Canada's Access to Medicines Regime: a present failure or a future success?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives In 2003, Canada became the first country to implement legislation invoking the provisions of Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) with the approval of the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR). In 2007 Rwanda became the first country to attempt to use the legislation. In this paper we conduct a comparative analysis of diverse key informants' opinions before and after the use of CAMR by Rwanda. We probe the legislation from its inception to determine whether its application is sustainable. Based on our findings we predict whether CAMR achieves its humanitarian objective in a consistent way, and, if not, what is needed to obtain this. Methods Interviews were conducted in two phases; Phase I was conducted before the Rwanda tender process started, and before the Legislative Review of 2007. Phase II was conducted once CAMR had already been reviewed and implemented. A total of 35 interviews were conducted. Key findings Throughout our key informants' interviews it was evident that CAMR fails to provide a workable solution to improving drug access for those in need. While it presented a laudable goal, competing interests and the commercial needs of its key informants have prevented the legislation from providing its humanitarian purpose. Conclusions For CAMR to be a sustainable, efficient legislation it is necessary for it to undergo significant reforms as suggested. The Canadian Government should address the specific needs of developing countries to increase their access to drugs, and should prioritize its humanitarian objectives over commercial ones, for the policy to be successful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".