Last Tuesday I noticed the US and Australia entered into an agreement to jointly develop an ABM system. I found it curious.

Now the other shoe has dropped in the form of a new trade agreement with some very interesting features.

Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the proposed Australia trade agreement — the Bush administration's first free trade agreement with a developed country — could have major implications for health policy and programs in the United States.

Interesting, no?

The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for them and how they can be used.

It represents the administration's model for strengthening the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy countries, where the biggest profits can be made.

In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country operates its national health program to provide inexpensive drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay some of the world's highest prices for brand-name prescription drugs, in part because the United States does not have such a plan.

We've heard the argument that the USofA pays a disproportionate amount of the cost of pharmaceutical. This is being called an attempt to share that burden. But American Capitalism has no concept of "enough."

Trade experts and the pharmaceutical industry offer no assurance that drug prices will fall in the United States if they rise abroad.

Just to let you know what Big Pharma gets out of this:

For years, drug companies have objected to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which government officials decide which drugs to cover and how much to pay for them. Before the government decides whether to cover a drug, experts analyze its clinical benefits, safety and "cost-effectiveness," compared with other treatments.

The trade pact would allow drug companies to challenge decisions on coverage and payment.

Joseph M. Damond, an associate vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said Australia's drug benefit system amounted to an unfair trade practice.

"The solution is to get rid of these artificial price controls in other developed countries and create real marketplace incentives for innovation," Mr. Damond said.

…and what the Bushistas get out of it:

Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel's trade subcommittee, voted for the agreement, which could help industries in his state. But Mr. Levin said the trade pact would give a potent weapon to opponents of the drug-import bill, who could argue that "passing it would violate our international obligations."

Such violations could lead to trade sanctions costing the United States and its exporters millions of dollars.

And what does Australia get out of it? Since subjecting their ability to import American-made drugs to decisions made by the marketers will undoubtedly raise their own health care costs? I can but speculate, but it wouldn't surprise me if the AMB co-development treaty nets Australia enough economic activity to offset the hit from increased health care costs. On the books, anyway.