Then they could go on to nationalizing the Pubs.
I'm not sure about the approval process in Canada but, you're right, even on the diagnostic side (which runs parallel to the pharmaceutical side) we'd always submitted for Canadian approval after we were on market in the US. The regulatory burden in Europe and Japan was much less than in the US. Then, the ICH guidelines were supposed to standardize clinical trial guidelines so that a single set of trials could satisfy all regulatory agencies. For some reason the FDA is wary of accepting data generated outside of the US resulting in multiple additional evaluations. That may have improved since I left the biz.
Another problem is the delay in getting generics on-market. Plavix is a prime example of what I believe to be classic crony capitalism between big pharma and the feds.
No confusion. Canada does not accept drugs for use until independent testing is complete. It is generally a longer and more involved testing process than that required by the FDA. Canadians have been sneaking over the border for many decades to pick up drugs available in the U.S. before they become available in Canada.
We do not have a "Public Health Service" - health care is provincially managed. There is no national purchase of drugs. Several of the smaller provinces are currently discussing the possibility of group purchasing for drugs provided through their specific plans.
that is why drug costs are typically lower than here. Am I wrong in this?
Until further notice, for all other products reimbursed under the EAP, pharmacists will continue to be reimbursed their acquisition cost plus the applicable markup (currently 8%).
For some reason the FDA is wary of accepting data generated outside of the US resulting in multiple additional evaluations.
Woloshin said most people assume if a doctor prescribes a drug, it will work. When he and Schwartz did a survey, 40 per cent of Americans believed only extremely effective and extremely safe drugs are approved.
Medications with only a marginal effect or even dangerous side-effects sometimes get approved by Health Canada or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
"Some of the reviewers may have actually voted against drug approval, but in fact the drug is being approved anyway," Schwartz said. "Or the FDA had important concerns about safety and had recommended studies after marketing to monitor for those harms and those things are not routinely highlighted in the label."
You realize that insurance isn't like a bank account, don't you? You don't get to take a dollar in benefits for every dollar you pay in premiums -- that's not how any insurance system works. If you're like most people, I imagine that you've had a similar experience with your home and auto insurance policies -- you've paid more in premiums than you've received in benefits. Does that mean that home and auto insurance are rip-offs too?
George, there is still a question to which you have not responded at:
The response is important, because you had been citing the fact that services were not available (or very, very hard to obtain) for you in San Francisco as a negative in the safety net Medicare.
I hope you have time to consider my question...and to respond to it.
One simply can't easily find a medical praticioner here in the San Francisco Area who will accept a Medicare patient.
you get out your phone book and start calling a few local internists, presenting yourself as a candidate new patient. Note the questions they ask about your insurance coverage and the responses if you say medicare only. Then I suspect you will have a better idea of the reality.
There's a difference between, evaluating the odds and making an individual choice to buy insurance of any kind, and being involuntarily taxed for it and being unable to opt out.
Okay, find me a family physician in Farmington, NM that accepts new patients with Medicare only.