Drug import bill passes House

[Brill]

House passes drug import bill

"The House approved legislation early Friday to allow the importation of lower-cost prescription drugs from industrialized nations, brushing aside opposition from the Bush administration and a fierce lobbying campaign by the pharmaceutical industry... THE VOTE was 243-186, and sent the measure to the Senate, where it faced an uncertain fate."

How do y'all feel about drug importation (or reimportation in some cases) from other countries? This topic has been touched on in this forum before, but if this bill becomes law it seems like it would have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry in this country. Would this have any impact on the practice of pharmacy?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tlh908]

I think if we all remember econ 101 - price controls create either excess or shortages. In this case it will create shortages of drugs in Canada and then they will disallow the export of their drugs.

Is it fair that the US has to pay for drug research for the rest of the world?

 

[BMBiology]

Originally posted by tlh908
In this case it will create shortages of drugs in Canada and then they will disallow the export of their drugs.

This will create a shortage of drugs in Canada only if the supply of drugs remains the same, which I highly doubt. If there's an increase in the demand of drugs and profit to be made, I am sure there will also be an increase in the supply of drugs.

If this bill does pass the senate, it appears that George W. Bush will veto it. I am pretty sure the Republican senators will vote against it because they don't want the bill to go to the White House and therefore, forcing George W. Bush to veto it. This will make the leader of their party look bad among senior citizens. Since the Republican controls the senate, I doubt this bill will pass.

 

[Brill]

Originally posted by tlh908
Is it fair that the US has to pay for drug research for the rest of the world?

I agree that it's probably not fair, but someone has to pay for it. We all know it takes millions and millions of dollars to develop these new drugs, and at the same time we all know that these pharmaceutical companies are making a nice profit, but I think it's that profit that drives the development. If these companies don't have a monetary incentive to develop new drugs then what will create the competition that drives it?

I honestly don't know how a lot of this works. I'm just throwing out some ideas.

 

[dgroulx]

Since Canada has socialized medicine, the government has price controls in place. Maybe we should slap a huge import tariff on drugs coming into this country to counteract it.

People complain a lot about the price of drugs, but those drugs didn't exist ten years ago. If you want the latest and greatest thing, you have to pay for it. For most individuals, the tried and true drugs will do an adequate job. Do physicians only prescribe the drugs that the sales reps market to them? Or do people fall for the drug advertising on television or in magazines?

Individuals need to take some responsibility. We have had democrats in office that have tried to institute some form of socialized medicine for years. If people want a system more like Canada's, then maybe they should vote accordingly. That's how our country is supposed to work.

 

[tlh908]

I hope we don't get a health care system like Canada's, I have a good friend from Canada who recently lost his father to cancer. The Canadian health care system was pretty backed up so they couldn't treat him, he tried to come to the states for care but it was to late.....
Or maybe we can have socialized medicine like they have in Romania. I was over there in June and went to a couple of hospitals and health clinics. Everything is free, but do we want:
- Cardiologist who make floral arrangements on the side so they can make money?
- Physician offices where the doctor places a piece of cardboard over their cup so flys don't get in?
- Hospitals without laminar flow hoods or clean rooms? (and yes they do make IV's)
- Hospitals next to the cemetary so the locals can joke about not having to be moved far after going to the hospital?
- Hospital pharmacies with drugs that we have stopped using years ago?

Sure its all free. But you get what you pay for.....

 

[crying moo]

Originally posted by tlh908
I hope we don't get a health care system like Canada's, I have a good friend from Canada who recently lost his father to cancer. The Canadian health care system was pretty backed up so they couldn't treat him, he tried to come to the states for care but it was to late.....
Or maybe we can have socialized medicine like they have in Romania. I was over there in June and went to a couple of hospitals and health clinics. Everything is free, but do we want:
- Cardiologist who make floral arrangements on the side so they can make money?
- Physician offices where the doctor places a piece of cardboard over their cup so flys don't get in?
- Hospitals without laminar flow hoods or clean rooms? (and yes they do make IV's)
- Hospitals next to the cemetary so the locals can joke about not having to be moved far after going to the hospital?
- Hospital pharmacies with drugs that we have stopped using years ago?

Sure its all free. But you get what you pay for.....

Excellent point. I don't know much about other countries' health systems, except for the cranky patients coming to the pharmacy griping about how much they have to pay, and in this-or-that country they only pay X for the same meds and services. I know the US health system has issues and I always wonder why we don't try what other countries have done... but thanks for your story, tlh908, I like reading firsthand stories... interesting thing about the Cardiologist-Florist!!

 

[Triangulation]

I'm all for this w/o hesitation. You guys seem to think these drugs are gonna be shipped in from some banana republic. Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest econs in the world. We already purchase medicines from them. The small pox vaccinations were a Japanese product. Fujisawa revolutionized treatment for eczema with protopic ointment. Takeda markets the oral diabetes treatment Actos which is a fast mover at any retail pharm.

The other piece of basic econ is how protectionism makes no sense in a world economy. I agree the standards need to be just as rigorous if not more, but not allowing them in makes no sense. I'd trust a generic of paroxetine from Germany as much as one from the states.

 

[LVPharm]

Strange, how it passed the House despite the lobbying efforts of "Big Pharma"...and at a rather large, bipartisan margin. Methinks the congressmen are listening to their constituents (and AARP) on this one. I do wonder if it will get past the Senate, let alone survive Dubya's veto pen. I see what you're saying about foreign manufacturers, Tri. Most of the drugs from Canada are from American Pharma who have manufacturing plants in Canada (like Pfizer Canada). Those drugs were meant for the Canadian market. I think we've discussed this before, about Americans shouldering the cost of research and development of these drugs...but after the previous discussion, I came to the conclusion that the profit margins these companies enjoy are rather large, despite the enormous cost of R&D.

The biggest problem I see with this is that the FDA will not be able to regulate the manufacture of these drugs. The American consumer would have to rely on "Health Canada" or the FDA equivalent of other nations to have similar standards. We also already have a problem with "counterfeit drugs" creeping into the market. I think this might get worse if this bill becomes law.

 

[LVPharm]

Wow...my last few comments sound almost like I'm parroting the position paper for Big Pharma's lobbying organization:

http://www.phrma.org/publications/policy/admin/10.07.2003.781.cfm

They make some interesting points....discuss amongst yourselves

 

[vnlegend]

I saw a documentary on PBS about the American pharmaceuticals industry. It seems they make the most profit compared to Fortune 500 companies. They make 18% compared to the 3% of other industries. Also, the advertising budget of one of the big pharmacy companies was more than Pepsi Co's. An 18% profit margin is pretty huge. Also, if they cut back advertising they'd surely be able to cut a new drug's prices significantly.

Basically it seems to me that these companies are hiding behind their "we need incentive/money for research" while charging needy consumers extremely high prices. A company would release a drug and charge hundreds for it before the patent (or something) runs out and generics come out selling for ~$20. Why else would they spend so much money advertising these new medicine. There are probably as much commercials advertising new medicine as commercials for new movies in theatres.

Another thing is it's reported that some drug companies pay scientists to lie to doctors so they will prescribe these drugs. A scientist confessed that a company paid him to tell doctors that some of the drugs had alternate uses (you know how a drug can be used for one thing, but also helps something else). These doctors have never tried these new drugs and rely on the scientist to give them information. It seems doctors already have to follow HMO regulations and have to deal with the drugs aspect also. What this comes down to is that the consumer isn't necessarily getting the best treatment possible.

 

[tlh908]

Originally posted by vnlegend
I saw a documentary on PBS about the American pharmaceuticals industry. It seems they make the most profit compared to Fortune 500 companies. They make 18% compared to the 3% of other industries. Also, the advertising budget of one of the big pharmacy companies was more than Pepsi Co's. An 18% profit margin is pretty huge. Also, if they cut back advertising they'd surely be able to cut a new drug's prices significantly.

Someone obviously doesn't understand business. Most companies on wallstreet to return 15% to investors, so to say that most other companies make 3% is way out of line. Besides, what is wrong with profit? Everyone needs to make money, its a fact of life. Oh, and yesterday Pfizer announced they LOST 3.6 billion dollars last quarter.

And if they cut advertising, that would cut demand which would actually raise prices. In marketing class a study was cited by the prof in which we would probably be paying close to $10 for a bag of potato chips if it wasn't for advertising and other marketing measures. It is called economies of scale.

 

[Brill]

"I don't know much about other countries' health systems, except for the cranky patients coming to the pharmacy griping about how much they have to pay, and in this-or-that country they only pay X for the same meds and services."

I think this is one of the biggest problems in the country for healthcare -- the entitlement mentality that many people have. Many people think they have a "right" to low-cost or even free medical services and prescription drugs, but the problem is these things cost a lot of money and someone has to pay the bill. Some people think the answer is to just let the government take care of everything and we'll all just have free healthcare. Of course, it really wouldn't be free because our taxes would be through the roof. I've heard many, many stories from Canadians that it works fine until you have a serious condition, as in the example from tlh. I didn't want to turn this into a debate about socialized medicine, but it all kind of ties in.

 

[dgroulx]

I lived in England for a couple of years and experienced socialized medicine first hand. Doctors are paid a good salary. They set up shop in different neighborhoods and you get to choose your primary. They are middle class, but not wealthy. Those people who choose to become doctors, do it to help people, not to get rich.

I was able to walk in and get seen immediately. I also received my prescriptions immediately. They also have private care doctors and hospitals for those willing and able to pay. Also, those people who choose to have health insurance can go to these facilities.

In America, we have hospitals that won't admit you without insurance. This is no different than private hospitals with socialized medicine. At least the poor can get to a doctor without any cost.

Our healthcare system is always rated below the Scandanavian countries, which also have socialized medicine.

 

[Brill]

How high are the tax rates over there? The money has to come from somewhere. Also, how is it for serious conditions, for example, that require surgery?

 

[Brill]

I think another problem is the tendency for people to increase their consumption of something when it is perceived as free. When something is "free" people don't think twice about using it or finding the best value for their money. This is already a problem in our country (think about how many people go to the ER when they have the flu or a stomach ache). Countries with socialized medicine have had many benefit cuts because of this, among other reasons.

 

[tlh908]

Brill is right asking about tax rates, because they are high in those countries. Another difference is demographics, the scandavian countries all have smaller populations than PA. When you start trying to come up with a system that works for the entire US, you will find that the bureacracy required is just to big.

 

[dgroulx]

Yes, the tax rates are quite high. But, wouldn't you rather pay higher taxes for the overall good of the country?

 

[MacGyver]

dg,

I've lived in England and the situation in medicine is not nearly as rosy as you are claiming....

1. Seeing a PCP for regular meds is no big deal

2. Anything more complicated medically than a simple condition is a nightmare

3. MRI scanners and other high end technology is rationed and has long waiting lists

4. The england system absolutely SUCKS if you have a serious condition. If all you need are anti-depressants and a yearly physical checkup, then its OK.