Challenges for Australia's Bio/Nanopharma Policies: trade deals, public goods and reference pricing in sustainable industrial renewal.

Thomas A Faunce
{"title":"Challenges for Australia's Bio/Nanopharma Policies: trade deals, public goods and reference pricing in sustainable industrial renewal.","authors":"Thomas A Faunce","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-4-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Industrial renewal in the bio/nanopharma sector is important for the long term strength of the Australian economy and for the health of its citizens. A variety of factors, however, may have caused inadequate attention to focus on systematically promoting domestic generic and small biotechnology manufacturers in Australian health policy. Despite recent clarifications of 'springboarding' capacity in intellectual property legislation, federal government requirements for specific generic price reductions on market entry and the potential erosion of reference pricing through new F1 and F2 categories for the purposes of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) assessments, do not appear to be coherently designed to sustainably position this industry sector in 'biologics,' nanotherapeutics and pharmacogenetics. There also appears to have been little attention paid in this context to policies fostering industry sustainability and public affordability (as encouraged by the National Medicines Policy). One notable example includes that failure to consider facilitating mutual exchanges on regulatory assessment of health technology safety and cost-effectiveness (including reference pricing) in the context of ongoing free trade negotiations between Australia and China (the latter soon to possess the world's largest generic pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity). The importance of a thriving Australian domestic generic pharmaceutical and bio/nano tech industry in terms of biosecurity, similarly appears to have been given insufficient policy attention.Reasons for such policy oversights may relate to increasing interrelationships between generic and 'brand-name' manufacturers and the scale of investment required for the Australian generics and bio/nano technology sector to be a significant driver of local production. It might also result from singularly effective lobbying pressure exerted by Medicines Australia, the 'brand-name' pharmaceutical industry association, utilising controversial interpretations of reward of pharmaceutical 'innovation' provisions in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) through the policy-development mechanisms of the AUSFTA Medicines Working Group and most recently an Innovative Medicines Working Group with the Department of Health and Ageing. This paper critically analyses such arguments in the context of emerging challenges for sustainable industrial renewal in Australia's bio/nanopharma sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"4 ","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-4-9","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-4-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Industrial renewal in the bio/nanopharma sector is important for the long term strength of the Australian economy and for the health of its citizens. A variety of factors, however, may have caused inadequate attention to focus on systematically promoting domestic generic and small biotechnology manufacturers in Australian health policy. Despite recent clarifications of 'springboarding' capacity in intellectual property legislation, federal government requirements for specific generic price reductions on market entry and the potential erosion of reference pricing through new F1 and F2 categories for the purposes of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) assessments, do not appear to be coherently designed to sustainably position this industry sector in 'biologics,' nanotherapeutics and pharmacogenetics. There also appears to have been little attention paid in this context to policies fostering industry sustainability and public affordability (as encouraged by the National Medicines Policy). One notable example includes that failure to consider facilitating mutual exchanges on regulatory assessment of health technology safety and cost-effectiveness (including reference pricing) in the context of ongoing free trade negotiations between Australia and China (the latter soon to possess the world's largest generic pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity). The importance of a thriving Australian domestic generic pharmaceutical and bio/nano tech industry in terms of biosecurity, similarly appears to have been given insufficient policy attention.Reasons for such policy oversights may relate to increasing interrelationships between generic and 'brand-name' manufacturers and the scale of investment required for the Australian generics and bio/nano technology sector to be a significant driver of local production. It might also result from singularly effective lobbying pressure exerted by Medicines Australia, the 'brand-name' pharmaceutical industry association, utilising controversial interpretations of reward of pharmaceutical 'innovation' provisions in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) through the policy-development mechanisms of the AUSFTA Medicines Working Group and most recently an Innovative Medicines Working Group with the Department of Health and Ageing. This paper critically analyses such arguments in the context of emerging challenges for sustainable industrial renewal in Australia's bio/nanopharma sector.

澳大利亚生物/纳米制药政策面临的挑战:可持续工业更新中的贸易协议、公共产品和参考定价。
生物/纳米制药行业的工业更新对澳大利亚经济的长期实力和公民的健康至关重要。然而,在澳大利亚的卫生政策中,各种因素可能导致对系统地促进国内非专利和小型生物技术制造商的关注不足。尽管最近澄清了知识产权立法中的“跳板”能力,联邦政府要求在进入市场时降低特定的仿制药价格,以及为了药品福利计划(PBS)评估的目的,通过新的F1和F2类别对参考价格的潜在侵蚀,似乎没有连贯地设计来可持续地定位该行业在“生物制品”、纳米疗法和药物遗传学方面的地位。在这方面,似乎也很少关注促进行业可持续性和公众负担能力的政策(正如国家药品政策所鼓励的那样)。一个值得注意的例子包括,在澳大利亚和中国(后者很快拥有世界上最大的仿制药生产能力)正在进行的自由贸易谈判中,没有考虑促进在卫生技术安全和成本效益(包括参考定价)监管评估方面的相互交流。同样,蓬勃发展的澳大利亚国内仿制药和生物/纳米技术产业在生物安全方面的重要性似乎没有得到足够的政策关注。这种政策疏忽的原因可能与仿制药和“品牌”制造商之间日益增加的相互关系有关,以及澳大利亚仿制药和生物/纳米技术部门成为当地生产的重要驱动力所需的投资规模。这也可能是澳大利亚药品协会(Medicines Australia)施加的特别有效的游说压力的结果,通过澳大利亚-美国自由贸易协定药品工作组的政策制定机制,以及最近与卫生和老龄部合作的创新药品工作组,利用对澳大利亚-美国贸易协定中药品“创新”条款奖励的有争议的解释。本文在澳大利亚生物/纳米制药行业可持续产业更新面临新挑战的背景下,批判性地分析了这些论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信