5 ms·

> "The simple answer is because they can. The easiest way to fix the fact that 'they can' would be to permit re-importating drugs that were manufactured within

> "The simple answer is because they can. The easiest way to fix the fact that 'they can' would be to permit re-importating drugs that were manufactured within the US. Shortly before Obama left office, there was a bill that would have fixed that, but nine Democrats joined the Republicans in voting it down: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

refurb 10y ago
Please explain how that would work. If I'm Pfizer, why on earth would I dramatically increase my sales of drugs to Canada knowing they're just going to be reimported into the US? The answer is, I wouldn't. I would put a quota on Canadian sales. Sell them enough drugs for Canadians. This was actually done about a decade ago when reimportation was more popular.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  That's how you get your patent broken.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Has the US ever disallowed a patent because the company holding it refused to sell a product to the government at the price the government wanted? It's hard to imagine SCOTUS allowing that sort of thing. The US gov't is subject to its own laws.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Has the US ever fought hard to institute a travel ban in order to prevent people of a certain religion from entering the country, despite judicial intervention. That's the thing about governments: they can do whatever they want. And your recourse is to deal with it or spend years fighting against it (or die in the streets fighting it, lest we forget that option). Disclaimer: I'm for breaking patents when necessary, although 3D printing drugs is around the corner making it a moot point. EDIT: @refurb: I love coming to HN and having people say "its too hard, it'll never be done". ;) I can run the laser sintering machine in my garage and build metal parts from a fine powder, parts that are aircraft grade, but I won't be able to 3D print drugs at home? No imagination.
      - refurb 10y ago
        Disclaimer: I'm for breaking patents when necessary, although 3D printing drugs is around the corner making it a moot point. 3D drug printing is a pipe dream. The syntheses are way to complex to do at home. You'd be better of just having a CRO make the drug for you.
      - refurb 10y ago
        Laser sintering is a known technology. 3D printing drugs is a buzz word and a technology that doesn't even exist. As a chemist I can tell you it's a pipe dream. Chemistry just doesn't work that way.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - _Wintermute 10y ago
        You're comparing printing simple metal structures from metal powder to synthesizing complex molecules from scratch? I think you might want to brush up on your chemistry before pinning your hopes on 3D printed drugs.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Why it matters that the FDA just approved the first 3D-printed drug (2015) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/11/why-it-matters-that-the-fda-just-approved-the-first-3d-printed-drug/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/1... 3D printing of tablets containing multiple drugs with defined release profiles (2015) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517315300855 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517315... I can Google. You should Google before making a false blanket statement.
        _Wintermute 10y ago
        That's 3D printing a pill. Nothing to do with synthesizing the active compound, and it not going to allow you cheaply produce drugs. The issue is creating the active compound, not putting it into pill form.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      It's easy to imagine SCOTUS allowing such a thing, it's just hard to imagine the government doing it, or anything that restrains healthcare costs at the expense of healthcare companies.
harryh 10y ago
This is a silly hack. The US has plenty of market power to reduce prices for drugs sold in the US. There are reasons to be in favor of wielding that market power and there are reasons to be against it. But there is no rational reason to pretend to not wield it but then re-import a bunch of drugs from Canada. That's just a waste of shipping costs.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > But there is no rational reason to pretend to not wield it but then re-import a bunch of drugs from Canada. Permitting trade across the US-Canadian border provides an equalizing force on the prices across the border, even though no drugs actually need to make the return trip (at equilibrium). In other words, allowing the trade puts an upper bound on the difference between the prices charged in the US and the prices charged in Canada - that difference can be no greater than the costs of reimporting those drugs, or else it's cheaper for people to source their drugs from Canada. By disallowing the trade, we allow the difference to grow unbounded.
  - harryh 10y ago
    OK, that's a pretty good point and you have me thinking about things a lil'.
jadell 10y ago
It wasn't a bill, it was an amendment to a budget resolution. Several of the Senators who voted against it said they did so because they didn't like the way it was being introduced, not because they are against the idea in principle. Here's the same idea, introduced as a bill instead of an amendment, and being co-sponsored by several of the amendment's "Nay" votes: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469

refurb 10y ago

Please explain how that would work. If I'm Pfizer, why on earth would I dramatically increase my sales of drugs to Canada knowing they're just going to be reimported into the US? The answer is, I wouldn't. I would put a quota on Canadian sales. Sell them enough drugs for Canadians. This was actually done about a decade ago when reimportation was more popular.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
That's how you get your patent broken.
- harryh 10y ago
  Has the US ever disallowed a patent because the company holding it refused to sell a product to the government at the price the government wanted? It's hard to imagine SCOTUS allowing that sort of thing. The US gov't is subject to its own laws.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Has the US ever fought hard to institute a travel ban in order to prevent people of a certain religion from entering the country, despite judicial intervention. That's the thing about governments: they can do whatever they want. And your recourse is to deal with it or spend years fighting against it (or die in the streets fighting it, lest we forget that option). Disclaimer: I'm for breaking patents when necessary, although 3D printing drugs is around the corner making it a moot point. EDIT: @refurb: I love coming to HN and having people say "its too hard, it'll never be done". ;) I can run the laser sintering machine in my garage and build metal parts from a fine powder, parts that are aircraft grade, but I won't be able to 3D print drugs at home? No imagination.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Disclaimer: I'm for breaking patents when necessary, although 3D printing drugs is around the corner making it a moot point. 3D drug printing is a pipe dream. The syntheses are way to complex to do at home. You'd be better of just having a CRO make the drug for you.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Laser sintering is a known technology. 3D printing drugs is a buzz word and a technology that doesn't even exist. As a chemist I can tell you it's a pipe dream. Chemistry just doesn't work that way.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - _Wintermute 10y ago
      You're comparing printing simple metal structures from metal powder to synthesizing complex molecules from scratch? I think you might want to brush up on your chemistry before pinning your hopes on 3D printed drugs.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Why it matters that the FDA just approved the first 3D-printed drug (2015) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/11/why-it-matters-that-the-fda-just-approved-the-first-3d-printed-drug/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/1... 3D printing of tablets containing multiple drugs with defined release profiles (2015) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517315300855 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517315... I can Google. You should Google before making a false blanket statement.
        _Wintermute 10y ago
        That's 3D printing a pill. Nothing to do with synthesizing the active compound, and it not going to allow you cheaply produce drugs. The issue is creating the active compound, not putting it into pill form.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    It's easy to imagine SCOTUS allowing such a thing, it's just hard to imagine the government doing it, or anything that restrains healthcare costs at the expense of healthcare companies.

harryh 10y ago

This is a silly hack. The US has plenty of market power to reduce prices for drugs sold in the US. There are reasons to be in favor of wielding that market power and there are reasons to be against it. But there is no rational reason to pretend to not wield it but then re-import a bunch of drugs from Canada. That's just a waste of shipping costs.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> But there is no rational reason to pretend to not wield it but then re-import a bunch of drugs from Canada. Permitting trade across the US-Canadian border provides an equalizing force on the prices across the border, even though no drugs actually need to make the return trip (at equilibrium). In other words, allowing the trade puts an upper bound on the difference between the prices charged in the US and the prices charged in Canada - that difference can be no greater than the costs of reimporting those drugs, or else it's cheaper for people to source their drugs from Canada. By disallowing the trade, we allow the difference to grow unbounded.
- harryh 10y ago
  OK, that's a pretty good point and you have me thinking about things a lil'.

jadell 10y ago

It wasn't a bill, it was an amendment to a budget resolution. Several of the Senators who voted against it said they did so because they didn't like the way it was being introduced, not because they are against the idea in principle. Here's the same idea, introduced as a bill instead of an amendment, and being co-sponsored by several of the amendment's "Nay" votes: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469