicine in low and middle income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We present a systematic review describing ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of the impacts of intellectual property provisions in trade treaties on access to medicine in low and middle income countries. These evaluations focused on multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. We ascertained which IP provisions impacting access to medicines were the focus of these evaluations. We provide a further research agenda related to investigating the effect of trade agreement's intellectual property provisions on access to medicines. We followed systematic review guidelines with 7 different databases to identify post-2000 ex ante and ex post evaluations of trade treaties on access to medicines in low and middle-income countries. We included only quantitative ex-ante studies that used structural modeling and simulations to derive quantitative predictions and ex-post studies that utilized empirical data and econometric techniques to quantify the effects of intellectual property provisions in free trade agreements on host country's pharmaceutical industry. The search strategy identified 744 titles after removal of duplicates. We identified 14 studies that fulfilled all eligibility; 7 studies are ex-ante and 7 are ex-post. The studies looked at medicine price and cost, affordability, welfare effects and speed of medicine market launch. Changes in intellectual property policy due to the implementation of trade agreements affect price, medicines expenditure and sales, consumer welfare, and ultimately the affordability, of medicines. The direction and magnitude of the price effects differ between ex-ante and ex-post studies. Further, the reported impacts of policy changes due to trade agreements on medicine access seem clearly multifactorial. CONCLUSION: Both ex ante and ex post methods have advantages and limitations and, on balance, both types report, for the most part, an increase in price and a decrease in consumer welfare with imposition of intellectual property protection in trade agreements. The main differences between these studies are in the magnitude of the changes. There is a gap in our empirical understanding of the mechanisms through which such changes affect access to medicines and which outcomes relevant to access are most affected by which type of changes in intellectual property policy and law.