Login About | Submit | RSS Feeds
Cultural Shifts

An inquiry into factors influencing Canadian policies related to pharmaceutical patents

Jason Wenczler
Last Modified: March 18, 2008
Issue: March 2008
0 Recommended this Post
Comments & References 3

My current research studies the primary factors influencing the federal government’s decision-making with respect to pharmaceutical policy during the past decade. I am particularly interested in learning about how the nature of the state-its role and structure-and the state’s relationship with big business has shaped this specific policy area.

Using key informant interviews and documentary analysis, my research explores the following two cases: (1) the 1997 review of the Patent Amendment Act; and, (2) the 2007 review of Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR). The 1992 Patent Amendment Act revised the Patent Act to increase the patent length for pharmaceuticals and eliminate compulsory licensing. The factors leading to this amendment were rooted in negotiations around free trade and domestic electoral politics (Kuyek, 2002). By further delaying the entry of generic competition into the marketplace, these amendments resulted in increased drug costs to individuals, private insurers and the public health system (Lexchin, 2005). Enacted in 2005, CAMR revised both the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. CAMR allowed for the issuance of compulsory licenses (eliminated under the aforementioned Patent Amendment Act) to manufacture and export essential generic pharmaceuticals to developing countries that were unable to manufacture their own and could not afford the high costs of brand name pharmaceuticals. To date, CAMR has not facilitated the delivery of a single pill, causing some critics to charge that it was designed to fail. Both of the parliamentary reviews mentioned above resulted in no concrete changes.

My research hypothesizes that these decisions by the federal government can be explained using the concept of ‘unequal structures of representation’ (Mahon, 1984), which emphasizes the imbalance of power among different government branches and the superior influence enjoyed by business-friendly departments (i.e. Finance and Industry) over the entire policy development process.


_

Responses & References

What's Related


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments »

  1. Does this mean checks and balances no longer apply?

  2. As an American, I have always been curious of the Canadian health care system and its effectivness. Would you consider their decisions to be well educated and effective or would you support a different system?

Leave a Comment or Question


Already have an account? Click here to login.