4 ms·
> doesn't prevent drug companies from allocating volume on a country-by-country level and maintaining price discrimination. It does; for price discrimination,
by chimeracoder 10y ago
> doesn't prevent drug companies from allocating volume on a country-by-country level and maintaining price discrimination.
It does; for price discrimination, there are three criteria that all need to be satisfied, and one of them is the ability to restrict resale between market segments. If market segments are free to trade with each other, the supplier cannot price-discriminate.
> This happened back 6-7 years ago when getting your script filled by a Canadian pharmacy was all the rage. The drug companies simply setup quotas for Canada. They have a good estimate of how much drug Canadians need. If a wholesaler tries to buy more, the drug company tells them no. Then all of a sudden Canadian wholesalers are in a bind. Do they sell to Americans and tell the Canadians no?
It's important to understand the difference between the short-term impact and the long-term (steady-state) impact. The case you're referencing is an amusing one, because it's actually AstraZeneca's proactive campaign against what was then a touchstone of the healthcare reform bills[0]. At the time, unrestricted trade in pharmaceuticals was not possible between the US and Canada, and AstraZeneca was making a threat to try and kill the provisions that would have permitted it[1].
The only reason that they can set these quotas in the first place is that US wholesalers can't (freely) export to Canada, and vice versa. If the ban on that had been lifted, AstraZeneca wouldn't be able to set quotas per-country in the first place. They could try, and succeed in the short-term, but in the long term, the prices in both markets would be forced to converge (with the difference bounded by the costs of import/export).
[0] Remember the date: April 2009, just a few months into Obama's inauguration. The public option was still theoretically on the table, and the Baucus plan hadn't happened yet.
[1] It worked - that was one of the parts of the ACA that was killed before it got a vote.
- refurb 10y agoThe only reason that they can set these quotas in the first place is that US wholesalers can't (freely) export to Canada, and vice versa. If the ban on that had been lifted, AstraZeneca wouldn't be able to set quotas per-country in the first place. Manufacturer control over whole gets the buy drugs and what they can do with it after that is a cornerstone of drug distribution strategy. It also maintains drug pedigree and product integrity. I can't see it going away.
- chimeracoder 10y ago> Manufacturer control over whole gets the buy drugs and what they can do with it after that is a cornerstone of drug distribution strategy. It also maintains drug pedigree and product integrity. I can't see it going away. Not really. Manufacturers already have essentially zero control over wholesale resale within the US. (They can track it, to assist in things like recalls, but they can't prevent it). And there are other countries which already permit free trade of US-produced pharmaceuticals between their own international borders. The only difference is that it can't cross the US border again, which is why the easiest way for manufacturers to make money is to price-gouge US customers.
- refurb 10y agoI worked in the industry and every branded manufacturer I worked with had clear restrictions on who wholesalers can sell to.