Alan rightly pointing out that the gravest problem we face is a fundamental lack of political guidance or even political interest in the details of FTAs - let me explain /1
So the US and the U.K. negotiators had discussions about Pharma & IP. This included the length of data exclusivity for ‘biologics’, a link between drug approval and patent status that the US has and the UK does not as well as patent term extension /2
The U.K. and the US both know patent term extension, but the US does it by extending the patent, the EU by supplementary protection certificates. You might say: what does that mean? /3
And indeed - these are very, very technical issues. But all of these policies - and changing from one to another - have effects. It is clear, for example, that longer data exclusivity for biologics means higher prices, more cost for the NHS /4
What precisely is the effect of a linkage between drug approval and patent - and what’s the effect of EU style SPC versus US Style patent term extension? Important issues. Experts will be able to explain, BUT /5
In the end the political level will have to choose. Are we ok with changing our system? Is the benefit for the company justified? Is the additional cost to the NHS ok? /6
If the political level is unwilling to engage with the detail and just pushes for an FTA at all cost we are doomed, because at the end an FTA is nothing but an enormous box full of technical detail. And the detail can harm you. Or be a benefit. /7
That’s why I push back equally against ‘the NHS is for sale’ and ‘there’s nothing to see here’. There’s a lot of technical detail to see. And it matters. Our politicians need to work with that detail. /8
