Question About Getting Rx From Canada - Political

[Madi100]

John Kerry is in Iowa right now (at least he was last night). They had to interrupt Las Vegas to show him getting off the plane and all the people watching him. My husband was THRILELD to miss the end of his show Anyway, one of the things that he talked about is the fact that when he is president he is going to allow US citizens to get their prescriptions from Canada. And, then in the next breath he talked about how he would not give special treatment to companies who took businesses to other countries for production. He would give companies special benefits who brought their production to the US.

What is the difference in those two? With the drugs, we would be getting them from another country and taking our business someplace other than the US. That takes jobs from the drug companies in the US. That is what taking production to other counties does too, right? How can you support one and be against the other?

This is not meant to bash Kerry, I am asking a question to be educated not to see how well all can fight

 

[Galahad]

The biggest problem with re-importation is that it is Canada's cost controls that artificially "lower" the price of drugs in Canada. You would be, in many cases, re-importing drugs made in the U.S. and sold in Canada at prices that the Canadian government sets. At the same time, the drug companies will still price their drugs to account for R & D costs, liability costs and (God forbid) profit. The practical upshot is that U.S. consumers of the drugs are paying "full price" so that Canada can have the privilege of paying a lower price. And you thought Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.......

 

[Madi100]

So, pretty much we don't need to get our drugs from Canada that really could have come from the US in the first place, but we could just lower the price of our drugs like Canada does? Wouldn't that make more sense than gettin them from Canada? Thanks for trying to explain this to me.

 

[Galahad]

but we could just lower the price of our drugs like Canada does?

Well no. Then the price of the drugs would no longer have any relationship to the cost of producing them. There would no longer be any incentive for drug companies to develop anything new. Price controls are always a bad idea.

 

[Maleficent13]

I think it would be very interesting to see what the cost of producing some of these drugs actually is. My father is a pharmacist, and I know there are some drugs out there which cost $600 per pill. I would really like to know how much of that cost is actually producing it.

 

[Galahad]

I would really like to know how much of that cost is actually producing it.

Well in addition to "production costs" you need to be sure to include the capitalized cost of the R & D that developed the drug (often hundreds of millions of dollars of risk that the drug company takes all on their own) as well as liability costs (for example, if the drug is meant to treat a very high risk condition and is in itself a high risk treatment, then they will need a lot more in reserves to cover potential lawsuits.

 

[KarenC]

Whenever I get my explanation of benefits back from my insurance company, I am always stunned to the discount they have negotiated with the doctor. My daughter had knee surgery and the doctor billed $6,000. The insurance company paid $1,500 and the doctor wrote off the rest. I am sure this is also the case for the prescription drugs I buy.

For me, the benefit of insurance is not only paying my expenses when I get sick, but also the bargaining power the insurance companies have with the health care providers and drug companies.

I agree with Galahad that price controls don't work. But I do believe in the benefits of negotitiation. Bulk buyers of any good or service are in a position to get themselves a better deal. After the new Medicare bill was signed, drug stocks soared. That's because, the new law specifically prevents the government from negotiating lower drug prices.

So since our government can't negotiate for drugs, I don't fault politicians who look to import them from countries who do.

 

[Maleficent13]

All valid points, Galahad.

I often debate with myself over whether healthcare should be a profit making venture. I can never decide. I am not an advocate of price controls either, but for some irrational reason when it comes to healthcare, I don't think it should be about the money. Perhaps that's why I like to work for not-for-profits.

 

[Lewisc]

Drugs bought in a US pharmacy aren't necessary mfg in the United States and drugs bought from a Canadian pharmacy aren't necessarily manufactured in Canada. The savings come from the Canadian price controls.

Some people claim that high prices are necessary to provide money for the drug companies research budget.

Other people note that government funded research accounts for almost half the drugs. People further note that the money the drug companies spend for lobbying, promotion and advertising may be greater than the money spent for research. Drug companies have spent money on frivolous actions to extend their patents during litigation. Drug companies spend a lot of money trying to persuade doctors and patients that newer, more epensive, drugs are much better than older, cheaper drugs.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

 

[Madi100]

So if it a good or bad thing to get drugs from Canada?

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Lewisc
Drugs bought in a US pharmacy aren't necessary mfg in the United States and drugs bought from a Canadian pharmacy aren't necessarily manufactured in Canada. The savings come from the Canadian price controls.

Some people claim that high prices are necessary to provide money for the drug companies research budget.

Other people note that government funded research accounts for almost half the drugs. People further note that the money the drug companies spend for lobbying, promotion and advertising may be greater than the money spent for research. Drug companies have spent money on frivolous actions to extend their patents during litigation. Drug companies spend a lot of money trying to persuade doctors and patients that newer, more epensive, drugs are much better than older, cheaper drugs.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Indeed the truth is likely somewhere in between. It should be noted though that the "almost" half of the drugs that are developed using "government" research don't usually account for the most expensive development efforts.

I agree about some of the stupid things drug companies do. I particularly dislike prescription drugs being advertised directly to patients. Many doctor groups are clamping down on what they will allow drug reps to do to try to market to them. I'm not sure I buy that trying to get patents extended is frivolous. But what is your solution to that? Many of the solutions I've heard suggested would violate the constitution.

 

[Chicago526]

Originally posted by Madi100
So if it a good or bad thing to get drugs from Canada?

It's good if you're a senior on a fixed income that can now afford their medication. It's bad in that it shows the woefull condition of our healthcare system.

I don't blame drug companies for wanting to get back their considerable investment. But charging what they do for certain medications is also out of line. There has to be a happy medium, someplace, that the drug companies can stay in business and a little old lady doesn't have to choose between her heat and her heart medication.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Madi100
So if it a good or bad thing to get drugs from Canada?

I believe it is bad because it is a back door price control without any recourse to solve the problems in research funding it may cause. By doing it, you are allowing the Canadian system to further take advantage of U.S. and other companies and you force your fellow U.S. citizens that don't get re-imported drugs to subsidize your lower drug costs.

 

[minniecarousel]

When I can save half the amount of money for my Mom on her most expensive medications, you bet I order them from Canada. She is on 9 prescription medications and I get 2 of them from Canada for her.

It irks me that nearly every time we're at her primary care doctor (& often at one of her specialists) there are drug salespersons there. What's up with that? Don't doctors know what's out there? And the advertising of drugs on TV?! Most of the time they don't even say what it's for - just "ask your doctor if _____ is right for you". That type of drug advertising should be banned - just think of the $$ the drug companies would save if they didn't have that available to them (along with ads in magazines!)

 

[momof2inPA]

Big drug companies spend almost 2 1/2 times on sales and marketing as they do on R&D. Just thought I would throw that out there for those who are being led to believe that if we paid the same for our drugs that Canadians pay, there would be no more R&D.

As for a cut in sales and marketing, if that would mean fewer drug reps taking up the good parking spaces at the doctor's office, I'm all for it.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
Big drug companies spend almost 2 1/2 times on sales and marketing as they do on R&D. Just thought I would throw that out there for those who are being led to believe that if we paid the same for our drugs that Canadians pay, there would be no more R&D.

May be true, but one doesn't lead to the other. I'm with you on the drug reps though.

 

[Geoff_M]

Pssst, I've got a little secret for you all.... Not a lot of pharmacueticals are manufactured in Canada. If you think US Drug companies are going to ship large quantities of product into Canada just so it can then be re-imported into the US, you're dreaming! Last year Canadian government purchases from the US only increased by 19%... but Canadian government purchases from Iran increased 300%.

Other points to ponder:

- A number of "Canadian" web pharmacies are not in Canada, but are in a 3rd country instead.

- The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy inspected a number of actual Canadian internet pharmacies. They found 32 with unsafe or questionable practices, including returned product being relabeled and resold, and unsupervised pharmacy technicians.

- Counterfeit drugs are a real problem. I recently read a story from the UK that a recent study there showed approximately 6% of the drugs examined were counterfeits. Importation was a major factor.

 

[Geoff_M]

Big drug companies spend almost 2 1/2 times on sales and marketing as they do on R&D.

That's a very misleading figure. Figures like that mainly consist of salaries and associated costs for pharmaceutical sales forces... it's not merely ads and free ball-point pens and such as people like to imply. Gone are the days when a single sales rep can detail all of a drug companies products to doctors. As doctors have specialized and drugs become more specialized, sales forces have had to specialize too. A company may have a CNS (central nervous system) force, an oncology force, an opthamology force, etc. as well as the traditional reps that detail GPs.

The last time I looked (within the last year), if you eliminated all of the often criticized (some justifiably) direct-to-consumer advertising and drug company promotional "give-aways" you'd only see about a 5% reduction in the cost of medication. That's not going to put you in the Canadian "ball-park".

 

[damo]

Originally posted by Geoff_M

- The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy inspected a number of actual Canadian internet pharmacies. They found 32 with unsafe or questionable practices, including returned product being relabeled and resold, and unsupervised pharmacy technicians.

- .

I would question buying drugs from any internet company. However, other studies have found no problems with the internet pharmacies they visited. http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/9325034.htm?1c

A misconception is that all prescription drugs in Canada are cheaper than in the US. That is not the case. Generic drugs are usually more expensive.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
That's a very misleading figure. Figures like that mainly consist of salaries and associated costs for pharmacuetical sales forces... it's not merely ads and free ball-point pens and such as people like to imply. Gone are the days when a single sales rep can detail all of a drug companies products to doctors. As doctors have specialized and drugs become more specialized, sales forces have had to specialize too. A company may have a CNS (central nervous system) force, an oncology force, an opthamology force, etc. as well as the traditional reps that detail GPs.

The last time I looked (within the last year), if you eliminated all of the often criticized (some justifiably) direct-to-consumer advertising and drug company promotional "give-aways" you'd only see about a 5% reduction in the cost of medication. That's not going to put you in the Canadian "ball-park".

As a drug rep proudly told me at my son's last doctor's appointment, "We only spend on average 60 to 90 seconds with the doctor when we talk to them." Well, what's the point then? Send the literature and samples in the mail and pass the savings on to the consumer, or make a video tape. The only time the medical staff is actually happy to see the drug reps is when they bring lunch, anyway.

Don't forget the cost of Super Bowl advertising. Half of those commercials were for drugs.