FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Health Care and the TPP

by

The latest release from WikiLeaks on parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement dealing with medical insurance and medical systems goes some way in affirming the destructive potential the agreement has.[1] Forged in the corridors of unaccountable secrecy, officials have been undermining their own sovereign systems at stages, even as they claim it to be in their country’s interest.

The draft chapters released by WikiLeaks have already revealed the extent corporations will be privileged with an assortment of investment protections, while broader environmental protections will be undermined. The entire agreement reads like a catastrophic abdication of sovereignty and state responsibility. The boardroom triumphs over the parliamentary chamber.

In an analysis of the Annex on transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products by Jane Kelsey of the Law Faculty at Auckland University, we are told that the document “seeks to erode the processes and decisions of agencies that decide which medicines and medical devices to subsidise with public money and by how much.”[2]

Provinces where the state should stand guard will be subject to a shadow occupation. The TPP acts as an ultimate ground clearance, a form of scorched earth policy on traditional protections. One such area is that of state-run medical schemes. Investor-state disputes have the potential of cutting deep there, where the investors (corporations, for the most part) will have a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly and equitably. This may arise in cases where subsiding medicines or medical devices could be challenged as negatively affecting investments.

For that reason, Australia, in the leaked investment chapter of January 2015, specified that its own Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Scheme, and Therapeutic Goods Administration and Office of the Gene Technology Regulation would be exempt from such investor state dispute settlement.

The analysis on the potential effect of the agreement on New Zealand’s Pharmaceutical Management Agency (Pharmac) is telling. It also reveals the persistent doublespeak of diplomats who are proclaiming one reality for citizens, and another for the strategic, US-led fold.

US Trade officials and members of the pharmaceutical industry have made it clear that Pharmac is the bogey to their vision of free trade. Established in 1993, its aim was “to secure for eligible people in need of pharmaceuticals the best health outcomes that are reasonably achievable from pharmaceutical treatment and from within the amount of funding provided” (Disability Act 2000, s. 47).

Its role is singular and expansive, covering the negotiation of prices of medical products with the pharmaceutical companies and levels of reimbursement. It is also a dream for those concerned about skyrocketing costs in the medical sector. The US pharmaceutical industry has expressed a different view, seeing it as the grand obstacle, “an egregious example” of a model that pushes down prices of medicines and medical devices at the expense of profit.

The submission to the US government by the industry in 2011 regarding the TPPA specifically made that point, further noting the sanctity of intellectual property, which was being violated by this perceived lack of transparency. The powerful were feeling slighted.

The US annual report on Special 301 (2015) by Michael Froman, covering intellectual property issues, notes “serious concern about the policies and operation of New Zealand’s Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), including, among other things, the lack of transparency, fairness and predictability of the PHARMAC pricing and reimbursement scheme, as well as the negative aspects of the overall climate for innovative medicines in New Zealand.”

The discussion about fairness and transparency has little to do with accrued benefits for citizens. The trade scheme on the table has everything to do with the corporate wallet and its anticipated depth. Fair treatment towards citizens, which would entail keeping medical costs down and make health care accessible, is less significant than pharmaceutical profit margins. But just to remind us about how the US negotiating position on this has been shaped, we need only see that it deems its own state run schemes to be exempt from the free trade bonanza.

The schemes of other countries are to be targeted, while domestic interests are satisfied. This strategy was exactly the same one pursued in making the free trade agreement with Australia. “USTR has worked closely with all relevant US agencies to ensure the FTA does not require any changes to US health care programs.” The US trade lobby pilfers, while the smaller state run schemes suffer.

There are signs that the free trade ideology may not be receiving the same purchase on the Hill it once did. Last Friday, the House of Representatives voted down the Trade Promotion Authority to “fast track” the TPPA negotiations.[3] While this is far from suggesting that the members have gone cold on regional trade agreements, it suggests that providing the executive vast powers to push supposedly “free” trade deals is a source of concern. Greater scrutiny is required.

Outside the various parliaments involved, resistance to the TPPA has reinvigorated the anti-globalisation movement, finding form in a grass roots resistance that is gradually breaking through the manufactured consensus on free trade. Free trade is the age’s great oxymoron, and deserves banishment from the lexicon of political engagement.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes. 

[1] https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/

[2] https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/Professor-Jane-Kelsey-Analysis-on-TPP-Transparency-for-Healthcare-Annex.pdf

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-16/berg-tpp-not-the-bogey-treaty-that-we-think-it-is/6547242

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull, 500 Years of Trauma
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Gordon Smith
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
stclair
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered, Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail