Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 > The Globe and Mail > > Big Pharma pulling Canada's chain? > > By ALAN CASSELS > Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003 > > It's as if there were a sign outside Tunney's Pasture, Health Canada's home > in Ottawa, that reads, " Gone Fishing. " For as pressure mounts from American > pharmaceutical manufacturers for Canada to stop selling our cheaper drugs > to Americans via the Internet, Health Canada is casting for evidence that > the cross-border trade may be causing drug shortages here at home. > > But Health Canada officials might as well stow their rods; they'll only > find red herrings. The fact is that despite repeated warnings of the > disaster that will befall Canadians when angry U.S. drug companies restrict > their supply of drugs to Canada, no one has produced such evidence. Nor are > they likely to. > > Canadians can ignore " the sky is falling " pronouncements about shortages in > our pharmaceutical supply -- because at the end of the day, money talks. > And multinational drug companies are still extremely profitable in Canada. > > Will Big Pharma companies restrict their supply of billions of dollars > worth of product to Canada because a tiny portion gets sold back to U.S. > customers at lower prices? Given that logic, U.S. pharmaceutical > manufacturers would have to restrict supply to every country that has > cheaper prices and Internet connections -- which means most of the world. > > The main issue here is visibility and precedent. Earlier this year, there > was news of a leaked U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers' document which said > the industry was earmarking $1-million (U.S.) to " change the Canadian > health-care system. " > > Well, what we're seeing now is that lobbying money at work. As long as > there are large price discrepancies between our two countries, Canada and > our policies will naturally be in the crosshairs of the U.S. drug-makers. > Before we allow our federal health agency out on another fishing > expedition, let's remember that this latest red herring swims alongside a > large school of equally fatuous pseudo-warnings issued by federal health > regulators on both sides of the border. > > Because U.S. citizens are paying some of the highest prescription drug > prices in the world, they naturally turn to the Internet for cheaper > options. Canada is a relatively trustworthy neighbour, with some good > recent history of supplying cheaper branded drugs to seniors living along > the border, so we've become the pharmacy of choice. > > And not just for individuals: The governors of Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa > and Wisconsin have all announced that they want to import cheaper medicines > from Canada, thereby saving state budgets and taxpayers millions. Illinois > Governor Rod Blagojevich estimates that his state could save as much as > $56.5-million a year on prescription drugs for state employees and retirees > by reimporting American-made drugs from countries with cheaper prices. > > Ah, ask critics, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are those > drugs safe? And who will pay for the research and development of future > medicines if U.S. pharma loses too much revenue? > > More red-herring distractions. The fact is, most American brand-name drugs, > when they aren't made in places like New Jersey, come from places like > Puerto Rico, usually using the same processes, quality standards and > safeguards as U.S.-based manufacturers. If a drug becomes " unsafe " every > time it crosses a border, then U.S. citizens should be concerned about > their entire drug supply. > > What about the fear that Canadian-style price-controls could inhibit the > development of new drugs? Drug-industry supporters call countries that > control drug prices " parasites. " The industry often says that those paying > cheaper prices are being subsidized by U.S. research and development, which > is in turn funded by high U.S. prices. > > This argument might hold some water, were it not for the fact that the U.S. > drug industry spends about three times more money marketing its products > than researching them in the first place. Here's a reverse question: Should > Canadians be subsidizing Americans' habit of being bombarded by drug ads? > > What Health Canada ought to do is go fishing for evidence that U.S.-style > drug ads are being unleashed here in our country. They may catch more than > they bargained for. > > Alan Cassels is a drug policy researcher with University of Victoria's > School of Health Information Science. > > http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031030/COPHARM 30/Comment/Idx > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.