Assessing the UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines Report in Light of the Right to Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to medicines is the lynchpin to realizing a range of human rights, public health and development imperatives. However, without strong policy action to increase access to affordable medicines, there is little hope of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals or of realizing the human right to health. Access to medicines is a fundamental element of the right to health, and the majority of states are bound by core obligations in this regard. Accordingly, states must ensure that this critical human rights, public health and development interest is appropriately prioritized against inadequate resource allocations and competing private or trade interests. This is an imperative which we have argued should have framed the deliberations of the UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines, convened to propose solutions to the “policy incoherence” between international human rights, trade rules and public health that is impeding access to medicines and the right to health for millions. In this article we explore interpretations in international human rights law regarding state duties towards medicines that should have guided these deliberations, and which were presented by the first author in a submission to the panel. We argue that at least two clear right to health duties support the High Level Panel’s recommendations: (1) the duty to prevent unreasonably high costs for medicines from denying large segments of the population their rights to health; and (2) the core obligation to provide essential medicines. Consequently, we explore three areas of action implied by these duties: (1) consistent implementation of human rights impact assessment; (2) institutionalizing the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) flexibilities in law and policy; (3) making permanent the waiver of TRIPS for least developed countries (LDC), and waiving the application of TRIPS to essential medicines in low and middle-income countries. Finally, we assess the extent to which the recommendations made by the Panel’s final report comply with these duties and accordingly with the right to health.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".