The ambitious and comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP/TAFTA) agreement between the European Union and United States is now being negotiated and may have far-reaching consequences for health services. The agreement extends to government procurement, investment, and further regulatory cooperation. In this article, we focus on the United Kingdom National Health Service and how these negotiations can limit policy space to change policies and to regulate in relation to health services, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and health industries. The negotiation of TTIP/TAFTA has the potential to “harmonize” more corporate-friendly regulation, resulting in higher costs and loss of policy space, an example of “trade creep” that potentially compromises health equity, public health, and safety concerns across the Atlantic.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Council of the European Union. Directives for the Negotiation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Between the European Union and the United States of America, 2013. General Secretariat of the Council, Brussels, June 17, 2013.
2.
KoivusaloM.WTO and Trade Creep in Health and Social Policies. GASPP (Globalism and Social Policy Programme) Occasional Papers. STAKES (National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health), Helsinki, 1999.
3.
KoivusaloM.SchreckerT., and LabonteR.Globalization and policy space for health and social determinants of health. In Globalization and Health: Pathways, Impacts and Policy, ed. LabonteR.Routledge, New York and London, 2009.
4.
RodrikD.The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States and Democracy Can't Coexist. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 2012.
5.
MishraR.Globalization and the Welfare State. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1999.
6.
GillS.New constitutionalism, democratisation and global political economy. In Global Governance Reader, ed. WilkinsonR.. Routledge, New York and London, 2005.
7.
CernyP.Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalization. Gov. Oppos.32(2): 251–274, 1997.
8.
LeysC.Market-Driven Politics: Neoliberal Democracy and the Public Interest. Verso, London and New York, 2001.
9.
GreerS.Uninvited Europeanization: Neofunctionalism and the EU in health policy. J. Eur. Public Policy13(1): 134–152, 2006.
10.
PollockA. M.NHS Plc. The Privatisation of our Health Care. Verso Press, London, 2005.
11.
LeysC., and PlayerS.The Plot Against NHS. Merlin Press, Torfaen, 2011.
12.
CernyP., and EvansM.Globalisation and public policy under new labour. Policy Stud. 25(1): 51–65, 2004.
13.
DavisJ., and TallisR. (eds.) NHS SOS: How the NHS was Betrayed and How We Can Save It. Oneworld Books, London, 2013.
14.
WrigleyD.Parliamentary bombshell. In NHS SOS: How the NHS was Betrayed and How We Can Save It, ed. DavisJ. and TallisR.. Oneworld Books, London, 2013.
KrajewskiM.The reform of common commercial policy. In EU Law After Lisbon, ed. BioniA.EeckhoutP., and RipleyS.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
17.
FrancoisJ.Reducing Trans-Atlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment. Prepared for European Commission under Implementing Framework Contract TRADE10/A2/A16. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, 2013.
KrajewskiM.Public services and trade liberalisation: Mapping the legal framework. Int. J. Econ. Law.6(2): 341–367, 2003.
21.
FidlerD.CorreaC., and OginamA.Legal Review of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) From a Health Policy Perspective: Globalisation, Trade and Health Working Paper Series. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2003.
22.
Government of United Kingdom. Health and Social Care Act. London, 2012.
23.
National Health Services (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2). Regulations Statutory Instruments 2013, No. 500. London, 2013.
24.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Sao Paulo Consensus. No. TF/410. Geneva, 2004.
25.
AdaminiS.Policy-making in data exclusivity in the European Union: From industrial interests to legal realities. J. Health Polit. Policy Law34(6): 979–1010, 2009.
GleesonD., and FrielS.Emerging threats to public health from regional trade agreements. Lancet381: 1507–1509, 2013.
28.
ChanM.Foreword by the Director-General of the WHO. In Health in All Policies: Seizing Opportunities, Implementing Policies, ed. LeppoK.Ministry of Social Affairs of Health, Helsinki, 2013.
29.
KoivusaloM.Moving health higher up the European agenda. In Health in All Policies: Prospects and Pitfalls, ed. StahlT.Ministry for Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki, 2006.
30.
KoivusaloM.Globalization and national policy space for health and HiAP approach. In Health in All Policies: Seizing Opportunities, Implementing Policies, ed. LeppoK.Ministry of Social Affairs of Health, Helsinki, 2013.
31.
KoivusaloM., and WattN.Policy space for health in the context of emerging European trade policies. In Law and Global Health, ed. HawkinS.FreemanM., and BennetB.. Routledge, London, 2013.
32.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Mechanisms for Standstill, Roll-Back and Listing of Country-Specific Reservations. DAFFE/MAI/DG2 (95)3/REV1. Paris, 1996. http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/dg2/dg2953r1e.pdf (accessed July 16, 2013).
33.
World Trade Organization. United States: Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services. WTO WT/DS285/AB/R. Geneva, April 7, 2005.
34.
SkalaN.The potential impact of the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on health system reform and regulation in the United States. Int. J. Health Serv. 39(2): 363–387, 2009.
35.
SidleyP.South Africa and Britain reach agreement to curb poaching of healthcare staff. BMJ329(7465): 532, 2004.
36.
DicksonN.Free movement of professionals: A UK regulator's perspective. Eurohealth17(4): 3–6, 2011.
Bernasconi-OsterwalderN., and HoffmanR. T.The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to Test in International Investment Arbitration. Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall vs. Germany II. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 2012. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/german_nuclear_phase_out.pdf (accessed July 16, 2013).
45.
HallD.Challenges to Poland and Slovakia Health Policy Decisions: Use of Investment Treaties to Claim Compensation for Reversal of Privatisation/Liberalisation Policies. Public Services International Research Unit, Greenwich, 2010. http://www.psiru.org/publications (accessed July 16, 2013).
RaoR.Facing arbitration for environmental regulation: Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North America Free Trade Agreement between Methanex Corporation and the United States of America. Sustain. Dev. Law Policy5(1), Winter 2006. http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article?1415&context?sdlp (accessed July 16, 2013).
48.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law. Paris, 2004. http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/33776546.pdf (accessed July 16, 2013).
PollockA. M., and PriceD.Rewriting the regulations: How the World Trade Organisation could accelerate privatisation in health-care systems. Lancet356: 1995–2000, 2000.
LuffD.Regulation of health services and international trade law. In Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalisation, ed. MattooA. and SauveP.. Oxford University Press and World Bank, New York and London, 2003.
53.
Ecorys. Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment—An Economic Analysis. Final Report. OJ 2007/S 180–219493. Prepared for European Commission, Rotterdam, December 11, 2009. Ecorys, Rotterdam, Annex, pp. 106, 2013.
