Canada: We're not your drugstore.

As a Canadian, I'm all for you Americans actually taking care of your health system, and providing less expensive drugs to your needy. Stop gleaning off us already, our health care system is already in a shambles. Once you get yourselves sorted, maybe the 'get cheap drugs from Canada' spam in my daily e-mail will stop.

CIPA says that CTAC's concerns are "bogus" because selling drugs to Americans is far more lucrative than selling them to Canadians, who have access to universal health care.

'Stop gleaning off us already, our health care system is already in a shambles.'

I thought universal health care was the ticket.

I've never understood why Canada get's lower prices than Americans for American made drugs. Can't be just the bulk sales. Our population is higher, so it can't be the volume.

Anyone care to explain? Is it just the lobby groups preventing price caps due to capitalisms basic principle?

Also, doesn't seem right since so much tax payer money gets spent on research for the drugs we then get charged more for.

research for drugs is not paid by tax dollars I believe...only the testing by NIH.

I think we also have looser restrictions on 'generics'.

definitely

We are in a bit of a dilemma up here, as cutbacks have been made to funding for health care. Here in Ontario, hospitals were closed in a misguided effort to save the government money. Basically, they couldn't afford to support the free system. The situation today is underfunded and understaffed hospitals, long waiting lists to see specialists or get proper treatment for serious ailments, and a frustrated group of doctors and nurses who can't adequately care for their patients unless they are nearly superhuman. Ontario finally buckled and introduced a new health tax, which many objected to, but there really was no other choice.

Aren't there some effective govt supported medical plans in europe though? I guess my question is: Is the system broke or just the Canadian system broke?

I've heard this about Canada, I had a friend from the Newfoundland who thanked his stars for it because his mother had a disease that would've cost them in the 100 thousand range to care for in the US (His parents were both cops.) On the other hand I heat stories like that one.

Maybe you could use profits from selling drugs to americans to support your own healthcare system! :wink:

Some provinces manage their health care system better than others.

This could be a very interesting thread if we can keep the hype and politics out of the discussion.

My impression is that Canada's health care system is a good example of a well run, government controlled system. It, necessarily has the defects that go with such a system - namely an inelastic market in which governments decides on the total amount of services available through its budgeting process, while demand varies with all the many factors that affect the health care market, including demands for new treatments and drugs and all the rest. When budgets are ample the system works well, and based on limited personal experience, its service facilities are well run and accessible, and providers are courteous and very competent

When there are strains on the budget, services are of necessity rationed through increased queuing for referrals, waiting lists for services & facilities, and other like techniques. Demand is not fully met and the system provides few safety valves and little elasticity in response. The system does attempt to distribute the pain and frustration equitably, but it is likely difficult to explain that to someone who needs a specialist or a hospital procedure, but must wait a long time to get access.

A free market will provide a much higher degree of market elasticity, responding much better to increases (or decreases) in demand, and with greater incentives for satisfactory service. However the prevailing prices may keep some people out of the market, based solely on their ability or willingness to pay.

The U.S. has a somewhat mixed system with HMOs and insurance companies paying most of the bills, and (within limits) rationing services through preapproval requirements, arbitrary limits on coverage and more. The free market operates to a moderate degree with choices available for insurance coverage by patients and association by service providers. Pharmaceutical companies hospitals and service providers are able to stimulate demand for their products through advertising, and this creates public pressures that limit the potential of both government and insurance companies to manage or otherwise limit the supply of services. The complexity of all this yields higher administrative costs than either a fully free market or a Canadian style government managed system, however it does effectively promote more investment and innovation. The system includes most of the population, but some are either left out or opt out.

Canada has created a system in which government agencies are the sole buyers of pharmaceutical products. This leverage, together with the explicit or implicit prospect of governmental action to authorize more production of generic drugs, has given them enormous pricing leverage which they have used to get and pass on much lower prices to Canadian consumers. This is a major, but local distortion of the free market. In effect U.S. consumers are subsidizing the research and development costs behind the drugs Canadians consume. The U.S. should actively encourage the increased importation of Canadian drugs. This would quickly force the pharmaceutical companies to limit their discounts to the Canadian government and levy a more uniform price for their goods.

There are some fundamental choices for each country in these areas, and the system that works best may well vary from country to country. The tradeoffs all involve the familiar basics - the creativity, adaptability, and inequality of a free market, versus the uniformity, rigidity, and rationing of a socialist system. Neither is perfect.

Ach, you beat me to it!

Since there's a lot of pharmaceutical R&D happening outside of the U.S., I'm afraid it's not that simple. Many American researchers go to France, Switzerland, and Canada, among other countries (it's a big topic of discussion at another forum I frequent) to be funded to do research that has been significantly cutback in the U.S.

In effect, U.S. taxpayers fund research and development. Former drug company employees pointed out years ago that the lion's share of "R & D" budgets go for product promotion, and the drug companies exploit research done with government grants. These crooks are no different than the energy industry--they rob us blind, and thousands of willing drones sign on to a bogus contention that we've got the best system in the world. Someone should revise Lincoln's quote to read you can fool--and rob--most of the people most of the time.

I'm not talking about direct government subsidies. The U.S. is the most lucrative market, in part due to its wealth, in part due to its IP protection, and in part due to its relatively unregulated drug markets. Even countries that move off shore still receive the majority of their R & D funding from sales to the U.S. markets.

edit: Oh, and when I talk about "unregulated," I mean price controls. In other aspects, the drug industry is heavily regulated.

errrrr, uhhhhhh, not quite. take a look at the last x years of Nobel Prices in Physiology and Medicine. the U.S. is decently represented, but not as well represented as one might expect. what U.S. consumers are forced to pay is not what is paying for pharmaceutical research in Argentina and the U.K., and Switzerland. not directly or indirectly.


the pharmaceutical lobby in the U.S. is powerful. your lobbyists, and the politicians willing to be entertained by them, can be thanked for your drug prices.

I respectfully disagree. Even when the European countries do not directly enter into U.S. markets, they license their patents to U.S. companies. These licenses often account for more money then domestic sales of the licensed product.

The fact that the U.S. does not produce a disproportionate amount of Nobel laureates is no indication that medical inventions in other countries are not partially financed by sales to U.S. markets.

The drug lobby is powerful, surely, but many other industries have equally powerful lobbies. Capture theory is simply not the answer to everything. There is a tradeoff between R & D and sales price, and if anyone thinks that companies in France or Argentina do not benefit from high prices in the US, they should take another look at those companies' balance sheets.

Wolf, that is of course true, but only a small amount of R and D funds are actually spent on reasearch and development.

But since you seem to agree with me on the reason for high US prices (patent system + no pricecap) I would be interested to know wether or not you agree with me on Bush's plan. Bush proposes govenment paying 40% of drug cost, while letting the consumer pay 60%. This I belive would alter the price it is most profitable for a drug company to sell at so that the 60% paid by consumers would equal what would othervice be 100%. This will actually increase the burden on consumers as they are in effect forced to pay full price for their drugs, and the equivalent of 66% of full drug price in taxes. (totaling 166%) In order to actually reduce the price paid by the consumer at the farmacy to 60% of the price, while having government pay the rest, government would have to negotiate prices.

Am I right?

Do you agree?