Why are drugs cheaper in Canada than USA?

[McCarthy]

Like said above, Canada is a small market, companies discount to sell there partially because it's not worth the effort to try to charge more. Why sell any at all then, right?

To prevent Canada, Mexico, every other smaller market country in the world from doing what Brazil is doing.

But burdened by the steep cost of imported AIDS medications, Brazil in 1998 gave Far-Manguinhos's director, Eloan Pinheiro, a mandate: analyze brand-name drugs and develop generic forms of them. The decision has put Far-Manguinhos under the international spotlight and set a new standard for excellence in the developing world. Brazil is the only country in Latin America whose public institutions manufacture AIDS drugs on a large scale.

From here

If you don't sell to smaller markets, they'll reverse engineer what they want, patents be damned. Same if they sold at US rates. So they end up selling at a discount to prevent being ripped off entirely.

People keep saying Medicare should negotiate the same discounts. That's fine, so now the drug companies don't have a full rate market anywhere (or have a few full rate markets that aren't going to keep up with the loss of the US) and revenue falls. R&D slows, new drugs don't come to market. Are they making huge profits now? Yeah. Is that fair? Yeah, under our system of government so far it is. I'm not completely without sympathy for the ongoing medical bills of people needing life sustaining drug therapy, but price controls don't encourage development.

How many drugs on the market today came out of the USSR? A few come out of the UK and France, but at a much lower rate than the US.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
Like said above, Canada is a small market, companies discount to sell there partially because it's not worth the effort to try to charge more. Why sell any at all then, right?

To prevent Canada, Mexico, every other smaller market country in the world from doing what Brazil is doing.

But burdened by the steep cost of imported AIDS medications, Brazil in 1998 gave Far-Manguinhos's director, Eloan Pinheiro, a mandate: analyze brand-name drugs and develop generic forms of them. The decision has put Far-Manguinhos under the international spotlight and set a new standard for excellence in the developing world. Brazil is the only country in Latin America whose public institutions manufacture AIDS drugs on a large scale.

From here

If you don't sell to smaller markets, they'll reverse engineer what they want, patents be damned. Same if they sold at US rates. So they end up selling at a discount to prevent being ripped off entirely.

People keep saying Medicare should negotiate the same discounts. That's fine, so now the drug companies don't have a full rate market anywhere (or have a few full rate markets that aren't going to keep up with the loss of the US) and revenue falls. R&D slows, new drugs don't come to market. Are they making huge profits now? Yeah. Is that fair? Yeah, under our system of government so far it is. I'm not completely without sympathy for the ongoing medical bills of people needing life sustaining drug therapy, but price controls don't encourage development.

How many drugs on the market today came out of the USSR? A few come out of the UK and France, but at a much lower rate than the US.

You can't compare Brazil with Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan. If you violate a patent in Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan you will appear before court. Pharma companies are still selling the products with a nice profit in all 1st world countries with socialized healthcare. It just happens to be that they can make a much larger profit in the USA because of the system in place.

 

[McCarthy]

There are parallels to mp3 downloading and the RIAA. Much the same attitude is shared about the recording industry's profits and pharmaceutical companies. Both do make large profits now. Where the morality in that lies I won't go into further.

What is obvious though is if EVERY song was downloaded as mp3 the recording industry wouldn't make a profit. Same as if every drug was reverse engineered and sold as generic. If the government had price controls for CDs that made them sell for the same price here as knockoffs in China the recording industry might still be profitable, but many new artists would never be given a shot. There wouldn't be as big a margin for error, couldn't waste time and resources on artists who might not pan out. Same with drugs if every country in the world "negotiated" lower prices. So maybe that means AIDS drugs would have still be developed, but toenail fungus would have continued to plague mankind. Or consider, it might be the reverse. Fact is right now both lines of development are being pursued and the only reason there are expensive drugs to bitch about is because there are drugs.

 

[McCarthy]

You can't compare Brazil with Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan. If you violate a patent in Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan you will appear before court. Pharma companies are still selling the products with a nice profit in all 1st world countries with socialized healthcare. It just happens to be that they can make a much larger profit in the USA because of the system in place.

Why can't I? Brazil's supposed to recognize the same patents.

Confident of the laboratory's ability, Brazil threatened to invoke a law that would justify copying a patented drug called Stocrin unless Merck substantially lowered its price.

In the meantime,a decision by leading pharmaceutical firms not to try to stop South Africa from importing cheap AIDS drugs paves the way for Brazil to export to that country and others.

Even if Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan don't reverse engineer drugs themselves they might be tempted to buy reverse engineered ones if drug companies didn't sell to them at a reduced rate.

 

[tcsenter]

until 1995 EU pharma companies were spending more on r&d then the USA companies. From 1998-1999 the USA have surpassed the EU companies. If we follow the logic of some people here that would mean until 1998 drugs should have been more expensive in Europe because the EU companies did the majority of the r&d. We all know that this is not true so this logic is just bs.

Your own sources contradict your claims. I hate when that happens...

World-wide, total R&D spending was 18.7 billion dollars in 1992. The EU share has been falling from around 40% in the early 1980s to current levels of 36%, while the US share has increased from the same level to 47% in 1992. As shown in Table 1, the UK accounted for approximately one-third of R&D expenditures in the EU.

So, if the EU's share of global R&D expenditures in 1992 was 36.4% compared with 44.2% for the US, explain again how it could be that EU pharma was spending more on R&D then the US pharma until circa 1998~99? DOH! Also from your source:

To summarise the results so far, the US is the strongest player in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a significant exporter and has the largest share of the 50 top-selling drugs. In Europe, the UK has had the greatest success, while the performance of Germany has declined over time.

It is worth noting again that the UK alone accounts for 1/3 of total EU R&D expenditure. Canada isn't even on the map in either source, which is the center of this discussion (Canada doesn't fund innovation, other countries do).

So the US is not providing the vast majority of r&d for the rest of the world like some US posters say.

No, just the vast majority of drugs.

To summarise the results so far, the US is the strongest player in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a significant exporter and has the largest share of the 50 top-selling drugs.

So, please explain the loophole that allows Abbot, et al, to keep generics off the market.

Generics, from what I've read, only hit the market after a company applies for the right to produce the drug, say Drug X. A single comany has to be the first to apply, if none apply, then none is ever produced. But if one generic producer applies to produce Drug X, then all generic producers are covered under that application, in essence.

Well a source for this 'loophole' would be nice, even if it is an erroneous one.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: McCarthy

You can't compare Brazil with Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan. If you violate a patent in Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan you will appear before court. Pharma companies are still selling the products with a nice profit in all 1st world countries with socialized healthcare. It just happens to be that they can make a much larger profit in the USA because of the system in place.

Why can't I? Brazil's supposed to recognize the same patents.

Confident of the laboratory's ability, Brazil threatened to invoke a law that would justify copying a patented drug called Stocrin unless Merck substantially lowered its price.

In the meantime,a decision by leading pharmaceutical firms not to try to stop South Africa from importing cheap AIDS drugs paves the way for Brazil to export to that country and others.

Even if Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan don't reverse engineer drugs themselves they might be tempted to buy reverse engineered ones if drug companies didn't sell to them at a reduced rate.

The pharma companies employ 560.000 people in Europe (88200 in r&d). European govt. are not going to make a law that f*ck up these companies . They would simply leave (probably to the USA) and leave hundreds of thousands Europeans without a job. It's easy for Brazil to make a generic drugs and to violate patents. They are not the ones who did the r&d. 98% of all drugs and patents are from European or American companies.

 

[McCarthy]

98% of all drugs and patents are from European or American companies - freegeeks

By American do you mean US companies? I'm assuming so. How many of those drug patents come from Canada or Mexico (North America)? Canada is the question, I included Mexico, it was you you lumped in "Europe, Australië or Japan" to try to invalidate my point.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

until 1995 EU pharma companies were spending more on r&d then the USA companies. From 1998-1999 the USA have surpassed the EU companies. If we follow the logic of some people here that would mean until 1998 drugs should have been more expensive in Europe because the EU companies did the majority of the r&d. We all know that this is not true so this logic is just bs.

Your own sources contradict your claims. I hate when that happens...

World-wide, total R&D spending was 18.7 billion dollars in 1992. The EU share has been falling from around 40% in the early 1980s to current levels of 36%, while the US share has increased from the same level to 47% in 1992. As shown in Table 1, the UK accounted for approximately one-third of R&D expenditures in the EU.

So, if the EU's share of global R&D expenditures in 1992 was 36.4% compared with 44.2% for the US, explain again how it could be that EU pharma was spending more on R&D then the US pharma until circa 1998~99? DOH! Also from your source:

To summarise the results so far, the US is the strongest player in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a significant exporter and has the largest share of the 50 top-selling drugs. In Europe, the UK has had the greatest success, while the performance of Germany has declined over time.

It is worth noting again that the UK alone accounts for 1/3 of total EU R&D expenditure. Canada isn't even on the map in either source, which is the center of this discussion (Canada doesn't fund innovation, other countries do).

So the US is not providing the vast majority of r&d for the rest of the world like some US posters say.

No, just the vast majority of drugs.

To summarise the results so far, the US is the strongest player in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a significant exporter and has the largest share of the 50 top-selling drugs.

So, please explain the loophole that allows Abbot, et al, to keep generics off the market.

Generics, from what I've read, only hit the market after a company applies for the right to produce the drug, say Drug X. A single comany has to be the first to apply, if none apply, then none is ever produced. But if one generic producer applies to produce Drug X, then all generic producers are covered under that application, in essence.

Well a source for this 'loophole' would be nice, even if it is an erroneous one.

R&D expenditure - from my first link

1995

Europe: 10745
USA: 9078
Japan: 5221

1999

Europe:15878
USA: 18867
Japan:53383

somewhere around 1996 - 1999 the US surpassed Europe --


still the same - let's say that r&d in the USA was higher then in Europe already in 1990 that still doesn't explain why US prices have ALWAYS been higher. And I'm comparing the USA with Europe because there are people who are blaiming Canada that it's leeching from the USA because it doesn't do a lot of r&d in the pharma industry. If I apply that logic they are also leeching from Europe because 95% of the research is done in the USA or Europe.

Like I said before, the whole r&d theory is flawed in so many ways that it's becoming funny. We can discuss about the figures (depending on the source) but in the end we can come to the conclusion that a large chunk of r&d is done outside of the USA by non-US companies (notably Europe and Japan)
Drugs in the USA are more expensive because pharma companies (European, American, ...) can get away with it.
It's that simple....

the philantropic we-r&d-everything theory is bs

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Apathetic

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Because Pharmaceutical companies in America have paid for the best politicians money can buy, thereby insuring that they can gouge us however they like.

Bingo.

Dave

Second.

Thirded

There is alot of money changing hands in the bio/pharm sector..ie bribing..I mean't campaign contributions and other under the tables dealings.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: McCarthy

98% of all drugs and patents are from European or American companies - freegeeks

By American do you mean US companies? I'm assuming so. How many of those drug patents come from Canada or Mexico (North America)? Canada is the question, I included Mexico, it was you you lumped in "Europe, Australië or Japan" to try to invalidate my point.

you implied that European countries are going to follow Brazil and violate patents. I'm simply saying that isn't going to happen because of the footprint of the pharma industry in Europe. Imagine the impact when you piss of an industry with 560.000 employees and that is of strategic importance for Europe.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't compare Brazil with Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan. If you violate a patent in Canada, Europe, Australië or Japan you will appear before court. Pharma companies are still selling the products with a nice profit in all 1st world countries with socialized healthcare. It just happens to be that they can make a much larger profit in the USA because of the system in place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can't I? Brazil's supposed to recognize the same patents

 

[tcsenter]

R&D expenditure - from my first link

1995

Europe: 10745
USA: 9078
Japan: 5221

1999

Europe:15878
USA: 18867
Japan:53383

somewhere around 1996 - 1999 the US surpassed Europe --

And your second link DIRECTLY REFUTES this. Oops. Its your link, not mine. Deal with it.

I don't know what this 'pharma-outsourcing' website is, but its information is inconsistent with dozens of other pharm industry sources. It is a lone voice in the wilderness, with your second link being more representative of the consensus.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

R&D expenditure - from my first link

1995

Europe: 10745
USA: 9078
Japan: 5221

1999

Europe:15878
USA: 18867
Japan:53383

somewhere around 1996 - 1999 the US surpassed Europe --

And your second link DIRECTLY REFUTES this. Oops. Its your link, not mine. Deal with it.

I don't know what this 'pharma-outsourcing' website is, but its information is inconsistent with dozens of other pharm industry sources. It is a lone voice in the wilderness, with your second link being more representative of the consensus.

and still you refuse too discuss the essence - depending on the source USA r&d surpassed the EU r&d somewhere between 1989 - 1998. We can make a conclusion that somewhere in the the past the r&d in Europe was bigger. OK for you ????

If you still belief the r&d theory, can you explain to me why drugs have ALWAYS been more expensive in the US then in Canada or Europe or Japan (countries with a form of socialized healthcare).

my theory is simple. The US is getting raped because the pharma companies can do it. It's not because of r&d or some other reason ...

what is your theory ???????

btw: I found a new link

Europe produces more than 40% of world pharmaceutical output, making it still the world's leading manufacturing location ahead of the US (over 30%) and Japan (20%).


link

 

[McCarthy]

Decided to see what the top 10 medications used by seniors are....then the companies that make them.

Zocor - Merck
Ticlid - Roche
Prilosec - AstraZeneca
Relafen - GlaxoSmithKline
Procardia XL - Pfizer
Zoloft - Pfizer
Vasotec - Merck
Norvasc - Pfizer
Fosamax - Merck
Cardizem CD - Aventis

Nice that Europe spends a lot on R&D, but seniors are sure using a lot of drugs developed in the US. Then again some of those have counterparts sold by European companies under different names, so why isn't the discussion about importing European produced drugs instead of reimporting US produced ones? That I honestly don't know.

Again, you brought in "Europe, Australië or Japan". I mentioned Mexico, you jumped to others, I pointed out that Brazil is supposed to follow patents, therefore I must have implied the others from the start, eh? Um, ok.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
Decided to see what the top 10 medications used by seniors are....then the companies that make them.

Zocor - Merck
Ticlid - Roche
Prilosec - AstraZeneca
Relafen - GlaxoSmithKline
Procardia XL - Pfizer
Zoloft - Pfizer
Vasotec - Merck
Norvasc - Pfizer
Fosamax - Merck
Cardizem CD - Aventis

Nice that Europe spends a lot on R&D, but seniors are sure using a lot of drugs developed in the US. Then again some of those have counterparts sold by European companies under different names, so why isn't the discussion about importing European produced drugs instead of reimporting US produced ones? That I honestly don't know.

Again, you brought in "Europe, Australië or Japan". I mentioned Mexico, you jumped to others, I pointed out that Brazil is supposed to follow patents, therefore I must have implied the others from the start, eh? Um, ok.

I think the whole EU - USA discussion is a non-issue. The point is that in the USA people are paying far more then in other 1st world countries and IMO it has nothing to do with r&d. You are getting raped because these companies can do it

simple...

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
Decided to see what the top 10 medications used by seniors are....then the companies that make them.

Zocor - Merck
Ticlid - Roche
Prilosec - AstraZeneca
Relafen - GlaxoSmithKline
Procardia XL - Pfizer
Zoloft - Pfizer
Vasotec - Merck
Norvasc - Pfizer
Fosamax - Merck
Cardizem CD - Aventis

Nice that Europe spends a lot on R&D, but seniors are sure using a lot of drugs developed in the US. Then again some of those have counterparts sold by European companies under different names, so why isn't the discussion about importing European produced drugs instead of reimporting US produced ones? That I honestly don't know.

Again, you brought in "Europe, Australië or Japan". I mentioned Mexico, you jumped to others, I pointed out that Brazil is supposed to follow patents, therefore I must have implied the others from the start, eh? Um, ok.

Europe has a trade surplus in the pharmacy sector (ecq is exporting more drugs then importing)

the pharmaceutical industry in Europe is the only high technology sector to consistently show a growing positive trade balance;

trade surplus: 28,000 million euros in 2001 (up from 5,200 million euros in 1985).


linky

 

[tcsenter]

and still you refuse too discuss the essence - depending on the source USA r&d surpassed the EU r&d somewhere between 1989 - 1998. We can make a conclusion that somewhere in the the past the r&d in Europe was bigger. OK for you ????

The essence of the discussion is that Canada doesn't pay for R&D. Whom ever does pay for it, we know that it ain't Canada.

Depending on one source, the US surpassed the EU in R&D between 1989 ~ 1998. According to numerous others, the EU and the US had roughly the same share of the world's R&D after WWII; since then the US R&D share has been increasing while EU has been decreasing.

But R&D is only part of the story, the US has a huge lead over the EU in patents and innovations. Apparently, the EU isn't getting its money's worth.

btw: I found a new link

Europe produces more than 40% of world pharmaceutical output, making it still the world's leading manufacturing location ahead of the US (over 30%) and Japan (20%).

Great, but that is manufacturing, not biotech and pharma R&D. Several US companies chose to locate manufacturing operations in Europe. That means a lot of the world's drugs are manufactured in Europe, not necessarily developed there.

Try another link?

 

[Goosemaster]

If I remember correctly, the Canadian government can somehow "ignore" copyright laws if they want to regarding the generitization of prescription medicines. It forces American Companies to either make a smaller profit or make none at all.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

and still you refuse too discuss the essence - depending on the source USA r&d surpassed the EU r&d somewhere between 1989 - 1998. We can make a conclusion that somewhere in the the past the r&d in Europe was bigger. OK for you ????

The essence of the discussion is that Canada doesn't pay for R&D. Whom ever does pay for it, we know that it ain't Canada.

Depending on one source, the US surpassed the EU in R&D between 1989 ~ 1998. According to numerous others, the EU and the US had roughly the same share of the world's R&D after WWII; since then the US R&D share has been increasing while EU has been decreasing.

But R&D is only part of the story, the US has a huge lead over the EU in patents and innovations. Apparently, the EU isn't getting its money's worth.

btw: I found a new link

Europe produces more than 40% of world pharmaceutical output, making it still the world's leading manufacturing location ahead of the US (over 30%) and Japan (20%).

Great, but that is manufacturing, not biotech and pharma R&D. Several US companies chose to locate manufacturing operations in Europe. That means a lot of the world's drugs are manufactured in Europe, not necessarily developed there.

Try another link?

I want to see your numerous sources that Europe and US had roughly the same R&D since WWII.

and you still didn't answer my question, I'll give it another try

If you still belief the r&d theory, can you explain to me why drugs have ALWAYS been more expensive in the US then in Canada or Europe or Japan (countries with a form of socialized healthcare).

 

[desy]

No, the Canadian gov't has its OWN copy right laws. Just like copyright music.
If the US wants to sell its drugs in Canada it has to be approved for sale in Canada first. Once in there is a lower time frame for patent protection before other companies can start making generics. they know this going in so its up to them if they want to apply to sell their drugs in Canada or not.
The complaint they have is the going back of the generics to the US of which they still have copy right protection for in the States.
There is R@D in Canada but a country 1/10 th the size and of which derives most of its GDP in resource based product isn't going to make a lot of drugs.
Things do happen up here, the first pacemaker was invented in Canada

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
In some cases...companies sell drugs to Canada or other countries barely above cost (rare but does happen).

Having worked in the pharma/biotech industry for some years (i'm in grad school now), I can say that US drug cost is generally justified. Companies carry a huge risk to research and develop a drug...hundreds of millions of dollars to develop something the FDA may not even approve or doctors may not even prescribe.

The profit is also what drives innovation and new discoveries in the industry...so don't knock it too much. At some point in your life...some expensive drug will probably save it.

I know for a fact that some US countries have nearly decide to not sell drugs to Canada due to pricing and illegal market drugs that come from Canada back into the US.

Don't go messing up everyone's self-righteous delusions about evil drug companies with your informed opinion! :|