One sentence that explains why Obama is struggling to finish his big trade deal

[Agschmid]

[center][/center]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations, is a big, complicated document. But if you want to boil the fight over the deal down to its essence, it would be hard to do better than this sentence from Jonathan Weisman at the New York Times, discussing why last week's negotiations in Hawaii didn't produce a deal:

Virtually all of the parties hated American
protections of pharmaceutical firms, but a
compromise on that issue could cost the
support of Republicans in Congress.

This is referring to "data exclusivity," an obscure but important provision of US pharmaceutical regulations. If the US gets other countries to adopt its approach, it could lead to less competition and higher prices for medicine in other TPP nations.

Before a company can introduce a new drug, it must convince the Food and Drug Administration that it's safe and effective. To prove that, companies conduct expensive clinical trials. Sometimes a second company will develop a drug that's chemically similar to an earlier drug and will want to use data from the first company's clinical trials in its own application. But for an important class of drugs called biologics, US law bars companies from doing this for 12 years, forcing these generic drugmakers to either do their own, redundant clinical trials or to wait until that period is over.

The US is trying to use the TPP to export this system to other Pacific Rim nations, most of which have data exclusivity periods for biologics of five or eight years. That would mean higher drug prices around the world, which is why public health groups like Doctors without Borders hate it.

Source.

[Romulox]

1. Just to be clear though...those "unfair" drug regulations are the ones that WE live under. nt

[djean111]

3. Yes, and they are unfair. We should not live under them, much less inflict them on other countries.

Things will get worse here, too.

[Romulox]

4. There is no proposal to change these regulations for *us*. We are just supposed to pay up. nt

[djean111]

5. I think it will take longer to get generics, and that Medicare won't be the only

entity forbidden to negotiate drug prices.

[lark]

13. Think you are right.

For us, the original patent holder can't come up with a 2nd use and extend the protection period. TPP would change that. So, yes, higher prices for the world, higher prices even for us. Everyone gets screwed except the giant pharmaceutical companies who make out like bandits. Who cares that this will cause lots and lots of extra deaths? Profits are all that matter to them.

[BeanMusical]

14. +1

Totally agree with you.

[A Simple Game]

39. Exactly,

Who cares that this will cause lots and lots of extra deaths?

After all those deaths are mostly just, high risk, hurt the profit people... just like me.

It's like Grayson said: "Don't get sick, but if you do die quickly" except it would add "much more" in front of "quickly".

[Enthusiast]

8. +100%!

"We should not live under them, much less inflict them on other countries."

[daleanime]

10. Hell yes....

[BeanMusical]

15. +1000

[staggerleem]

20. We are also the only potential signatory on this deal ...

... that does NOT recognize health care as a RIGHT, not a privilege. That's what we call "American Exceptionalism" - because WE are the exception to the global "rules".

[elias49]

2. K&R!

[fasttense]

6. Well I'm glad to read that the complaints are about important ideals like democracy

And enviromental impact and NOT mere profits for one group of wealthy corporations. Oh wait.....

[raindaddy]

7. This is the ONLY time I'm feeling thankful for the insane self-destructive stubbornness of the GOP

[djean111]

26. The GOP voted for Fast Track, plus a handful of DINOs.

The GOP and Obama are BFFs for the purposes of the TPP. Isn't that great?

[raindaddy]

30. I was responding to the article ....

It stated that that not coming to an agreement over jacked up pharmaceutical prices might be a deal breaker for the GOP...

[djean111]

31. Yes, it might, because evidently Obama and the GOP are in favor of jacked-up drug prices.

This is why the Fast Track was so very important to Obama and the GOP, because now they can say oh, darn, yes that sucks - but we cannot change a word of it, sorry! and then collect their rewards.

[snappyturtle]

40. Bingo! nt

[Armstead]

9. Two words that explain it: Corporate Imperialism

[MisterP]

22. and funny how imperialist techniques always return back home, isn't it?

[raouldukelives]

37. Some are willing to suffer themselves for democracy for all.

And some invest and labor for the corporate ends. Denying democracy to all in their path and profiting from the expansion of suffering to others.

For them, democracy is a game.

[Plucketeer]

11. I just keep reminding myself that

I've actually, voluntarily VOTED for some of the so-called "representatives" who are trying to get this trade agreement instituted.

GOOD GOD, we need a Sanders/Warren administration!

[BeanMusical]

17. Yes, absolutely!

[Eleanors38]

12. Yep. And that leads to the leverage to destroy Medicare.

[BeanMusical]

16. Kick and R

This will be his "legacy".

[Agschmid]

19. Two things....

- This might not pass so it may not be his legacy.
- Obama has a lot of other things going for his legacy.

[BeanMusical]

21. When the shit hit the fan people will forget about those other things.

I sure hope that it will not pass but I won't hold my breath.

[JDPriestly]

32. Obama has a lot of other things going for his legacy.

I think that the TPP would harm Obama's legacy.

But it might get him a lucrative job when he needs it to put his kids through college and live "the life."

I like Obama but I question his motives on the TPP.

[randome]

18. I don't get the objection to this at all.

We already have this system in place in America. It sounds like a good system in that a new drug that might be chemically similar to an existing drug could also have unforeseen consequences. So the new drug maker needs to do their own research instead of piggy-backing on someone else's research.

So is this really an attempt to keep generics out of the market or is it a safety issue? And so what would be anyone's alternative? Just let drugs blossom without additional research and keep our fingers crossed?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[dreamnightwind]

24. Any evidence of problems from biologics?

If so, you may have a point, although these nations are already operating on their terms (shorter period where replicating the whole testing procedure is required) and apparently aren't having any or a lot of problems from biologics that aren't already problems in the original drug.

I think it's really about increasing profits for the pharmaceuticals.

[erronis]

27. But wouldn't this also mean that Canada (for example) couldn't sell us drugs

At a more reasonable price?

There are more and more US citizens who are traveling abroad to have medical procedures and purchase drugs because of the lock-in of the US companies. It seems like these agreements just let the corporations spread their poorfare (vs. welfare) around the globe.

[randome]

28. I probably tried to simplify this way too much.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[99th_Monkey]

29. The US $ystem is rigged to rob Grandma of something she needs to fucking LIVE

if she isn't lucky enough to put a 2nd mortgage on her home to pay for it.

And the US is trying to foist this ^ atrocity on the rest of the world,
who aren't as stupid as US voters apparently are.

[JDPriestly]

33. As you know, Randome, I oppose the international

arbitration courts that give multinational corporations an unfair advantage over the citizens of countries, the governments, especially regional governments within countries and peopl all over the world.

[rpannier]

36. Can only speak for those of us who live in Asia

Prescription drugs are inexpensive here because the government regulates cost (and the government regulates their safety, so your concern for the safety of the drugs is moot)
Pharmaceutical companies (US Pharmaceutical companies) are trying to undermine that by having governments here in Asia unable to control the prices
It may come as a shock to some people, but we're pretty advanced over here. And we do a fine job of regulating prescription drugs

[Armstead]

38. I'm not sure the motives for this are that pure

Obviously, research and regulation are good things.

But regulations are the purview of government. In other countries that means their governments, not ours or worse yet, corporations.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. The "American Way"....

I suppose next they should have to jail all of their black people.

[senz]

25. The article says drug companies that want to make generic biologic drugs must wait 12 years.

I am reminded of a very nice commenter here whose mother has rheumatoid arthritis, is still working, must take public transportation and cannot afford the biologic drugs her doctor has prescribed to relieve her RA pain and disability.

I respect the nations that see how greedy and abusive our drug companies are. I hope they can force the administration to relent. And I wonder how much power ($$$) these drug companies have that they can set the terms for an entire region of the world?

Too big to fail? Too big to coexist with the rest of the world.

[eridani]

34. I would much prefer to remember him for ACA n/t

[Betty Karlson]

35. You'll need a dose of cognitive dissonance to achieve that preference.

The huge capital spent on the TPP will forever be part of his legacy too.