Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2016

01-08-2016 | Commentary

The Potential Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on Health Equity, with Illustration From New Zealand

Authors: Gay Keating, Rhys Jones, Erik Monasterio, Josh Freeman

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) is a multi-lateral trade and investment agreement between 12 Pacific-rim countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA and Vietnam), which was agreed and its text finally made available in late 2015 [1]. It expands the existing provisions for international trade and investment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). …
Literature
1.
2.
Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2012.
3.
Keating G, Freeman J, Macmillan A, Neuwelt P, Monasterio E. TPPA should not be adopted without a full, independent health assessment. N Z Med J. 2016;129:7–14.PubMed
4.
Hirono K, Haigh F, Gleeson D, Harris P, Thow AM, Friel S. Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Ruckert A, Schram A, Labonté R, Friel S, Gleeson D, Thow A-M. Policy coherence, health and the sustainable development goals: a health impact assessment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Crit Public Health. doi:10.​1080/​09581596.​2016.​1178379. Epub 2016 Apr 8.
7.
8.
Whitehead M, Povall S, Loring B. The equity action spectrum: taking a comprehensive approach. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2014.
9.
Braveman P. Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:167–94.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet. 2000;356:1093–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P. What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67:190–3.CrossRefPubMed
12.
McGill R, Anwar E, Orton L, Bromley H, Lloyd-Williams F, O’Flaherty M, et al. Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:457.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Gillespie DOS, Allen K, Guzman-Castillo M, Bandosz P, Moreira P, McGill R, et al. The health equity and effectiveness of policy options to reduce dietary salt intake in England: policy forecast. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127927.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Thomas S, Fayter D, Misso K, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, et al. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. Tob Control. 2008;17:230–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Holmes AH, Moore LSP, Sundsfjord A, Steinbakk M, Regmi S, Karkey A, et al. Understanding the mechanisms and drivers of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet. 2015;387:176–87.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet. 2015;386:1861–914.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380:2224–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Di Cesare M, Khang Y-HH, Asaria P, Blakely T, Cowan MJ, Farzadfar F, et al. Inequalities in non-communicable diseases and effective responses. Lancet. 2013;381:585–97.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ministry of Health. Health loss in New Zealand: a report from the New Zealand Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factor Study 2006–20016. Wellington: Ministry of Health New Zealand; 2013.
20.
Baker MG, Barnard LT, Kvalsvig A, Verrall A, Zhang J, Keall M, et al. Increasing incidence of serious infectious diseases and inequalities in New Zealand: a national epidemiological study. Lancet. 2012;379:1112–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Ministry of Health. Annual update of key results 2013/14: New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2014.
23.
Bennett H, Jones R, Keating G, Woodward A, Hales S, Metcalfe S. Health and equity impacts of climate change in Aotearoa-New Zealand, and health gains from climate action. N Z Med J. 2014;127:16–31.PubMed
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Metcalfe S, Laking G, Arnold J. Variation in the use of medicines by ethnicity during 2006/07 in New Zealand: a preliminary analysis. N Z Med J. 2013;126:14–41.PubMed
29.
Monasterio E, Gleeson D. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement: exacerbation of inequality for patients with serious mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48:1077–80.CrossRefPubMed
30.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. World investment report 2015: reforming international investment governance. Geneva: United Nations; 2015.
31.
32.
World Health Organization. Confronting the tobacco epidemic in a new era of trade and investment liberalization. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
33.
Snowdon W, Thow AM. Trade policy and obesity prevention: challenges and innovation in the Pacific Islands. Obes Rev. 2013;14:150–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Schram A, Labonte R, Baker P, Friel S, Reeves A, Stuckler D. The role of trade and investment liberalization in the sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages market: a natural experiment contrasting Vietnam and the Philippines. Global Health. 2015;11:41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
36.
Miller D, Harkins C. Corporate strategy, corporate capture: food and alcohol industry lobbying and public health. Crit Soc Pol. 2010;30:564–89.CrossRef
37.
Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury; 2012.
38.
Neuwelt PM, Gleeson D, Mannering B. Patently obvious: a public health analysis of pharmaceutical industry statements on the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement. Crit Public Health. 2016;26:159–72.CrossRef
39.
Crosbie E, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tob Control. 2012;23:1–10.
40.
Metadata
Title
The Potential Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on Health Equity, with Illustration From New Zealand
Authors
Gay Keating
Rhys Jones
Erik Monasterio
Josh Freeman
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0252-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

A Trial-Based Predictive Microsimulation Assessing the Public Health Benefits of Nalmefene and Psychosocial Support for the Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Alcohol Dependence

Systematic Review

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review

Current Opinion

Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

Original Research Article

Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses

Original Research Article

Difference-in-Differences Method in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Utility with Unbalanced Groups

Original Research Article

Measuring the Volume-Outcome Relation for Complex Hospital Surgery