On 24 June 2021, China requested consultations with Australia pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) with respect to the measures and claims set out below.

On 15 January 2021, Malaysia requested consultations with the European Union, France and Lithuania pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) regarding the measures and claims set out below.

This dispute concerns the United States' compliance with the adopted recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Ripe Olives from Spain. The European Union claims that the United States has failed to comply with the adopted findings of the panel report concerning the incompatibility of Section 771B of the US Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 771B) "as such" and "as applied" in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order of 1 August 2018 on ripe olives from Spain, with Article VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and Article 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).

Chapter 3.7 reviews priority-setting. Priority-setting is about taking explicit decisions on where limited public resources should be allocated. Vertical priority-setting focuses on choices for particular sets of health conditions or population groups whereas horizontal priority-setting looks more broadly across types of care, such as primary or secondary care, and broader investments. Key learning includes that

• Defining a health benefits package that is affordable and accessible by all implies a horizontal approach to priority-setting.

• Countries cannot progress towards UHC without horizontal priority-setting and without some form of collective funding and procurement mechanisms.

• Horizontal priority-setting is highly context-specific. Countries may need to reorganize financing and procurement mechanisms to overcome barriers to progress.

• Increasing the total resources for health benefits packages (HBP) can help with the introduction of more horizontal approaches.

• Improving procurement can also support the move towards horizontal priority-setting whether through national efforts (such as better data gathering and use) or international initiatives (i.e. harmonizing regulation across countries or global investment in health security).

• Local capacity is key in supporting the pooling mechanisms, HBP design and regulation which enable horizontal priority-setting. Donors can usefully support health systems strengthening by investing in capacity-building and information sharing.

• Strong political will and cooperation between stakeholders is critical in progressing towards appropriate priority-setting for UHC and in designing, financing and implementing a comprehensive health benefits package.