Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

One sentence that explains why Obama is struggling to finish his big trade deal

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations, is a big, complicated document. But if you want to boil the fight over the deal down to its essence, it would be hard to do better than this sentence from Jonathan Weisman at the New York Times, discussing why last week’s negotiations in Hawaii didn’t produce a deal:

Virtually all of the parties hated American protections of pharmaceutical firms, but a compromise on that issue could cost the support of Republicans in Congress.

This is referring to “data exclusivity,” an obscure but important provision of US pharmaceutical regulations. If the US gets other countries to adopt its approach, it could lead to less competition and higher prices for medicine in other TPP nations.

Before a company can introduce a new drug, it must convince the Food and Drug Administration that it’s safe and effective. To prove that, companies conduct expensive clinical trials. Sometimes a second company will develop a drug that’s chemically similar to an earlier drug and will want to use data from the first company’s clinical trials in its own application. But for an important class of drugs called biologics, US law bars companies from doing this for 12 years, forcing these generic drugmakers to either do their own, redundant clinical trials or to wait until that period is over.

The US is trying to use the TPP to export this system to other Pacific Rim nations, most of which have data exclusivity periods for biologics of five or eight years. That would mean higher drug prices around the world, which is why public health groups like Doctors without Borders hate it.

Even the Obama administration — at least the part of the administration in charge of writing the president’s budget proposals — thinks US law is too generous to drug companies. The administration has proposed reducing data exclusivity from 12 years to seven here in the United States, even as it pushes for treaty language pushing the rest of the world in the opposite direction.

The broader point here is that while the TPP is usually described as a trade deal, President Obama and his (mostly Republican) allies in Congress are making it clear that freer trade isn’t necessarily their highest priority. The deal is widely seen as a vehicle for doing favors for special interests in the United States — some of which have only a tenuous connection to trade.

More in Politics

Politics
The rise of the progressive billionaire candidateThe rise of the progressive billionaire candidate
Politics

Why some on the left are feeling warmly toward Tom Steyer and other very wealthy contenders.

By Andrew Prokop
Politics
Mifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for nowMifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for now
Politics

Only Thomas and Alito publicly dissented.

By Ian Millhiser
Podcasts
Why the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in TrumpWhy the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in Trump
Podcast
Podcasts

Trump helped overturn Roe. Anti-abortion advocates still aren’t happy.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
A year of Trump is backfiring on the religious rightA year of Trump is backfiring on the religious right
Politics

Americans don’t really want “Christian nationalism.”

By Christian Paz
Politics
The real reason Americans hate the economy so muchThe real reason Americans hate the economy so much
Politics

Did decades of low inflation make the public far more unforgiving when it finally did surge?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram