8 ms·

> Undo the laws that prevent retailers from driving over the border themselves It's cheaper elsewhere because those countries have set maximum prices. For inst

> Undo the laws that prevent retailers from driving over the border themselves It's cheaper elsewhere because those countries have set maximum prices. For instance, in Canada, the Patented Medicines Review Board sets maximum prices for pharmaceuticals. I don't have any kind of philosophical opposition to importing medicines from Canada, but Canada has a practical objection: if we allowed these imports, it's very likely to cause drug import disruptions in Canada. Thus, Canada has asked the US not to do this. [1] I think this is very likely a legitimate concern. The US is a much larger market, and a _much_ more lucrative market than Canada, since the US does not fix prices. If the US allowed imports from Canada, it's likely the pharmaceutical industry would stop selling to Canada at the rates set by the PMPRB. The industry would sooner miss-out on 100% of sales to Canada than have their pricing power in the US eroded. Other than the anomaly of Covid vaccines, Pfizer actually has larger sales in the US than the entire rest of the world put together, which tells you something about how much the US is overpaying. If the US wants to set maximum prices for drugs, and we have the votes to do that via importation, why in the world can't we just have our own Patented Medicines Review Board, rather than relying on Canada to set policy for the US? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pharmaceuticals-exports-exclus/exclusive-canada-warns-u-s-against-drug-import-plans-citing-shortage-concerns-idUSKCN1UD2LN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pharmaceuticals-ex...

huevosabio 4y ago
I don't think Mexico sets maximum prices for drugs. At least I'm not aware of it. Care to share a link if you have a source handy?
irrational 4y ago
> If the US allowed imports from Canada, it's likely the pharmaceutical industry would stop selling to Canada at the rates set by the PMPRB. Wait, it sounds like you are saying that buy paying higher prices, the USA is subsidizing the rest of the worlds healthcare costs. Is that true?
- andruby 4y ago
  They are generating the largest _profit_ in the US. I wouldn’t say they are subsidizing since afaik they are still selling with some profit in other countries.
  - irrational 4y ago
    But if the US made it so they couldn’t get high profits here anymore, wouldn’t they raise prices for everyone else?
    - threatripper 4y ago
      If they could raise the prices they would have already. If they didn't make a profit they wouldn't produce and sell the product. So the reality is, that they would just lose some of the profit but nothing else would change. As others pointed out, it would affect decisions for future research. Because you can't just rake in the money in the US you must be more wise with spending your research money.
      - leaflets2 4y ago
        Maybe moving the research to lower living cost countries? > If they could raise the prices they would have already. Good point
        junofan 4y ago
        That’s been done. Over half of trial sites are outside the US. https://www.fda.gov/media/91849/download https://www.fda.gov/media/91849/download
    - NotACop182 4y ago
      They have two choices. Sell for X profit or make no profit. You don’t turn away making millions if someone told you you couldn’t make a billion
tomrod 4y ago
Because our political and legislative systems are completely gridlocked except to score political points for the upcoming election every two years or so. But our markets still function, because when it is not so the political elites lose. So let's use a market approach and open the borders to retailers so long as the medicine is labeled as sold in the other country, and guaranteed to their standards. Perhaps the retailers buy some additional insurance policies.
logifail 4y ago
> It's cheaper elsewhere because those countries have set maximum prices No, human insulin (or its analogues / biosimilars) is a medicine which should be cheap to produce and therefore inexpensive to purchase.[0] It's cheaper elsewhere because the there's something approximating a free market in operation. The real issue isn't price controls, it's about $bigPharma and their lobbyists getting the FDA to help protect their profitability. [0] https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850 https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
"have the votes" is a nicely ambigous phrase. Does the policy have wide democratic support, yes, like many sensible policies, it does. Does the policy seem likely to survive the lobbying system, where conpanies can just kickback some of the money they extort to the people with the votes, no, like many sensible policies, it doesn't.

huevosabio 4y ago

I don't think Mexico sets maximum prices for drugs. At least I'm not aware of it. Care to share a link if you have a source handy?

irrational 4y ago

> If the US allowed imports from Canada, it's likely the pharmaceutical industry would stop selling to Canada at the rates set by the PMPRB. Wait, it sounds like you are saying that buy paying higher prices, the USA is subsidizing the rest of the worlds healthcare costs. Is that true?

andruby 4y ago
They are generating the largest _profit_ in the US. I wouldn’t say they are subsidizing since afaik they are still selling with some profit in other countries.
- irrational 4y ago
  But if the US made it so they couldn’t get high profits here anymore, wouldn’t they raise prices for everyone else?
  - threatripper 4y ago
    If they could raise the prices they would have already. If they didn't make a profit they wouldn't produce and sell the product. So the reality is, that they would just lose some of the profit but nothing else would change. As others pointed out, it would affect decisions for future research. Because you can't just rake in the money in the US you must be more wise with spending your research money.
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      Maybe moving the research to lower living cost countries? > If they could raise the prices they would have already. Good point
      - junofan 4y ago
        That’s been done. Over half of trial sites are outside the US. https://www.fda.gov/media/91849/download https://www.fda.gov/media/91849/download
  - NotACop182 4y ago
    They have two choices. Sell for X profit or make no profit. You don’t turn away making millions if someone told you you couldn’t make a billion

tomrod 4y ago

Because our political and legislative systems are completely gridlocked except to score political points for the upcoming election every two years or so. But our markets still function, because when it is not so the political elites lose. So let's use a market approach and open the borders to retailers so long as the medicine is labeled as sold in the other country, and guaranteed to their standards. Perhaps the retailers buy some additional insurance policies.

logifail 4y ago

> It's cheaper elsewhere because those countries have set maximum prices No, human insulin (or its analogues / biosimilars) is a medicine which should be cheap to produce and therefore inexpensive to purchase.[0] It's cheaper elsewhere because the there's something approximating a free market in operation. The real issue isn't price controls, it's about $bigPharma and their lobbyists getting the FDA to help protect their profitability. [0] https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850 https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

"have the votes" is a nicely ambigous phrase. Does the policy have wide democratic support, yes, like many sensible policies, it does. Does the policy seem likely to survive the lobbying system, where conpanies can just kickback some of the money they extort to the people with the votes, no, like many sensible policies, it doesn't.