3 ms·

You know Canada just has price restrictions on drugs, right? The US doesn't, so we subsidize the cost of drugs for all the other countries that have price restr

You know Canada just has price restrictions on drugs, right? The US doesn't, so we subsidize the cost of drugs for all the other countries that have price restrictions. If we implemented those restrictions too, the financial numbers for the drug companies would suddenly become much different, not without consequences.

raganwald 17y ago
Yes I know that we do things differently than you do and I think the point of the OP is that the consequences of our doing things differently is that we provide health care more universally and more efficiently. The drug companies spend hundreds of millions if not billions telling you that there would be dire consequences if they couldn't patent their work six ways from Sunday and charge amazing amounts of money for a few pennies worth of chemicals. They remind me greatly of your entertainment oligopolies, right down to the way they control your laws through their lobbying prowess. Asking a drug company what would happen if you asked them to charge less is like asking the fox what would happen if you locked the door to the chicken coop.
wmoxam 17y ago
Sounds like a good story, one that is often repeated in the US. Unfortunately it's not entirely true. The facts: * There are severe restrictions on prescription pharmaceutical advertising in Canada. For example, access to product information on pharmaceutical 'brochureware' sites is restricted by 'password' (I developed many of these sites for Pfizer years ago). Television advertising is limited to brand recognition type ads, the ad can't actually tell you what the drug does. * The result of these restrictions has lead to far less marketing costs for pharmaceuticals. * Medicare pharmaceutical guidelines (PMPRB) do impose price increase restrictions after they have been introduced to the market, and stated in it basic manner, will not endorse drugs that achieve the same effect as current drugs, yet cost more. * Canadian gov't provides plenty of tax subsides for pharmaceutical research So yes, while there are pricing guidelines, it's not a one way street, there a bit of give and take here. In exchange for following pricing guidelines, companies receive generous tax credits for research. The (intended) effect of pricing on advertising guidelines is designed to guide doctors to prescribe the best (from a cost/effectiveness standpoint) drug, rather than the 'new thing' or the one their patient is demanding due to seeing it advertised repeatedly on television. This idea that the US is subsidizing the cost of drugs for other countries is silly. Drugs of US origin would not be sold abroad if it weren't profitable to do so. And given the 'free market' in pharmaceuticals in the US, wouldn't drugs be sold at the most profitable price anyways, regardless of market conditions elsewhere?

raganwald 17y ago

Yes I know that we do things differently than you do and I think the point of the OP is that the consequences of our doing things differently is that we provide health care more universally and more efficiently. The drug companies spend hundreds of millions if not billions telling you that there would be dire consequences if they couldn't patent their work six ways from Sunday and charge amazing amounts of money for a few pennies worth of chemicals. They remind me greatly of your entertainment oligopolies, right down to the way they control your laws through their lobbying prowess. Asking a drug company what would happen if you asked them to charge less is like asking the fox what would happen if you locked the door to the chicken coop.

wmoxam 17y ago

Sounds like a good story, one that is often repeated in the US. Unfortunately it's not entirely true. The facts: * There are severe restrictions on prescription pharmaceutical advertising in Canada. For example, access to product information on pharmaceutical 'brochureware' sites is restricted by 'password' (I developed many of these sites for Pfizer years ago). Television advertising is limited to brand recognition type ads, the ad can't actually tell you what the drug does. * The result of these restrictions has lead to far less marketing costs for pharmaceuticals. * Medicare pharmaceutical guidelines (PMPRB) do impose price increase restrictions after they have been introduced to the market, and stated in it basic manner, will not endorse drugs that achieve the same effect as current drugs, yet cost more. * Canadian gov't provides plenty of tax subsides for pharmaceutical research So yes, while there are pricing guidelines, it's not a one way street, there a bit of give and take here. In exchange for following pricing guidelines, companies receive generous tax credits for research. The (intended) effect of pricing on advertising guidelines is designed to guide doctors to prescribe the best (from a cost/effectiveness standpoint) drug, rather than the 'new thing' or the one their patient is demanding due to seeing it advertised repeatedly on television. This idea that the US is subsidizing the cost of drugs for other countries is silly. Drugs of US origin would not be sold abroad if it weren't profitable to do so. And given the 'free market' in pharmaceuticals in the US, wouldn't drugs be sold at the most profitable price anyways, regardless of market conditions elsewhere?