Can you give an example of these “me-too”/“evergreen” drugs?
http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/222220-1.html
" Critics say the brand-name companies often defend patents they know to be invalid; and resort to paying generic makers to stay off the market.
Tamoxifen
is a case in point. Tamoxifen, a drug to prevent re-occurrence of certain kinds of breast cancer, is sold under the brand-name Nolvadex by AstraZeneca.
In 1985, Barr Laboratories, a major generic manufacturer, submitted an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of tamoxifen. In 1987, it amended the ANDA to include a Paragraph IV Certification. Imperial Chemical, which held the patent, sued to enforce the patent. In 1992, following a trial, a federal judge ruled the patent invalid. Imperial appealed.
Then, in March 1993, Barr settled with Zeneca, a former subsidiary of Imperial. In the settlement, the parties agreed to ask the appellate court to vacate the decision holding the tamoxifen patent invalid. Zeneca agreed to issue a license to Barr to sell tamoxifen, and to supply Barr with the product. So long as the patent is not invalidated, other parties cannot enter the market. "
In the interest of adding data, it appears that in the US, pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D, at least in 2004. In Europe the estimates are a third to half as much spent on promotion as on R&D.
That can’t be right. AstraZeneca is Anglo-Swedish and Imperial is a British/Dutch thing.
But all the drugs are researched by and created by American companies! They fund our cheap healthcare and cheap drugs, remember?
Well, I understand this, I guess. But my question remains.
If re-importing drugs from Canada will drive prices up in Canada, why is that something the US should be concerned about?
Your idea of eliminating patents is too large an issue for me to address.
Your post has raised some questions in my mind (thanks). I think I am going to open a thread in GD and ask them.
Regards,
Shodan
It won’t, and you shouldn’t.
It won’t, because the drug companies will shit themselves en masse at the idea of their favourite cash cow suddenly deciding they’ve had enough. They will do two things:
-
They will hire the best lawyers they can in Canada to try to block any purchase of drugs there by the US government, probably arguing this goes outwith the legislation enacted by Canada.
-
They will bribe politicans on both sides of the border to make sure it doesn’t happen.
The drug companies do not charge you so much because they need to. They do so because they can. Where normal market forces would prevent them from abusing their position, pharmaceutical companies have you over a barrel - high costs to entry of the market, and a proven history of being prepared to work together to keep other people out. It is one of the few cases where there is a clear need for regulatory oversight of an industry to avoid very predatory behaviour.
The idea that in being fleeced in this manner you’re actually helping out others is laughable on every fucking level.
The effect of re-importation on a large scale is unpredictable. Since it results in drug companies in effect competing against themselves, the most likely first impulse of the US companies will be to refuse to sell to the Canadian market. However, that will not work very well for them, since there are legal mechanisms for “compulsory licensing” of patented products where the patent-holder refuses to actually excercise its patent rights - you cannot take out a patent and then simply refuse to sell your product.
[It should be noted that it is a fact of life for innovative drug companies that there are hungry generic manufacturers waiting impatiently to make generic copies of any and all of their products.]
The result would eventually be that generics happily make the same products under Canadian price controls, under “compulsory license” - and just as happily export to the US market. The victims will be the US drug companies, not Canadians.
In summary, it is hard to imagine how your scenario would work.
It’s right.
ICI’s biopharmaceutical operations were spun off into the wholly independent Zeneca Group, which later merged with Swedish firm Astra to become AstraZeneca.
ICI itself was later bought out by Dutch firm Akzo Nobel.
The Swedish and Dutch connections came along after the litigation took place, but in any case, there’s no reason a British company couldn’t be a subsidiary of a Dutch one, or a British-Swedish company be a subsidiary of a British-Dutch one.
Saab’s automotive division is a subsidiary of General Motors (well, the US Federal government now, I suppose).
Burger King, a US company, was previously owned by a UK-Irish conglomerate (Diageo).
I was being sarcastic.
I’m fed up of hearing on this forum how all foreign countries get cheap drugs after all the research and development is done by US companies and the US consumer bears the brunt of the costs. It has become the new “we saved your asses in WW2” for me.
I’m not entirely sure that’s what they’re saying.
The argument is not that US companies develop all the drugs, it’s that US consumers bear the cost; European and other non-US bio/pharma companies sell just as many drugs in the US as American companies do, so they would also be benefiting just as much from the “bonus money” they make from US consumers, which in theory fund the majority of R&D.
I haven’t seen anyone actually saying that non-US companies don’t develop any new drugs or anything along those lines, just that US consumers pay for them, which is a much less specious (though probably still incorrect) line of reasoning.
Not specifically in this thread. It has been all over this forum whenever healthcare is mentioned.
I was making a joke using sarcasm. Letting off steam. We’re in the pit.
Edit:
Just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, but I’ve seen lots of examples over the past few months of people implying that every single medical breakthrough comes via the US. Not that I’m going to search for any as, frankly, I can’t be arsed.
“Okay! Ban meeting…”
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/health-insurance-employees-lobbying-congress/ There are 50,000 lobbyists besieging congress and the senate. They always get their way.
The top drug companies make drugs in 65 different countries. We all have imported drugs. They do not compete. They get patents to protect themselves from competition.
And then told by the government that YOU can’t charge that for that test.
Nicely done sir.
Except the U.S. isn’t subsidizing Canada’s low prices. Holy shit, how many times do we have to go over this?
Prices in the US are set by what the market will bear. Nothing else. The market price in the US is what it is; the market-clearing price will be set by supply and demand, which doesn’t change if the Canadian market starts paying more or less than it did yesterday. If anything, Canadian price controls on average LOWER the cost for U.S. consumers, since some U.S. consumers near the border can go to Canada to get cheaper drugs.
There is no mechanism by which American consumers can “subsidize” Canadian consumers. The drug companeis charge the optimum price in all markets at all times. They’re not going to give you cheaper drugs if they can get a few more dollars out of someone in Edmonton… why would they be so stupid?
Well the system can’t work in reverse considering Canada’s population is 1/10th the size of America’s. But the reality is if we were to equalize the price, so that both American’s and Canadians were paying the exact same that would mean that Canada’s drug prices would increase while America’s went down.
Well of course your domestic wine is going to be cheaper there than here. 
I’ll look for stuff from The Barossa Valley, what kinds of wines come from there?
Yes, it is. The drug companies charge cheaper prices in the rest of the world because they make so much in the American market.
And you honestly believe that if America were paying Canadian prices it wouldn’t raise the prices worldwide? Seriously? That bit about border Americans going to Canada for cheaper drugs is all sorts of fucked up. We can go to Mexico for cheaper drugs too but that benefits a very small fraction of our populace. It doesn’t benefit ME in any way.
Actually that’s precisely how it works. They charge cheaper worldwide based on what the market will bear there while we get gouged. They provide Canada with those benefits because the country negotiates drug prices as a whole, obviously.
No, it’s because that’s what we’re willing to pay. They don’t have to play, they can walk away from a market of 33 million if they want to. I’m quite sure that pharmaceutical companies would be happy to charge us what they do you were we to allow it.
See?
But the drugs are produced at all because of their massive profits IN AMERICA.
See?
As the risk of repeating myself;
(roundly ignored no doubt as it, yknow, made sense!)
“Um, American’s pay more for their meds because they have a ‘for profit’ model for health care.”
You can keep inventing reasons that blame others, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, but the truth is, it’s just that simple.
Think for a minute how rich the firemen would be if you introduced a ‘for profit’ model to that, already socialized public service. The firemen would love it, who’s not going to kick back a little something to the guy with the hose when your house is on fire?
It’d be profitable though, you have to admit. And if you truly have a free market then why not? But that would be heartless and cruel, profiting from someones’ misfortune like that, firemen wouldn’t be very respected and you’d be attracting the wrong kinds of people to be firemen.
Pretty soon you’d be heard complaining, “Our fire services are so expensive and those Canadians don’t have to pay, it’s not fair, waaaaah!” Kind of like you’re doing here.
The answer then, like the answer now, would be crystal clear for those without blinders on; you designed a ‘for profit’ system. Don’t complain when they exercise that prerogative and take healthy profits.
If you don’t like it, that’s okay, but don’t blame the people who had the good sense to see that health care and profit should not be mixed.
It’s really hard for me to believe that anyone is as dense as you’re seeming in this thread.