↓ Skip to main content

The High Price of “Free” Trade: U.S. Trade Agreements and Access to Medicines

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 1,005)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The High Price of “Free” Trade: U.S. Trade Agreements and Access to Medicines
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Lopert, Deborah Gleeson

Abstract

The United States' pursuit of increasingly TRIPS-Plus levels of intellectual property protection for medicines in bilateral and regional trade agreements is well recognized. Less so, however, are U.S. efforts through these agreements to influence and constrain the pharmaceutical coverage programs of its trading partners. Although arguably unsuccessful in the Australia- U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), the U.S. nevertheless succeeded in its bilateral FTA with South Korea (KORUS) in establishing prescriptive provisions pertaining to the operation of coverage and reimbursement programs for medicines and medical devices, which have the potential to adversely impact future access in that country. More recently, draft texts leaked from the current Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations show that U.S. objectives include not only AUSFTA-Plus and KORUS-Plus IP provisions but also ambitious inroads into the domestic health programs of its TPPA partners. This highlights the apparent conflict between trade goals - pursued through multilateral legal instruments to promote economic "health"- and public health objectives, such as the development of treatments for neglected diseases, the pursuit of efficiency and equity in priority setting, and the procurement of medicines at prices that reflect their therapeutic value and facilitate affordable access.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 29%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Professor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 23 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 10 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2019.
All research outputs
#405,742
of 17,407,080 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#18
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,307
of 162,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,407,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 162,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them