In the 2nd Presidential Debate President Bush was asked the following question by an audience member:


The President responded to the question in the following manner:


The response "I haven't yet" is less than honest, but I'll let that slide for a moment. The subject of Canadian drugs has become a bit of a hot button issue, so I thought we could discuss it in this topic.

Questions for debate:
1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

If said drugs are approved by the FDA, including manufacturing, production, and usage of said drugs.

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

This is fact. The FDA has a superior CDER approval process.

The FDA has learn many lessons in releasing drugs too quick and now wait for Canada and Europe to test drugs on humans before authorizing the drug for use in the US. Canada and Europe have released many drugs that have later caused undesirable effects in patience resulting in the cancellation of the drug within a handful of years of its release. These same drugs are never released in the US.

The argument is made that the same drug companies that are in Canada are part of American drug companies. It is stated that these drug companies are the same. All of them. No matter where you are.

What is the difference between America and other countries, let say Canada, drugs released? The FDA. The FDA implies more regulations on the drugs allowed into the US then any other country.

Now for the lesson on drugs: CDER test all the drugs from the FDA. CDER released a little book called From Test Tube to Patient which explains why the CDER and the FDA is far superior then any other country.

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

The president isn’t sure they are safe, but Senator Kerry thinks they are. Bush, however contradicts himself.

The second question Schieffer asked night last night was about the shortage of flu vaccine. Here’s what the president said:



<snip>



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6243023/

There is an answer to this from the FDA.



It appears that the Canadian company that produces the flu shots does not meet the requirement of the FDA and it is doubtful that the company will not be able to comply before the end of flu season. But as Bush said in the debate, we are hopeful "that they'll produce" a vaccine necessary to meet FDA approvals and "make sure our citizens have got flu vaccination."

yehoshua,

That is not what I remember Bush saying or what the transcript from the debate says. Where did Bush mention the FDA?



Are you down to telling us what Bush meant to say rather than what he actually said by splicing his words with YOUR spin?

If whatever supply that's available in Canada isn't up to FDA standards, then Bush misspoke last night.

Here's the link to the transcript again. If anyone wants to check, it was the second question Schieffer asked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6243023/

Ok, here's my take on the issues:

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

Importing these drugs isn't going to be a panacea for the problems we have with drug prices, BUT it should serve as a wake up call for American drug companies and force them to be more competitive which is good for everyone. The CEO of the AARP agrees with me:


So what I think is that yes, the ban should be lifted. I would also like to see corresponding legislation passed or an executive order perhaps requiring the FDA to investigate the companies which sell drugs and provide some kind of certification for them.

There is always the chance that when you buy something online it won't be genuine or it will be unsafe, but somehow eCommerce continues every day. The FDA doesn't need to inspect the drugs themselves, they need to inspect the companies.

Edited to add: And as a little bit of the reason why Canadian drugs are cheaper, another article from the AARP:

If nothing else, perhaps the Canadians have a lesson or two they can teach us about drugs.


2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

I'd have to say fiction here, and I'll just let the former Prime Minister of Canada do my talking for me:


He does have a very good point, the rest of the world seems to get on just fine with the drugs they have, so this fear of foreign drugs being unsafe is just that, unfounded fear.

The legitimate problem here, as I alluded to above, is being able to tell the reputable companies from the ones that are scams. I wouldn't say that is nearly as insurmountable as President Bush is making it out to be. Everyday most of us probably get 20 or 30 emails in our inbox tempting us with deals online, everything from cheap viagra to bargain basement real estate to business deals. All of these are going to be scams, yet is anyone talking about banning email? No, because that is ridiculous.

I think the bigger issue here is the financial hit the American drug companies will take by no longer being able to charge $120 a pill. That hit will translate into a political hit for President Bush and the Republicans as a whole because many of these companies are contributors. I personally think that is unfortunate, because as usual politics is causing us to make stupid decisions.


You may have a point for drugs which are extremely new or haven't met FDA approval yet Yehoshua, but you are wrong about established drugs. If a drug has been established and approved in the US, there is no reason why that same drug could not be imported from Canada, the UK or anywhere else provided the seller could be certified some how.

Additionally, I'm of the mindset of - if you want to take an experimental drug that is fine, as long as you are well informed of the risks. If someone is dealing with a serious or life threatening disease and they want to try some experimental treatment which isn't legal in the US but may be legal in other countries, then I really don't see a problem with that as long as they are fully informed about their options and willing to take responsibility for their actions should they have negative side effects. If someone is dying of Cancer, I really don't think that the federal government should have the right to tell them they can't exercise every option possible to try and cure themselves. That is just common sense to me.

The FDA serves a purpose, and it is very important, but it shouldn't be able to dictate what you can or cannot do when making medical decisions.

Yes. The ban on the practice should be lifted.

It's fiction.

The drugs are manufactured in the United States in the first place! It's just that the Canadian government negotiates a lower price with U.S. pharmaceutical companies* so that Canadians don't have to spend as much money as Americans do. The Canadian government is not going to get drugs from Honduras for its own people, and there are not bins designated "Shoddy seconds going to the poor Americans" in their pharmacies.

Bush was just using the safety question as an excuse for not having done something he had pledged to do in his first presidential election, and it was a pretty lame excuse at that. His willingness to trust Canada to produce more flu vaccine shows just how lame the excuse is.

*something Bush for some reason neglected to do when he worked up the prescription plan for seniors on Medicare. I wonder why????

I have read a lot of OPs on this subject and many conclude our prices are higher because of all the FDA oversight and regulations..so once the Canadian drugs are made "safe" and legal for the US market won't the price be back up again?

Seems to me they are only cheap in Canada..or if you illegally purchase them via the internet..some things we just shouldn't ask the govt to get involved in.

Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?
It sounds like a better solution than charting the elderly to Mexico on Greyhound buses. Canada's healthcare system may not be as good as ours but how much of an effect can this have on their meds? Do a significant number of people that already cross the northern border return harmed or dead?

What I find funny is this hoopla about the president making sure Americans are safe--from "conservatives."

It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?
I don't know about safe practice, but it sure wouldn't be a profit practice for our drug companies. As for the FDA's safety credentials it is accused of silencing Vioxx warnings:



FDA's response concerning Vioxx:



Our safety as patients is already in question. The healthcare system is compromised by shortchanging the interests of the consumer, much like how the FCC slowly degenerated into a sham of a regulatory government agency. If Bush is so concerned about the American consumer/patient he would do well to cut ties with the industry.


I guess that's one way to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Is this what it means to be a pro-business Republican looking out for our safety? What a joke.

I want to note up front that I did edit my original post to state why drugs in Canada are cheaper, so you may not have seen it, but I'll repeat it again here.

And as a little bit of the reason why Canadian drugs are cheaper, another article from the AARP:


That means that one of the major factors why the drugs are cheaper is because the Canadian government doesn't allow drug companies to mark up the prices on patented drugs to ridiculous rates. I think I read somewhere that some drugs seniors with heart problems take cost $120 a pill or so. So by buying from Canada (even if the company marked the drug up a little bit) you would be getting the same drug for far cheaper due to laws in Canada. As I said in my previous post, if this caught on US companies would be forced to actually be competitive and price their drugs reasonably or they'd quickly find sales dropping.

The second point, speaks to what we should be doing with medicare and other similar plans - using the federal government's bargaining power to force better deals and cheaper drugs.

None of this has anything to do with the FDA taking a long time to approve a drug or regulations or anything like that. The plain and simple truth is that drug companies which acquire a patent for a drug basically have a monopoly on that drug until the patent expires and generic drugs become available. That means they can charge whatever they want, even if it is a ridiculous price.

The reason the federal government isn't doing anything about it is because they have good lobbyists in Washington assuring politicians don't think about breaking their little monopoly. This results in the scare tactics demonstrated by Bush that used in the debates.

1. Is the re-importation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

Let’s briefly glance at some basic economics; the laws of supply and demand. Your local Seven-Eleven can’t match the prices in a Wal-Mart Flier for a reason. They don’t have the buying power, or the sales volume.

Canada has a population of 31,946,316. (Source: Canadian Census) The United States Population is nearly 10 times that. The population (35,484,453) of California alone, exceeds the population of Canada. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) When the United States Government is unwilling to step in and negotiate with drug companies to control the costs of drugs, there really is no incentive for Canada to negotiate the price of drugs for the United States. Our supply of flu vaccine is, listening to the television, about half of what we need. That has resulted in suppliers asking some four to six times the regular price for the vaccine they have on hand. If they succeed in selling the drug at those inflated prices, it is unlikely the price will come down next year.

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

Was it a mere "flip-flop" that “W” determined in a mere five days that Canadians were not dying off in droves from unsafe prescription drugs? I doubt it. I seriously doubt that he even spoke to someone in Canada before he made that statement in the fourth debate. In order to supply their own citizens, and supply the current needs of the United States, Canada would have had to stockpile six times as much vaccine as their population needed. I have no reason to be leery of the Canadian Drug safety standards, but I don’t think that it is a “Good Neighbor Policy” to ask their government to step in and cover the shortfalls of the American government in providing adequate health care to its population.

My personal suspicion is that the current administration, in its efforts to fight governmental intervention in Health Care; would rather not have the average American looking at the Health Care policies of Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, etc.

Curmudgeon you are absolutely correct. Here’s an article from this morning’s Fort Worth Star Telegram. While Dr. Gerberding is probably honest in her desire to prosecute price-gougers, it will be interesting to see where this actually goes.



<snip>



Link may require registration. It's interesting that this story was in the business section of the paper.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/9916144.htm?1c

I am glad Bob Schieffer, who’s ties to my beloved Fort Worth include TCU, WBAP TV, (now KXAS) KXOL radio and the Fort Worth Star Telegram, ask the president about flu vaccine shortage as his second question last night. I think it may well be one of Bush’s Achilles heels as people realize they aren’t going to get a shot as a potentially deadly flu season approaches and panic sets in.

Schieffer caught Bush flat footed. The president’s answer was not just under informed it was completely uniformed.


Here’s how factcheck.org saw it.



http://www.factcheck.org/article281m.html

Here’s how Keith Olbermann scored the round



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6243014/#041013e

Edited to add Olbermann and fact check quotes.

*Note: Please indulge my local pride in Mr. Schieffer on this reply.

Not at all Bucket. As CubeJockey so aptly pointed out, Canadian and other countries' prescription prices are lower because of mainly one reason: Those countries either negotiate a lower price with the drug companies, or they set a limit on the percentage of profit that can be made by the company over and above the cost, adjusted every so often for inflation.

However, in the US, we don't do this. The drug company is allowed to charge whatever they want for their drug, and you can either pay it, or do without.

Here's a perfect example. As you may or may not know, I had a heart attack, and quadruple bypass surgery about a year and a half ago. I have several different medications I neeed to take daily now, to insure it doesn't happen again.

One of those meds is Lipitor, for high cholesterol. It's an FDA approved drug, available at any pharmacy, with a prescription. My local pharmacy charges $102.73 for a 30 day supply. That's roughly $308 for a 90 day supply.

Now, contrast this with where I now purchase this drug, from a mail-order pharmacy in Canada. Same drug, same strength, still FDA approved. I order a 90 day supply at a time from them, and my cost is 138.00, plus a few bucks for shipping. So, for the same amount of Lipitor every three months, I'm saving $165.00 by buying it overseas. On just the one medication.

As I said, I have several different drugs to take, and my overall savings is roughly $300.00 every three months. That's $1200.00 a year, not exactly chump change. I don't know about you, but I can think of a lot of other things I'd rather spend that money on, than my local pharmacy.

Having travelled abroad, served in the military abroad, travelled heavily in Canada, Europe, third world countries etc- this to me, is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard the right wing put forward to date.

I bought cheap European and Russian drugs last time I was there - and still, safe as anything you could buy in the US.

The FDA is probably the only organization more beholden to drug company special intrests than GW LOL-

If any country has a bad record of sending bad drugs to other countries- it's the US- we dumped Thalidomide on third world countries after is was banned here- causing a whole new generation of "flipper" babies born in places like India.

They dumped those drugs on third world nations to protect drug companies profits then- just as the pressure is on to protect those profits now.

I think both candidates are taking the wrong tack anyway- I think a major investigation of everything from frivolous patent renewals to gouging needs to be heavily investigated and and start throwing some CEOs in jail.

This was breaking news as I was headed to bed. Such breaking news that the local Television station that brought it to my attention still doesn't have this story on its web site. However, according to CNN:


Apparently, President Bush went into the last debate with only partial recollection of what he had heard from his Cabinet Secretary and an equally poor recollection of his own remarks about Canadian Drugs not being safe, a mere 5 days earlier in the second Presidential debate.

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

Well, when the Canadian (& European) government negotiates (i.e. dictates) a lower-than-market price to drug companies, in order to remain profitable they have to push up prices somewhere else. Guess who gets the higher prices? - the US.

Drug companies aren't actually that profitable - yes, they are large and have a large amount of assets, but that doesn't mean they make a lot of money year after year. Effectively they are being forced to raise prices for US citizens because the prices that Canadians and Europeans pay are too low. It's very unfair and, as you can imagine, it means that drug companies would very much like to make sure that US citizens cannot buy drugs from other countries, because you effectively are the only way they can make a profit.



2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?


Ha ha, those stupid Canadians. All along they have been taking poisonous drugs....
I would guess that it is a fairly safe to assume that Canadian drugs are safe - or else people probably wouldn't be able to buy them. As are drugs from any developed country.
Drug companies don't actually change the drug they market in different countries - they might change the name, or the colour, taste or dosage in a pill, but the actual drug itself won't be any different. It takes such a long time to develop new drugs that when you find one that works, you still with it...

FDA requirements are more stringent than anywhere else - but that doesn't necessarily mean that US drugs are safer - it just means that you have less access to certain drugs in the US. Plus the FDA is really just subtle protectionism.

It is ironic that the same safeguards President Bush was touting will be responsible for millions of Americans being unable to receive flu shots.

This was a campaign goal for Bush the first time around, and still it has not been resolved. Now there will be Americans at risk who will become sick and some who will die because they were unable to be vaccinated for this flu season.

Please spare me your concern about safety regarding prescription drugs from Canada, Mr. President. Once again, such arrogance from this President!

Canada is not a Third World country rife with drug lords or substandard pharmaceutical facilities. Let our people get their medications where they can afford to buy all of them and still eat.

Thanks Cube Jockey and NiteGuy..and I did read your prior comments Cube..and I don't disagree with them..as I think there are many factors that effect the cost of drugs (and overall health costs) in the US and I do think the FDA has a pretty substantial role in the price of not only drugs in the US but all health costs.

As Ptarmigan pointed out...

Less access means more of a monopoly and higher prices..and this is achieved through not only patents but regulations and oversight.

Another thing your AARP article left out about patent laws is in Europe (I have no idea about Canada..not a Canadian) patent laws include compulsory licensing.

So yeah price control obviously is a big part of it..but there are factors involved in the actual production price that differ from our country to theirs that allows lower prices to even be considered.

My point is..it is the Canadian system ..as a whole...from their tort system, their patenting system, their form of drug development, regulation and oversight and market access and controls that influences the price of drugs in Canada as it does in Europe. If we then bring these drugs into our system in the US..won't our system then influence the prices differently? Again I think the drugs are cheap because they are in the Canadian system..I think once you place them in the US system that will change.

Also Cube Jockey..you complained about lobbyists influencing our gov on this matter but then you site the AARP as your source for pursuing change ..and the AARP is a lobbyist..isn't this what you want for lobbyists to influence the people in Washington?

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted? Sure, I think it's a good solution. However, that should require that we change our FDA standards to accomodate them. Drugs in America need to pass the standards for drugs in America. Everyone in favor? I don't see this as arrogance on the president's part.

Personally, I don't feel the love for the FDA. To quote Milton Friedman: “The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process.”

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not? I think Canadian drugs are safe, but I must disagree with Cruisingram a bit. I, too, have traveled and I've seen few nations with the strict controls we have here. Pharmacists that I've been to in Asia and parts of Europe provided some of the services only doctors would in America. You tell them your ailment and they'll give you something to cure it which would require a doctor's prescription here. Will the stuff kill you? Never killed me, in fact, it was nice to get it and not have to see a doctor first, but I do understand that some might have reservations about such a policy. Not saying that Canada specifically has this policy, as I've never been to a Canadian pharmacy.

Another factor to think about...Ptarmigan is right. Prices are inexpensive in Canada due to controls which would probably be affected if Americans started buying their drugs en masse. Their prices would likely rise as well, or drug companies would stifle innovation. Do Canadians actually want us to buy their drugs?

I see it as the President being in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies in this country, producing an obstructionist attitude. I see him as arrogant because of his frank refusal to recognize anything remiss in our system as being his responsibility, especially as it has to do directly with a promise he made about Americans being able to access less expensive prescriptions from Canada if necessary in order to be able to afford to live as well as pay for prescription medicine.

Bush's arrogance is in assuming that Canada would allow its citizens to somehow receive less safe, poorer quality medicines in the first place. Or that is how it sounded to me in the latest debate.

Would anyone like to suggest that Canada's drug standards are somehow less acceptable than FDA standards? Regulations are designed to help, not hinder access to life-saving drugs.

And does President Bush's suggestion about using generic drugs instead mitigate our acute shortage of flu vaccine in this country? Of course not. It was an inadequate response he made in his debate with Senator Kerry this week--so aptly pointed out by this situation. Too little action, too late.

You are absolutely right, CR.

George W. Bush has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations
from pharmaceutical companies since his first presidential run.
They give large donations and in return he must help fend off government
efforts to control drug prices.


He is, once again, sacrificing the benefits of Americans for a select few who
control (and profit from) the drugs manufactured in our country.

Thanks for having our best interests in mind GW, and thanks for not getting
that flu shot this year. That is a huge sacrifice on your part..

I think it will absolutely influence our prices, by forcing drug companies to sell for lower prices in the US which is the desired effect. Simply importing the drugs from Canada as NiteGuy stated, will get you some savings and if this practice were made completely legal the Canadians wouldn't all of a sudden raise prices on us. In fact as has been stated in this thread they are bound by law and numerous other factors not to do that.

Now if it becomes legal and people start buying from Canada in large numbers, it is going to put downward pressure on the US market and give them the thing they are sorely lacking right now - competition. The US drug market is essentially a monopoly right now. In both the interest of people who need drugs and in a free market sense, I can't see anything but benefits from this.

I also personally know a few people who work in the drug industry, don't let anyone kid you by telling you these companies aren't turning a profit - just go check some of their stock prices in the market.

Regarding lobbyists, yes the AARP is a lobbyist Bucket but I believe they have people's interests at heart rather than profit. The drug companies lobby and contribute money to campaigns so they can maintain their monopolies and profits. The AARP lobbies so that senior citizens (living on reduced and fixed incomes) can actually afford their medications without making a choice between their heart meds and their mortgage. When I am making a choice between the benefit of people and profits for big corporations I'm going to choose people every time.

Let see who's pockets are lined:

This site shows Bush receiving $10,059,443 from the Health sector out of $338,341,211 which is about 3% of Bush's overall contributions. And shows Kerry receiving $6,182,696 from the Health sector out of $310,851,634 which is about 2% of Kerry's overal contributions. Seems to me that no one's pockets are lined. I know that 10 million and 6 million are large numbers but I am not sure that they are large enough to change policy.



Well the FDA claims its standards are 'better' then Canadian Health.
As the CEO of a Canadian drug company claimed, "We are very pleased to have achieved this FDA determination." Which opens the company to the US market but also the CEO understands

Or who about the FDA:

The importation of drugs from Canada is deemed unsafe by the FDA.

Or the FDA's own:
If it has not been through the FDA then it is not safe for Americans.

Yehoshua, the issue is not with buying drugs which have generic substitutes. The issue is buying drugs which are still in the patent phase and therefore do not have a generic substitute. These drugs also happen to be ones frequently prescribed by doctors to people with heart conditions, etc.

The reason Canadian drugs are cheaper in this instance is because the Canadian government does not allow price gouging on these types of drugs (see previous posts)

Canadian drugs won't always be the cheaper alternative, but that is no reason not to allow them in.


The drugs we are talking about here are not experimental drugs. The majority of them are American brands, made by american companies and approved domestically by the FDA. There has been no credible evidence (that I have seen) declaring these drugs unsafe simply by crossing the border.

As I said before, there is of course the chance that you could run into a scam, but how is that any different than any other area of life? I think people should be allowed to make a choice on what level of risk they are willing to accept.

If you have some kind of convincing proof that the drugs aren't safe, please share, until then I have to go with common sense - Canadians aren't dying in droves so the drugs must be reasonably safe.

edited for clarity

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

Canada has been literally a life-saver for many people living on fixed incomes and people with life-threatening disease who can’t afford the pharmaceutical company’s outlandish prices. It should not have to be this way. Life-saving prescription drugs should not be priced out of reach of the people who need them the most. Buying US drugs from Canada is really not the issue; the issue is why the prices for the same drugs are so over-inflated here in the US?

Drugs in Canada are US-manufactured. Drugs purchased from Canada (from reputable pharmacies) are just as safe as the same drug in America-same packaging, same logo, same manufacturer – they A*R*E the same. Why is it a problem to our government for people to buy them there? Simple - politics and profits. Bush/GOP and big PHARMA want seniors to believe that the drug discount cards they’ve come up with are the solution to seniors’ problems; NOT buying drugs from Canada (from which they receive no profits).

Making a big whoopdedoo over the safety of Canadian drugs is a side story to divert attention to what’s really going on here. Big PHARMA does not want to lose any of their profit margin and Bush and the GOP don't want to lose a cash cow. The so-called prescription drug discount cards Bush is pushing so hard as a “solution” to high prescription prices is an absolute JOKE. In fact, joke is far too kind a word to describe these cards. The drug card program is a SCAM and a rip-off that takes advantage of seniors and the poor and Bush should be ashamed.





There is a book called “The $800 Million Pill: the truth behind the cost of new drugs” that goes a long way debunking all the pharmaceutical companies’ hysteria over how they won’t be able to continue R&D without charging ridiculously high prices for their drugs. There is a good synopsis of some of the facts in the book at B&N’s website.


In conclusion; why shouldn’t Americans be able to buy their prescriptions from Canada when their own country is shafting them in the first place? PHARMA isn't going to change its ways anytime soon. Canada offers reasonable prices for the same medications. And in the words of someone I can’t remember: “I don’t see Canadians dropping dead.”

Perhaps you did not understand what I was saying..when the drugs are brought into our system it will effect the price of those drugs. If it is a non-American manufactured drug it will have to go through the costs of the FDA. If it is an American manufactured drug already available here in the US..what will change? The US pharm corps sell drugs all over the world and there isn't a set universal price..the price changes from country to country..as it does for every product..you got any idea what a big mac costs in Switzerland?
American corps offer lower prices in countries all around the world...because each is a separate market/system with different conditions and the market/system itself makes the determination.

I never claimed they weren't turning a profit did I?

All I did was bring up the fact we do have the FDA here ...and it IS a factor in drug costs..I don't know why you disagree with this and claim "None of this has anything to do with the FDA taking a long time to approve a drug or regulations or anything like that. " The FDA has everything to do with the topic of drug regulation in the US.

I just don't think reimportation will solve much...gobs needs to be done..FDA reform, patent reform, insurance reform. It is a huge problem.

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

Fiction. Do people think that Canadians are dropping like flies because of the pills they buy in Canada? Well, they are not. Canada has a better health system than the US, and to assume that their treatments are unsafe is a poor excuse to make Large Pharma more profitable. The FDA process could be streamlined so that Big Pharma could get their products out to market faster thus decreasing the overall drug development process. This would benefit both the public and the corporations as they could compete with Canadian suppliers on cost.

The current US administration has done NOTHING to speed up the time to market for these drugs in the US, and has penalized Americans through their restrictions of where we can get or drugs.

Bush says that the Kerry health plan would restrict Americans' choices. Ironic, as it is he, George Bush that is restricting our options, and yet he points to the other guy. I just don't get it. 3 more weeks and we can start thinking about the positive changes that will be occurring in America regarding this.

The misunderstanding is that the FDA would have to re-certify these drugs or something, that is a myth. In the majority of cases we are talking about a drug that has been established and tested in the united states, FDA approved, manufactured in the United States and then shipped to Canada. Now the Canadians have rules dictating that these companies can't gouge their citizens so the price is lower. If Americans buy from Canadian pharmacies online or make the trip there personally they are not only being able to take advantage of the buying power of the dollar, they are also getting lower prices for the very same drug they could walk down to Walgreens and buy a mile from their home.

I don't see anywhere in there where the FDA would have to get involved and drive up the price of the drugs. If we were talking about drugs which were not approved here you might have a point, but we aren't. If you were talking about experimental drugs you also might have a point, but again we aren't.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

That isn't entirely true, CJ. FDA approvals are specific to the manufacturer, product, container, formulation, source and specifications of active ingredients, processing methods, controls, labeling, ect. Often those "FDA approved" drugs sold outside of the U.S. are not manufactured by the firm that has FDA approval for that drug, or the version produced does not meet all of the specific requirements of the approval.

I think the FDA is a racket. IMO, the restrictions are extreme, but therein lies much of the problem.

Edited to add: Link

I stand corrected, but to me that doesn't seem like so much of a compelling reason as an excuse. If the president really had the desire to change the FDA then he could, no one has done it because they don't want to lose the support of big drug companies.

For 3%? You mean to tell me that Bush and Kerry would not change the FDA for fear they would lose 3%(Kerry 2%) of their support for running for elections? Now that does not seem right. I feel more so that the president is waiting on the bill in Congress which is stalled to after the election. The bill would reduce the laws enforced by the FDA on Canadian drugs.

Yehoshua I didn't comment on your post earlier because I don't know the whole number myself, I only poked around on that site a little bit.

But I can tell you that without a doubt, this isn't about several million dollars it is much more than that. First of all you didn't look at donations to the Republican and Democratic parties, nor did you consider the many, many senators and representatives that make the laws. If you start to add up all that money then I think you'll find it becomes significant.

To phrase this another way, you tell me why we don't import drugs from Canada if not for politics and profit? And if you feel the drugs aren't safe, then please provide some kind of evidence showing they aren't.

So far you haven't answered the actual questions for debate, please do so and then we'll know what your position on the issue is and what evidence you are bringing to the table.

Thanks Mrs. P

Also Cube Jockey..prescription drugs are not stagnant..they will make and develop new drugs.

My beginning comments in this thread was that I felt some things the govt shouldn't get involved..as far as this subject goes..reimportation of Canadian drugs..as long as it is kept a private personal thing the prices will remain cheaper. Once we get the US govt involved and introduce all the factors we have here that cause our prices to be higher it will all change. I just don't feel it is a feasible thing to really cause a lasting change in cost/prices.

Also Mrs. P asked if Canadians want us buying their drugs..and I wish UJ would comment on this but I looked to see if I could find an article to read up on this aspect of reimportation and found this...

source

Is this fair to Canada?

This is in fact an issue I feel strongly about, for several reasons. It is also one I have been quiet about in the forum proper, for several reasons.

First off, to answer the questions CJ posed... It is obviously not a viable long-term strategy to become dependent on reimported drugs, for several reasons. One, you are for all intents and purposes abandoning the the sovereignty of the American drug market to the Canadian regulatory agencies involved; and while I have no doubt that they are capable and functional bureaucracies, there is a fundamental flaw in such a system. At the same time, it is hard to measure what would happen to the U.S. drug market in this case. The most important element here however, and this is one that seems to go unheeded, is that not everyone can make that trip (and online purchasing is going to slow down or stop in the next couple of months as the various provincial Medical Associations crack down on prescriptions filled unethically), so you're creating a second tier in what is already a two-tiered system of drug distribution.

It's not like these people are crossing the border to buy shoes, these are drugs that keep people alive and healthy. If millions of people (and if it's not there yet it will be in the next ten years) can't afford the drugs they need to stay healthy and productive, the economic impact would be drastic.

Second question, are they safe? Of course they are. Drug controls in Canada are just as strict in Canada as they are in the U.S., and in some places even more stringent. I find it horribly insulting when people suggest otherwise because they are assuming that the Canadian government (and the people in this country) are either too dumb, or just don't care enough to go to the same lengths that Americans do... then again, lambasting Canada has developed into a political tradition in the U.S. in the last five years or so.

Now, what impact does this have for Canada? Not only is the scenario Bucket described a distinct possibility, there are other potential situations that could arise that are even more deleterious to the pharmaceutical industry here. By applying pressure to prices and bulk-negotiating prices the Canadian (and Provincial) governments are essentially subsidizing drug purchases. It does this, in addition to philosophical reasons, on the provision that there is a return in the form of a productive labour force. People who are on medication don't drain health-care resources or emergency services, are able to work longer and more productively, and stimulate the economy by being active consumers. When Americans begin to purchase drugs at Canadian prices, the Canadian government is then subsidizing AMERICAN drug purchases, with none of the pursuant economic tradeoff.

While it's hard to measure the economic impact of this at the moment, there are fundamental reasons why this is unfair. First of all, Canadian pharmaceutical companies are regulated on the above understanding; and those companies accept the tradeoff by continuing to do business in Canada. If Americans were to become a significant portion of the Canadian drug market, then their prices and profits are then being restricted unfairly, as the government enjoys no benefits from their purchases. Now drug corporations aren't high on my list of organizations to admire, but if they are operating legally and ethically then they are entitled to whatever profits they can make; and the U.S. drug consumers are robbing them of that. Secondly, it forces Canadian doctors and pharmacists into an ethical dilemma. If a doctor does examine a patient and determines that a certain drug treatment is appropriate, it is their ethical responsibility to write a prescription; and it is a pharmacists ethical responsibility to fill it. If thousands of people start heading to Canadian doctors to be examined, how long can they turned away by doctors that are ethically obligated to treat them?

Ok, so why I haven't I brought any of this up on the forums? Well there are a couple of reasons. First of all, I've been kind of a bitter guy of late, as some members (and staff) have noticed. The United States have been reaming Canada steadily ever since NAFTA was signed. Most recently, the Commerce Department announced 15% duties on hogs from Canada, making the tired and repeatedly defeated arguments that Canadian producers are subsidized and/or engage in dumping. This joins the Softwood Lumber, Pacific Salmon, Potatos, and Wheat centered disputes, amongst others where the WTO keeps on ruling against U.S. accusations (and any illegal subsidies that that government practices such as the much maligned current farm-subsidies,) yet the tarriffs keep on coming. What's my point? Why SHOULD Americans get to enjoy the benefits of our drug market when they are more than happy to jerk us around in just about every other area of cross-border trade? And lets not forget Canada being blamed for everything from 9/11 to the Great Blackout of 2003. You don't DESERVE our drugs.

I've also been quiet because I wanted to see how this argument developed. I can't for the life of me imagine how people are drawing partisan lines when it is clear that both parties have their hands in the cookie-jar, so to speak. The penetration of the drug industry into legislative offices and corridors is so pervasive that it is futile to blame one party or the other.

The way I see it there is only one argument AGAINST lowering the costs of prescription drugs that holds any weight; and that is a constitutional one. Izdaari, back me up here...

If national drug companies can function and thrive in a Canadian or European-style system (and they're not all just offshoots of American companies thank you very much), then they CAN do the same in the States. Nobody has the political will to make them, and the crisis is being dumped in the laps of consumers, and once again Canada.

edited to add further venting

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising perscription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

Unquestionably it should. All of the reasons I have seen given for this thus far are based on extremely shaky foundations. With proper minimal oversight, this can be done safely.

That being said, I agree with UltimateJoe that this is not a long term solution to drug prices. The fact that that largest buyer of prescription drugs in the United States (otherwise known as our government) cannot negotiate bulk purchasing agreements with the pharm companies (part of our magical medicare reform legislation) is absolutely absurd. There should be a serious review of this industry to balance the need for pharm companies to recoup their research costs for new drugs with the public's need for reasonable access to them. I don't know what the exact solution is, but removing these two obstacles would be a step in the right direction. How much of a role the government should play in this is unclear.

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?
Frankly, there are too many states doing this already for this argument to hold any water. There are easily some minimum controls that can be put in place to ensure the public's safety in this affair.

Doc

Well I am surprised that the vast majority of you are very close on this one.
Here's a few truths about the Canadian system before I reply to the questions for debate.
Yes our system is very safe. In fact 99% of our drugs were certified by the FDA long before they were certified here. Our version of the FDA usually looks at the American data then decides whether to do more testing or move the drug into the mainstream.
Most of our drugs are made in the US. Then why are we cheaper?? Three prinicpal reasons.
Generics-Canada restricts patent time on certain drug types (which ends up being most types) Generics are more quickly availabe which not only offers cheaper drugs under the generic name itself, but forces patented drugs prices down as well.
Volume Purchasing- Over 90% of all drugs in Ontario are bought by ONE customer (a branch of the government) which redistributes to everyone from there. The result is the buying power of billions of dollars.
Price Control- Though rarely used, there is a law that enables the government to control the price of certain life-saving drugs (generally cancer and AIDS drugs)


1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

There is no reason outside of profit to not drop the ban. An influenza pandemic is possible and a ban will reduce the likelihood of the neediest getting flu shots this year. We have a surplus in the millions and the Canadian government has already committed to making them available to the US at cost.\

2. It has been suggested that importing Canadian drugs wouldn't be a safe practice, is this fact or fiction? Why or why not?

Total fiction. As I alluded to in the preamble, the vast majority of drugs are already approved in the US and are made in the US.

Please note the difference in phraseology: I said "being in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies;" you said "Let's see whose pockets are lined." Do you see the difference?

The prescription drug program for seniors is being claimed by President Bush as his great accomplishment, not Senator Kerry's. There are a couple of things about this that I can link to if you'd like me to, but I won't if I don't have to:

• The estimated cost of the program was fudged so it would be passed in the Congress. A staffer said that he was specifically told not to use the actual numbers (if memory serves).
  
  
• The drug program does not allow negotiation of the drug prices, therefore the full retail value must be paid. What kind of savings is that to the American people?
  
  

This shows that Bush is either stupid or he must have been influenced by the drug companies regarding this prescription drug program.

Edited to add links (Aw, what the heck--they're not that hard to find! ):

For his deceit, dock his pay


Medicare Drug Cards--A raw deal for seniors

Yes, by all means, let's keep those dangerous Canadian drugs out of the country and follow the President's brilliant prescription drug plan!

*emphasis mine

I worked maintenance for a few months in a pharmaceutical pilot plant. One of the drugs manufactured there was a cholesterol reducing drug. We manufactured and shipped only the active ingredient. Other companies formulated it into a usable form.

During orientation, I was told that downtime was unacceptable in a plant that was selling upward of $1,000,000 worth of product daily. Labels for the 100 KG fiber packs had serial numbers, and were kept in a locked safe until the packs were filled. It was rumored that insurance companies limited us to 1 fiber pack per semi load or airplane shipment. Such rumors were likely spread in part due to the high security surrounding the packaging, shipping, and warehousing. Any employee leaving the dept. who had been issued a key, meant a complete change of locks in the building, to the tune of about $15,000.

Not a rumor was the brouhaha that erupted when a Japanese customer complained that a 100 KG shipment had arrived 1 gram light. The first response from everyone who heard that was, "You've never complained that a shipment arrived 1 gram heavy." That elicited the response that as our shipments were so consistent in weight, that if a shipment had arrived 1 gram heavy, it would have been refused as contaminated. The Superintendent took the head of the QC lab, an attorney, and a couple of engineers to Japan with our production records for that pack. After a week of investigation and negotiations, it was determined that the 1 gram loss reflected evaporation of water content. We then had to produce records of the water content on all the previous shipments, and a new price was negotiated based on dry weight.

A common joke was that we couldn't turn a profit if we were making and selling Crack Cocaine under FDA regulations. A clean-up effort for a routine FDA inspection of the plant, so that we could continue to operate, was approved by the company's board of directors for "Whatever it takes!" The control room floor was replaced three times. The building was wrapped in plastic, heated, sand blasted, and given a new coat of paint, all during a two week period in the middle of the winter!

Yes, there is a lot of money made by the drug companies, but a lot of money is spent on reseach, testing, paperwork, maintenance, Quality Control. and security. I'm certain that any donations to politicians which facilitate the process of doing business are just seen as another cost of doing business, but are carefully screened by corporate legal staffs to stay well within the letter of the law.

The part that only medical poeple see though is the marketing side of the pharmo-mafia- For instance, possibly the most worthless psych drug ever forced on a staff is Geodon- and the pharm companies push this more than crack (thanks curmudgeon LOL) - everybody gets free stuff every day, dinners out to "educate" the staff on Geodon (required attendence by the way- ordered to go to the Glacier Brewhause and have dinner and drinks on the pharm company) and recieve goodies and tell us how wonderful the drug is- when we clearly see no benefit to the patient whatsoever.

First order of business should be to HIGHLY regulate the marketing of these drugs, and really, really tie the hands of the pharm companies contact with all levels of hospital personel in regards to marketing (not to legitimate questions of the drug)

Looks like Canadian pharma has realize that, if they start shipping down here, the resulting competition may end up raising their prices and lowering their profits. Also to blame, a sharp increase in the Canadian dollar. From the Financial Times.

Canada deals blow to cheap US drug imports


As someone who has worked in international business for most of my career, I'll just say that Canada is a less profitable market vs. the USA for all kinds of products. I deal in an industry where the Canadian gov't is heavily involved, and the result is lower profits for my (american) company. Now, before you say "aha - see the Canadian gov't is helping their consumers," please note that they are NOT doing so. The gov't reduces our profit, but does not pass along to consumers, who in my business pay significantly more than their American bretheren. Despite the fact that most Canadians enjoy a lower cost of living vs. the US, especially vs. our cities.

1. Is the reimportation of Canadian drugs a good solution to the problem of rising prescription drug costs? Should the ban on this practice be lifted?

No - it's just regulatory arbitrage, that will eventually even out if given time and the gov't butting out of it.

While I agree with UltimateJoe that the US jerks Canada around regarding NAFTA on hogs, Salmon, timber etc. (and Mexico on sugar and avodacos!), I am not a protectionist, and would suggest eliminating all tariffs, which would cause prices to equalize, vs. the current situation.

Well first I'll say that the Canadians are probably being smart here to stop this thing before it gains a lot of momentum. Some of the things that UJ said which echo this article make a lot of sense.

However, I completely disagree with the premise of this article that not allowing Canadian drugs into the country for financial reasons will hurt Kerry. Bush didn't suggest that he didn't want Canadian drugs in the country because it would hurt the Canadian or US economy (even though he may have had big drug companyies bottom lines as motivation), he suggested we wouldn't do it because the drugs aren't safe. I don't think anyone here has made a compelling argument that these drugs are "dangerous" as Bush suggests.

So what happens if Canada decides not to allow drugs to be shipped to the US when Kerry gets into office? Well I guess that means he just has to go after the real problems with the drug industry, among those the drug companies and the FDA.

And therein lies the crux of the problem...profit. However, is profit evil? What drives the creation of new drugs? Well, that would be profit. One might ask why most Canadian drugs are manufactured in the US? A logical answer being because the Canadian system doesn't allow enough profit incentive for companies to undergo the expensive research and testing required...thereby making less drugs available. So, while there may not be a motive outside of profit...one must carefully consider the ramifications of that motive. What is really being discussed is fewer drugs available at cheaper prices, vs. more drugs available at higher prices? Which is better? I would imagine that depends on whether or not your particular malady already has a drug for it. If so, you'd want it cheaper...but, if not, you'd want the pharmaceutical companies working hard to create it.

I agree. How many miracle cures do we have to see before we can say something nice about pharmaceutical companies. I do not believe that we would have seen the level of innovation without the profit motive.

Again, speaking as a capitalist who has dealt with the Canadian market in another controlled industry, I would NOT be developing unique innovative products for the Canadian market as it is not profitable enough. Maybe US and Canadian pharmaceutical companies, in partnership with the government, would be able to meet all of Canadians' health needs, but I doubt it. More likely, since we have already developed many of these drugs, the 'sunk costs' have already been incurred, and we sell to Canada at a price which the market will bear. Half of the re-importation incentive was always the depressed Canadian dollar anyway, so given current trends, this may already be going away.

And Bush is an idiot for not copping to the financials in the debate. Which would indicate either bad prep, or that GOP research indicates that the 'safety' story sells better than trying to defend the big bad pharmaceuticals (even if they are benefitting voters' lives everyday).

I'd beg to differ that there aren't motives other than profit, but to specifically address what you wrote Hobbes, there is a big difference between profit and gouging. There is also a big difference between capitalism and greed, although sadly many businesses don't look at it the way I do.

Furthermore, the solution need not come solely from the drug companies. They are most assuredly part of the problem, but I would say that the FDA is also part of the problem as is the federal government itself.

Can you be more specific about this claim?