On the outside. Gov`t, Government Response to the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 4 (2004). Compare Peter Drahos and David Henry, The Free Trade Agreement Between Australia and the United States Undermines Australian Public Health and Protects US Interests in Pharmaceuticals, 328 Brit. Med. J. 1271 (2004); Andrew Stoler, Australia-USA Free trade: benefits and costs of a free trade agreement: Us Strategies and Priorities 95 (Jeffrey Schott ed., Peterson Institute for International Economics 2004). The problem, which should not be underestimated, is that while these differences are incorporated into the interpretation of the agreement, disputes over expectations and commitments are only delayed and are not resolved. It may therefore be important to consider the effects of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2C, in which governments recognize these obligations to recognize the “innovation” and pharmaceutical research and development that are necessary for them as part of the industry`s overall commitment to objectively demonstrate the contribution of these products to general public health. It may also be useful to examine whether these amendments facilitate policy proposals to reduce access to essential medicines (unlike national pharmaceutical policy), which reduces health outcomes for older adults and those who need these therapies for quality of life and productivity.
Such proposals could include increases in patient participation, co-payments, drug savings accounts, changes in reference prices, generic drug pricing or a reduction in the ability of NPCs to make cost-effectiveness recommendations. A controversial trade agreement between Australia and the United States came into force on January 1, 2005. While the parties announced that they would facilitate the removal of barriers to free trade (in a manner not available in multilateral for a), it also contained many provisions restricting trade in intellectual property and others, which are uniquely linked to changes in pharmaceutical regulation and health policy in Australia. The latter appear to have been particularly focused on the federal government`s worldwide reimbursement process after a cost-effectiveness assessment by experts commonly known as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).