Allies of large drug companies continue assault on prescriptions from Canada, other countries with lies, misstatements to scare elderly, others away from safe,   affordable prescriptions

by Daniel Hines
Publisher
America's Seniors at www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

Recently, Ms. Allision Lake, managing editor at The Maryland Public Policy Institute, wrote an article criticizing Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley for saying during his campaign for governor, that he would consider buying prescription drugs from Canada.   It is hard to recall a time when I have seen an article full of so many mistakes regarding so-called 'reimportation' and its impact upon the pharmaceutical companies. Ms. Lake’s allegations appear below.  The facts are in Bold Face.

1.  Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley announced recently in his gubernatorial campaign that he will consider buying prescription drugs from Canada and abroad as a way to reduce health care costs for Marylanders. But that policy can potentially harm both consumers and the economics of drug creation and sale in the United States.....Those unsolicited and poorly worded offers for Cialis and Viagra in our e-mail inboxes say it all.
   
    This is a crude attempt to link the very real challenge of counterfeit drugs from unlicensed, unregistered pharmacies to the service provided by licensed, registered pharmacies in other countries--pharmacies whose ethics, professionalism and standards which they must meet exceed those in the U.S. 

2.  The United States develops, creates and produces the bulk of the world’s drugs. Foreign governments legally purchase drugs from American companies at discount prices and then set their own prices at home (translation: price controls). Were Maryland to allow drug re-importation, American firms would continue to assume the worldwide burden of drug research and development but at a profit margin that did not take those efforts into account.

    This is a blatant example of ignorance my Ms. Lake of what she is writing about.  The U.S. does not develop, create and produce the bulk of the world's drugs.  Pfizer, for example, has at least 90 plants in other countries. The vast majority of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. are produced from outside the U.S.  and then imported into this country. As to price controls: most modern, industrialized countries prohibit drug advertising, which comprises the largest out-of-pocket expenditure by the pharmaceutical industry.  Only the  U.S. allows the drug companies to advertise and then let pharma charge excessive prices to cover the cost of unnecessary ads that do nothing to provide truly important information to physicians.  The prices are not discounted in other countries.  They are based upon research of a number of factors--costs of production, the need for fair return to the companies.  In the U.S., prices are negotiated by the U.S. Veterans' Administration. If the drug companies were losing money on these ventures, they would not sell the medicines in the first place.  Add to that, the myth of the burden of the cost of R&D.  The facts are that drug companies spend more money on advertising, wooing doctors, publishing subsidized 'studies' and out-of-this-world executive compensation packages than they do for R&D, and that a lion's share of such R&D expenditures are U.S.-taxpayer funded--an investment for which it should be entitled to some return on its investment.

3.   And how does Mayor O’Malley plan to ensure that drugs coming in are safe? This policy move cannot just be made in isolation. Federal approval is required. Further, when American-produced prescription drugs make their way back into this country, they will have passed through multiple hands, increasing the risk of tampering and counterfeiting. 

    This is a blatant falsehood--read lie. For years, the pharmaceutical manufactures have tried to scare America's Seniors into believing that prescriptions from registered, licensed pharmacies in Canada are 'unsafe.'  That simply is not the case.  As to Federal approval, Congress has twice passed legislation allowing such orders only to see the extensive lobbying efforts of pharma result in poison pill approaches, forcing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 'certify' that each and every prescription is 'safe.'  That is akin to holding the Secretary of Transportation responsible for the deaths and accidents caused by the failure in recent years of Firestone tires on Ford trucks.  As Congressman Bernie Sanders says, " Show me the dead Canadians."  That is why millions of seniors--and numerous seniors' advocacy groups, including our site, has worked to help America's elderly have access to safe, affordable prescriptions.  Without such advocacy, too many elderly would be denied access to prescriptions, creating tremendous stresses upon our so-called health care 'system'.  The simple truth is that a prescription that is not accessible is neither safe, nor affordable.

4.  To guarantee drug safety, the Food and Drug Administration would have to investigate (and test) drugs for tampering and counterfeiting, which would create a heavier government and taxpayer burden and ultimately a less favorable environment for the creation of effective medicines. The FDA does not regulate drugs obtained in foreign markets, and describes the medical and economic drawbacks of using these drugs on its Web site.

    Jack Webb used to say "just the facts."  First of all, the FDA provides oversight into manufacturing processes at all plants where FDA drugs are produced, irrespective of the country or origin of manufacture.  The drugs are not made here, sent somewhere else and returned here.  The collusion between the FDA, the Bush Administration and pharma is well-documented.  It was disgust with this relationship that has spurred both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to resoundingly pass legislation forbidding Homeland Security from seizing legally-prescribed prescription drugs shipped into this country from Canada. The FDA and pharma cannot have it both ways:  If the FDA approves a prescription drug manufactured in Ireland, Istanbul, Singapore, it is FDA-approved. The framework is already in place and working.  As to economic drawbacks to using safe, affordable prescriptions from outside the U.S., the only drawback would be to the predatory pricing techniques of drugs companies practiced against the well-being and health of American citizens.

5.  In order for O’Malley to push through what he proposes, he would need to obtain a waiver from the FDA, which is unlikely due to the agency’s consistent refusal to approve such applications elsewhere in the United States.

    The FDA does not create policy.  It administers it.  It is the role of Congress to develop policy through the  legislative process.  It has shown that it understands the need for Americans to have access to prescription drugs from outside the U.S., and it is then up to FDA to develop procedures to make the system work.  Also,he fact is that governmental bodies across the country have implemented programs of varying success without interference from the FDA.  Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is now favoring some sort of accessibility for U.S. citizens to so-called 'reimported' prescriptions.

6.  Living in America is a trade-off where the prescription drug market is concerned and not necessarily a good one. We have a broad range of effective, cutting-edge choices, but many essential medications are pricey because we shoulder the majority of research and development worldwide. As a result, right or wrong, we aren’t just paying for the pill itself; we also pay for its years of testing and research and for pills that never reach the market.

    Ms. Lake has taken the final emotional stance, wrapping herself in the flag.  The fact is that many of the drugs she describes are 'designer' drugs that show how pharma extends its patent life protection by making simple alterations (the little purple pill) that do nothing to improve the effectiveness of the drug, nor require 'years of testing and research' as she describes it.  And, why should we accept a 'trade off' when other industrialized nations are able to offer their citizens lower-cost prescriptions and extraordinary medical care for all.

 

7.  As an alternative, in the meantime, numerous direct patient assistance programs exist to help mitigate costs for consumers, such as those administered by Lilly, Pfizer and the Partnership for Prescription Assistance in Maryland.

    Surely Ms. Lake knows of the income restrictions such plans demand.  Also, with the introduction of Part D, many companies have reduced their participation in such  plans. And, sending Montel Williams on a bus across the country is not the answer. 

8.   But buying medicine from abroad is not the answer. The regulatory machinery that would be required to ensure the safety of imported medicine would be expensive, lengthy to create and erase any potential price benefits. The problem of high drug prices can only begin to be solved when other countries start to devote more funds to research and development and pharmaceutical companies here price brand-name prescriptions more consistently.

    And now we finally understand Ms. Lake's motives.  "...price brand-name prescriptions more consistently..."  In the light of the continued moves by pharma to delay introduction of generics, the use of designer medications to extend patent protection, the extensive--and expensive--lobbying and advertising conducted by pharma,  Ms. Lake joins forces with pharma to suggest that they need even more protection and assistance.  And, in an example of  non sequitur , she calls for other countries to follow the misguided prescription drug market policies of the U.S. and burden their citizens with additional costs, unnecessary advertising and a cozy relationship between governmental agencies and those whom they are supposed to oversee.