UK medicines pricing clearly on US side of table... This video from January is US Pharma industry lobby telling US trade negotiators that US-UK trade deal is “an important opportunity” to deal with “artificially depressed prices” in UK - “dictated” via our “primary payer” systempic.twitter.com/ptXlcThTfV
-
-
Show this thread
-
Source: this is the US Trade Representatives video (viewed by 131 people (!)) of its own consultation with US industry on objectives for a US-UK trade deal... the person above is Brian Toohey from
@PhRMA you can watch it in full here: /2 https://youtu.be/14Lz9wB21L4Show this thread -
here is transcript - notice words highlighted - these then become, almost word for word the official US objectives (also below) on pharma for US-UK trade deal, a few weeks later - but the transcript helps us understand what that means in practice... “market derived pricing” /3pic.twitter.com/E60A7O5D0m
Show this thread -
“consistent with TPA” is ref to Trade Promotion Authority - Congressional fast track trade powers.. again echoes/ elaborates same language -ie in deals US negotiators must seek “elimination of price control & reference pricing which denies full market access for US products” /4pic.twitter.com/iS8jnoM87r
Show this thread -
Additionally US Pharma industry rep is then specifically asked by a US Government official what commitments the industry would want in a US-UK trade deal... “KORUS [Korea-US] agreement on market access.. are a very, very strong baseline for market access in US-UK agreement” /5pic.twitter.com/FQ2JtxuwQj
Show this thread -
significance of Korea-US? US Pharma industry got “groundbreaking provisions” changing way Korea assessed drugs prices ...Korea then didnt fully implement, until Trump/team obliged Korea to change “premium pricing policy” so as to apply to US innovations too /6 HT
@SamuelMarcLowepic.twitter.com/jlAH1yBPrh
Show this thread -
So what does this show? That US pharma industry & US Congress and US Trade negotiators have clear strategic and binding aims to raise prices paid to US drugs companies by the NHS as part of the deal. I can’t see that Trump has or could reject this, also NICE is not part of NHS /7
Show this thread -
But Conservative manifesto promises p11: “The price the NHS pay for drugs will not be on the table”. Certainly is from US perspective, & published negotiating objectives. UK negotiators (from May Conservative Govt) did not rule out in same way as US ruled out climate changepic.twitter.com/QkmBenhSTe
Show this thread -
But also I can’t see how that could possibly lead to the £500m a week claim from Labour - Korea, for example, resisted for some time the changes sought to its pricing regime even after signing it. In the event even that was about a 10% increase for innovative drugs /9
Show this thread -
All said though - remarkable lack of detail about what actually would be prioritised in US-UK trade deal. Other democracies have v strong independent legislators representing local sectoral interests, in a way our MP system doesnt. Trade creates winners and losers. Debate missing
Show this thread -
full Con manifesto extract on trade - another interesting paragraph: “We will drive a hard bargain and we will be prepared to walk away”...PM said this too. He renegotiated Brexit deal to create freedom to do US deal -wd he really walk away if US insisted including drugs pricing?pic.twitter.com/kmQF7XBhSH
Show this thread -
Some ministers doubtful there will ever be a US deal, because, yes, PM would walk away. But on promise on NHS & “price it pays for drugs” not on table. It’s listed as a “principle”.. “we will follow” in trade talks... some wiggle room, not much, on what happens in practice.pic.twitter.com/7D32NUeFhA
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
[tap to expand]