EUHealthGov started 2023 with its seventh quarterly seminar on 25th January – a roundtable on EU pharmaceutical activity which encompassed challenges from the much-awaited revisions to the EU pharmaceutical strategy and beyond. We were delighted to be joined by a range of experts to consider different aspects, notably solidarity and vulnerability in access to pharmaceuticals; how the EU regards pharmaceuticals through the lens of competition policy; and global access to medicines through EU action.
Dr Mary Guy (LJMU) introduced the discussions with an overview of the development of EU activity regarding the pharmaceutical sector – from responding to the Thalidomide crisis in the mid-1960s to the revision of the EU pharmaceutical strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast to health and healthcare more generally, the pharmaceutical sector has highlighted specific tensions, being located between public health and the internal market.
Dr Éloïse Gennet (Aix-Marseille) and Dr Aurélie Mahalatchimy (Aix-Marseille) discussed their experience of working with the European Association for Health Law and the European Health Policy Platform (DGSANTE) to establish a 2021 Thematic Network (now permanent) on an inclusive and equitable pharmaceutical strategy. This network produced webinars and a Joint Statement against the backdrop of pre-existing health inequalities highlighted since COVID-19, and unprecedented EU solidarity and renewed efforts to promote equitable access to medical supplies and vaccines. The main recommendations of the Joint Statement include targeting unmet medical needs by identifying vulnerability situations, increasing institutional dialogue and cooperation beyond emergency situations, and promoting affordability throughout the pharmaceutical lifecycle.
Professor Wolf Sauter (VU Amsterdam) outlined how competition works in the pharmaceutical sector across four stages: monopoly, oligopoly, generic/biosimilar competition and multi-source competition. This set the scene for a review of EU competition policy in pharma, from DGCOMP’s 2008/9 sector inquiry and the 2012 AstraZeneca case, via pay-for-delay cases at EU level, to more recent interactions between the Commission and national competition authorities. What emerges is a particular focus on excessive pricing, which has seen an evolving approach in cases from United Brands to AKKA/LAA, with cases at both EU and national levels, leading to the identification of trends of price hikes, consumer lock-ins and an emphasis on niche generics (and one orphan drug). Overall there is scope for both competition and non-competition remedies which may be explored beyond wider considerations of EU competition law and pharmaceuticals.
Dr Katrina Perehudoff (University of Amsterdam) focused on the EU Pharmaceutical Strategy to draw attention to challenges ahead for the EU’s role in global health. These challenges fall into three categories. Firstly, the conceptual challenge of why the EU should have a strong voice globally, which can relate, inter alia, to investment (in the EU), as well as health security and social justice (for EU citizens). The second challenge is theoretical, framed around the question of how the EU will achieve its aims globally. This sees the identification of three pathways of EU influence: unilateral EU action influencing third countries; bilateral trade, accession and aid agendas, and multilateral influence. A final challenge is empirical: what will the EU do? Here considerations encompass regulatory standard-setting and technology transfer.
We look forward to developing this discussion in the future!
A recording of the event is available here.
The post Summary: EU Pharmaceutical Activity Webinar January 2023 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
Six weeks after the final, the dust has settled on the football world cup in Qatar. That’s a good moment to take stock of what will remain from this event.
Yes, I agree. During the World Cup itself, the focus was on lots of things going on before or even during the tournament. The feeling is that it was definitely one of the most unusual World Cups, if only for the calendar. From the beginning, the event certainly raised a lot of discussions, and it ended with Argentina’s captain Lionel Messi lifting the trophy in a black bisht.
As a researcher in sport diplomacy, would you say this World Cup was a diplomatic success?
Well, that’s the million-dollar question! I would say it was a great opportunity for FIFA and the Arab world. Has that opportunity been taken? Probably yes, but not fully.
For instance, if we take the example of Budweiser, the beer company, one of the main long-standing partners of FIFA. Denying Budweiser the right to sell their products in areas that were previously contractually agreed is a bad message. I am not saying that the policy should be to sell alcoholic drinks at sports venues, but if it was planned to be like that, you cannot simply change it during the tournament. The impression is that such an outcome would not have been possible in other countries. In this sense, it is evidence for the ‘diplomatic power’ of Qatar.
The same goes for the iconic and highly symbolic picture of Messi in a bisht. It’s a picture that will remain. FIFA here made an extreme exception for the host country, which probably would not have been allowed anywhere else.
It sounds like Qatar got everything they wanted out of this World Cup. Did they really?
The truth is we do not know with absolute certainty what they wanted from the event. What is sure is that it is impossible that such a small country, which does not even have an important sporting footprint, will organise such an important event in the future again. I mean, together with the Olympics, it’s the most important sports mega event on this planet, which means a lot to many people, and the message was: if you are rich enough, you can buy it. I am not sure this is a good message, neither for FIFA nor for Qatar. It was just a demonstration of diplomatic muscle, based on economic power.
Do you think FIFA will have learnt something from the event?
I think they would be well advised at FIFA to press the ‘restart button’ and I really hope that we will not have to focus anymore on the breach of human rights, on wrongdoings and criminal offences of sports governing bodies top officials, and disregard for players health etc. We can only hope everybody learnt a lesson.
How powerful, as a transnational diplomatic player, is FIFA actually?
FIFA is a sports governing body with important ‘diplomatic’ and organizational powers. And it should be more active in promoting basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We must never forget that FIFA and also UEFA are more powerful than some countries, sometimes more influential than the United Nations. When FIFA suspends a member – one national football federation due to the breach of some rules – the politicians of that country are keener to settle the problem than if they received a ‘slap on the wrist’ by the UN, the International Labour Organization or whatever other international organization. This is the tremendous power of FIFA.
But we must also acknowledge FIFA or UEFA for imposing positive developments. Only because of the football power’s system, we have seen women attending football matches in Iran and campaigns against ‘hate speech, xenophobia and racial insults’ at football matches! Sports governing bodies are extremely powerful, and they know that. All we can do is hope they will continue to use their powers for the development of their sports but also of the good of humanity.
Many thanks, for sharing your thoughts on the fallout of this event. I recall you are the holder of a Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Rijeka, in Croatia. And you are about to publish the very first issue of a new scientific journal, the Sports Law, Policy and Diplomacy Journal, in collaboration with the already long-standing Association for the Study of Sport and the European Union.
Entretien réalisé par Rune Mahiee.
The post The Qatar World Cup and its Diplomatic Outcomes appeared first on Ideas on Europe.