↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the impact of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement on Australian and global medicines policy

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing the impact of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement on Australian and global medicines policy
Published in
Globalization and Health, October 2005
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-1-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Faunce, Evan Doran, David Henry, Peter Drahos, Andrew Searles, Brita Pekarsky, Warwick Neville

Abstract

On 1 January 2005, a controversial trade agreement entered into force between Australia and the United States. Though heralded by the parties as facilitating the removal of barriers to free trade (in ways not achievable in multilateral fora), it also contained many trade-restricting intellectual property provisions and others uniquely related to altering pharmaceutical regulation and public health policy in Australia. The latter appear to have particularly focused on the world-respected process of federal government reimbursement after expert cost-effectiveness evaluation, popularly known as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS'). It remains uncertain what sort of impacts--if any--the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement ('AUSFTA') will have on PBS processes such as reference pricing and their important role in facilitating equitable and affordable access to essential medicines. This is now the field of inquiry for a major three year Australian Research Council ('ARC')-funded study bringing together a team of senior researchers in regulatory theory from the Australian National University and pharmacoeconomics from the University of Newcastle. The project proposes to monitor, assess and analyse the real and potential impacts of the AUSFTA in this area, providing Australian policy-makers with continuing expertise and options. To the extent that the AUSFTA medicines provisions may represent an important precedent in a global strategy by industry on cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmaceuticals, the study will also be of great interest to policy makers in other jurisdictions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Australia 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 61 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Social Sciences 12 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,409,591
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#805
of 1,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,428
of 59,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them