School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Waikato Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Feb 1;7(2):98-100. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.124.
There is growing international concern about the risks posed by direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription pharmaceuticals, including via the internet. Recent trade agreements negotiated by the United States, however, incorporate provisions that may constrain national regulation of DTCA. Some provisions explicitly mention DTCA; others enable foreign investors to seek compensation if new regulations are seen to harm their investments. These provisions may thus prevent countries from restricting DTCA or put them at risk of expensive legal action from companies seeking damages due to restrictions on advertising. While the most recent example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), collapsed following US withdrawal in January 2017, early indications of the Trump Administration's trade policy agenda signal an even more aggressive approach on the part of the United States in negotiating advantages for American businesses. Furthermore, the eleven remaining TPP countries may decide to proceed with the agreement in the absence of the United States, with most of the original text (including the provisions relevant to DTCA) intact.
国际社会越来越关注直接面向消费者的处方药广告(DTCA)所带来的风险,包括通过互联网进行的广告。然而,美国最近谈判达成的贸易协议纳入了可能限制国家对 DTCA 监管的条款。一些条款明确提到了 DTCA;其他条款则使外国投资者在新法规被视为损害其投资时能够寻求赔偿。因此,这些条款可能会阻止各国限制 DTCA,或者使它们面临因限制广告而遭受公司寻求损害赔偿的昂贵法律诉讼的风险。虽然最近的一个例子《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP)在美国于 2017 年 1 月退出后崩溃,但特朗普政府贸易政策议程的早期迹象表明,美国在为美国企业争取优势方面采取了更为激进的谈判方式。此外,在没有美国参与的情况下,其余 11 个 TPP 国家可能决定继续推进该协议,其中包括与 DTCA 相关的大部分原始文本。