corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1405

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Cohen J.
Canada: Get ready to defend affordable drugs: As more Americans buy drugs on-line, our prices will be pressured to mirror theirs
The Globe and Mail 2003 Aug 26


Full text:

Recent events in the United States in the high stakes game of pharmaceutical legislation brings to mind Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s famous quip that if an elephant gets into bed with a mouse, it will be bad for the mouse, even when the elephant’s intentions are honourable.

Late last month, the House of Representatives passed legislation making it legal to reimport U.S.-made pharmaceuticals from Canada and more than 20 other countries. Politically, this was a huge surprise: The U.S. research-based pharmaceutical industry makes significant political contributions to Congress, and its lobbyists outnumber representatives. The bets were that such legislation wouldn’t stand a chance.

But if populist demand seems to have won, the war’s not over yet. And Canada may bear the U.S. elephant’s discomfort in the form of increased pressures on our health-care system — especially in terms of upward pressure on our drug prices.

The problem is that U.S. citizens have the world’s priciest prescription drugs. Mostly that’s because, unlike most other countries, the U.S. does not regulate drug prices, leaving it to the market to set prices. The differential between U.S. and Canadian drug prices is played out in the form of frequent busloads of U.S. seniors pouring into Canada for drug-buying sprees.

The Congressional Budget Office has recently warned that rising drug prices will continue to assume a large share of seniors’ incomes and noted that over the next 10 years, for the poorest U.S. seniors, drug costs will soon take as much as 25 per cent of after-tax income. One in six Americans, or 44 million people, is age 60 or older. An equal number of Americans have no health insurance whatsoever. Health care is one of the hottest priority issues among older Americans, and in survey after survey, seniors say that enacting a prescription-drug benefit is a top concern.

So for a growing number of American seniors (and consumers generally), the pharmacy of choice is Canada. All you need to do is fax in your doctor’s prescription, pay the handling and retail fees, and within days, reasonably priced prescription drugs are shipped to your home. The Web site of one Canadian-based Internet enterprise, Canada Pharmacy Express, offers American clients “up to 80 per cent off your prescription drug prices.”

Internet pharmacies are Big Business — estimates run as high as $650-million a year. Not surprisingly, international pharmaceutical companies are trying to staunch the flow of pharmaceuticals across the Canadian border.

The first to take action was GlaxoSmithKline PLC of Britain, which earlier this year initiated a corporate policy that requires pharmacies in Canada to certify that they do not sell their products to American consumers in the United States. The company threatened to cut off products to any Canadian pharmacy breaching this deal. Now other companies, including Pfizer, are following suit.

Canadians must examine what this trend means for us. We could get caught in the middle of a difficult political debate in the United States and face repercussions. Companies may threaten us with drug shortages because they do not want to sell their drugs cheaply in Canada, only to have those drugs shipped to the U.S. to cut into profits.

But one can’t deny that American consumers need access to affordable medicines; the huge growth in the Internet pharmacy area simply a result of market opportunity. Drug reimportation will be an election issue in the next presidential election. Canadians are already being called “free riders,” who don’t pay their fair share of “true” drug costs.

Soon Canadians will be able to air their views about Washington’s increasing pressure for us to raise our drug prices. The House of Commons standing committee on health plans to hold cross-country hearings this fall for its study on prescription drugs. The committee will look at issues such as rising drug costs, the control of prices, and the marketing to, and lobbying of, prescribers and dispensers.

This will be a good opportunity for us to reassert the importance of keeping drug prices manageable as part of our public health-care system. Canadians can and should stand their ground when discussing drug prices in the shadow of the elephant — regardless of how uncomfortable it is to share space with a very large neighbour.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909