Don’t let NAFTA melodrama obscure substantive issues

The daily drama around NAFTA talks continues. In the space of one rambling media conference, we learned from Donald Trump that they’re not going well, Canada is unfair, he doesn’t like Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and he refused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s request for a one-on-one meeting. (Trudeau’s office says they never made such a request, for the record.)

First, a brief digression: Is anyone surprised that Trump chose to publicly attack Freeland, a highly intelligent, strong, female leader and negotiator who doesn’t back down from even the biggest bullies? Sounds like business as usual for Trump.

All the melodrama is interesting. To many, more so than the substance of the snail’s pace negotiations. And that’s a problem.

Consider the question of brand-name drugs and how long their makers should be protected from generic competition. It hasn’t received the publicity some other areas have — dispute resolution, the auto sector, supply management, for example — and yet this issue should be massively important to Canadians, especially those of us in the age bracket where prescription drugs are increasingly important.

Specifically, the drugs being debated are called biologics. A biologic drug is a product produced from living organisms or that contains components of living organisms. How important are they? Some biologic drugs are used for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and other auto-immune diseases. Biologics have revolutionized cancer treatment, delayed or reversed the course of immune-related conditions, changed the lives of people with rare diseases and have offered hope for many patients who previously had no effective treatment options.

It makes sense that the pharmaceutical companies that research and develop drugs prior to marketing them get financial credit for that heavy lifting. Presently that comes in the form of a period exclusivity during which makers of generic drugs that serve the same purpose cannot market and compete against the inventor/developer. This is called patent protection.

In Canada, for these drugs, that period of noncompetition is eight years. That’s much less than most of the U.S., where it is 12 years. In the bilateral trade agreement between America and Mexico, Mexico bent and increased the period to 10 years.

That’s what U.S. negotiators want Canada to do, but so far Freeland and her team have been unwilling to move on that.

That’s a good thing. Extending biologic patent protection for another two years would cost Canadian consumers and health plans tens of millions every year. Check out the difference between generic prices and their name-brand counterparts and you can see for yourself.

Patients would have to pay that higher price, and health plans would have to absorb the higher price. Consumers pay more, employers pay more, multinational drug companies get richer.

What would you do? If you were at the table, is this an area you’d be willing to move on?

Justin Trudeau has repeatedly said that no deal would be better than a bad deal. Next time you want to condemn his government for not having a deal yet, think about this issue.

Extending biologic patent protection for another two years would cost Canadian consumers and health plans tens of millions every year.