"For God's sake, Tommy, whatever you do, find a cure." That was my brother Eddie's final request before he died of pancreatic cancer. The disease has also taken my brother Artie and my best friend Ervin. It kills roughly 45,000 Americans annually.
There is still no cure. But the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) could create a pathway to discover one.
The trade deal would help American innovators develop the next generation of breakthrough treatments by forcing Canada and Mexico to strengthen their intellectual property protections for an innovative class of medicines known as biologics, which are made from living organisms. Doctors already use these drugs to treat cancer, blindness, and rare immune disorders.
It can take billions of dollars to bring a single drug to market -- and the odds are stacked against drug innovators. The FDA ultimately approves only 12 percent of experimental medicines that enter clinical trials. It took 242 unsuccessful attempts between 1998 and 2014 to create just 13 drugs to treat brain cancer and lung cancer.
But stronger intellectual property protections, like those in the USMCA, would encourage future investment in biologics, spurring new research, clinical trials, and even first-in-class cures. These safeguards give them a chance to earn back their upfront costs and earn a return should their biologic product make it to market.
Specifically, the USMCA expands regulatory data protection. Right now, the U.S. offers 12 years of regulatory data protection for biologic drugs. During this time, competitors can't access innovators' lab or clinical trial data. This means rival firms can't get a head start on manufacturing knockoffs, which gives innovators a better chance of recouping their upfront research costs.
Canada offers innovators just eight years of regulatory data protection. Mexico, meanwhile, has no data protection laws for biologics on the books. Therefore, the USMCA would raise Canada's and Mexico's protections closer to U.S. standards by requiring both nations offer drug makers a full decade of regulatory data protection for biologics. But the current 12-year standard would remain the same for the United States.
Once ratified, the USMCA would also prevent generic firms in Mexico and Canada from prematurely copying U.S. medical innovations furthering the potential for even more breakthrough biologic research and cures, which is good news for patients suffering from deadly and currently incurable diseases.
Yet, some lawmakers aren't sold on the USMCA. They fear patients will end up paying more out-of-pocket if Congress ratifies the deal.
These lawmakers needn't worry. The USMCA doesn't change any intellectual property standards in the U.S.; it merely forces Canada and Mexico to strengthen their own protections. So, the U.S. drug market -- and how U.S. health care programs, both private and public, cover medicines -- will be unaffected.
Put simply: The new trade deal won't impact U.S. drug prices at all.
The USMCA could ultimately spur medical breakthroughs, and in doing so, spare thousands of families from the pain of watching loved ones suffer from an incurable disease.
Tommy G. Thompson is the former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and former Governor of Wisconsin.
----------------------------10-14-2019---------------
U.S. Must Counter China’s Stranglehold on Key Minerals
By Matthew Kandrach
The element cobalt isn’t something most people think of every day. And yet cobalt is critically important for the production of cell phones, wind turbines, and satellites. It’s also a key part of the lithium-ion battery—making it an essential resource for the emerging green revolution.
Right now, much of the world’s cobalt comes from one source—the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC produces roughly two-thirds of the world’s cobalt. Unfortunately, much of that mining is done by child labor, with revenues that often end up in the hands of autocratic rulers and warlords.
As global competition for resources like cobalt continues to grow, one country has moved quickly to dominate the field. Thanks to heavy investment in the DRC, China now owns much of the world’s cobalt production. In fact, China’s heavy investment in both copper and cobalt has given it a strong stake in global metal and mineral supplies.
Lithium is another element that’s integral to high-tech industries—everything from electric vehicle batteries and energy storage to aerospace and defense applications. Right now, three countries possess more than 75 percent of global lithium reserves: Chile, Argentina and Australia. And once again, China has taken control. It owns 67 percent of Chile’s lithium output, 61 percent of Australia’s, and 41 percent of Argentina’s. China also owns all of Bolivia’s lithium reserves—which are believed to be the world’s largest.
Clearly, China recognizes the importance of mining when it comes to advanced technologies. And what’s troubling is that China is now the primary supplier of 26 out of the 48 minerals—ranging from graphite to rare earth metals—on which the United States has become completely import-dependent.
This is an enormous problem. Minerals vulnerability poses a serious threat to America’s long-term economic and national security. Having taken control of so much of the global reserves of key metals and minerals, China can simply use its leverage for geopolitical purposes, especially in a trade war.
It’s time for the United States to embark on a new minerals policy. There is cause for optimism, though. The U.S. possesses an estimated $6.2 trillion in domestic mineral reserves. And these resources—located mainly on public lands in the western United States—have been neglected as a vital area of national interest. But they contain a wealth of needed metals that can boost America’s global stake in the production of emerging technologies.
Washington should consider legislation that authorizes financial incentives for U.S. industries to source strategic, domestically-produced minerals. A good start would be key inputs like cobalt, lithium, and rare earth metals.
Initially, it may be difficult to relaunch domestic mining. But future generations will have difficulty comprehending why today’s leaders didn’t focus on boosting domestic minerals production. Most mining companies already recognize the importance of matching the mobility and agility of Chinese companies. It’s time for Washington to move with equal speed to end America’s troubling reliance on imported metals and minerals.
Matthew Kandrach is the president of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE), a free-market oriented consumer advocacy organization.
