Why are prescription drugs cheaper in Canada?

[Miramonti]

For example the same drug, made by the same US manufacturer perhaps even from the same manufacturing facility...

...is less expensive in canada and abroad.

why?

 

[Zebo]

In canada the monopoly is the canadian government who sets the price. In the united states the drug company is the monoploy who sets the price. Generics are the same price.

 

[Miramonti]

What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold.

Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for.

Could you elaborate?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: jjsole
What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold.

Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for.

Could you elaborate?

Yup, the canadian gov't has such large purchasing powers that it can negotiate better pricing directly with the drug manufacturers. It is also the market conditions and what the market is willing/able to pay i.e. Mexico has lower drug cost because of lower standard of living and a lower threshold of pricing points.
Walgreens would be the middleman in a long chain of distrubutors, fewer of those and the prices should fall a bit.
For a very good disccussion on this matter

Frontline - the other Drug War.

 

[preslove]

Quite frankly it is because the Canadian government has the interests of its citizens in mind, while the United States has the interests of the pharmaceutical companies in mind.

 

[Whiskytoast]

yeah it sucks, the people in the US pay for the research and development of the drugs. I wish US drug makers would cut Canda's supply off.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: jjsole
What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold.

Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for.

Could you elaborate?

Yup, the canadian gov't has such large purchasing powers that it can negotiate better pricing directly with the drug manufacturers. It is also the market conditions and what the market is willing/able to pay i.e. Mexico has lower drug cost because of lower standard of living and a lower threshold of pricing points.
Walgreens would be the middleman in a long chain of distrubutors, fewer of those and the prices should fall a bit.
For a very good disccussion on this matter

Frontline - the other Drug War.

You did and excellent job of answering your own question JJ.. But then your very smart too. Chowderhaed linked the the show which said Canada sets the price for what the companies can sell for. Of course it's a big ole' fight in cananda between free marketers, socialists, elderly opgs, lobbists, etc but eventually a price is set by the government not the market or what the drug company wants as in the United States. They seem to look at life saving goods, where the governemnt protects the company visa vi patent enforcement, a place the government should also have a say in the price. They ar'nt loosing money but thier not profiteering either like in the unregualted USA where it's either pay the price, use a generic alternative, or die. Nice balance if you ask me. Sorta like the public utility commisions in the united states..

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: jjsole What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold. Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for. Could you elaborate?

Yup, the canadian gov't has such large purchasing powers that it can negotiate better pricing directly with the drug manufacturers. It is also the market conditions and what the market is willing/able to pay i.e. Mexico has lower drug cost because of lower standard of living and a lower threshold of pricing points. Walgreens would be the middleman in a long chain of distrubutors, fewer of those and the prices should fall a bit. For a very good disccussion on this matter Frontline - the other Drug War.

Great link chowderhead, lots of info/links to sort thru.

So far it appears the major issue is the US is the only country that doesn't have price controls that require volume discounts from the pharmaceutical industry. Without getting volume discounts in the US, everyone is basically paying 'full price'.

For example: Prozac, (20/20mg tablets):
US: $91.08
Europe: $18.50
Canada: $20.91


Thats just wrong.

 

[Zebo]

For example: Prozac, (20/20mg tablets):
US: $91.08
Europe: $18.50
Canada: $20.91

And Prozacs patent has expired about 5 years ago. I wonder the differential between drugs still under protection Like Zocor.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: jjsole What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold. Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for. Could you elaborate?

Yup, the canadian gov't has such large purchasing powers that it can negotiate better pricing directly with the drug manufacturers. It is also the market conditions and what the market is willing/able to pay i.e. Mexico has lower drug cost because of lower standard of living and a lower threshold of pricing points. Walgreens would be the middleman in a long chain of distrubutors, fewer of those and the prices should fall a bit. For a very good disccussion on this matter Frontline - the other Drug War.

You did and excellent job of answering your own question JJ.. But then your very smart too. Chowderhaed linked the the show which said Canada sets the price for what the companies can sell for. Of course it's a big ole' fight in cananda between free marketers, socialists, elderly opgs, lobbists, etc but eventually a price is set by the government not the market or what the drug company wants as in the United States. They seem to look at life saving goods, where the governemnt protects the company visa vi patent enforcement, a place the government should also have a say in the price. They ar'nt loosing money but thier not profiteering either like in the unregualted USA where it's either pay the price, use a generic alternative, or die. Nice balance if you ask me. Sorta like the public utility commisions in the united states..

Are the price of drugs in canada the exact same at each pharmacy regardless of pharmacy owner? From what you said I'm assuming they are and the fight is behind the scenes between those respective groups to pressure the government to be more favorable towards the pharmacy, or towards the customers/elderly etc.

If so then I suppose that each pharmacy makes the same commission % on each drug sold?...perhaps the same commission % on every drug or are the commission %'s to the pharmacists negotiated on a drug by drug basis, part of the "good 'ol fight" among the respective groups?

You mentioned previously "generics are the same price"...the same price as the brands, or do you mean the price is cheaper, but set the same way by the govt.?

If thats the case then perhaps the govt. prices generics high so to favor the pharmaceutical industry, to in turn get favorable prices on the name brands? (ie to minimize the generic competition).

I'm not even going to inquire yet about the 'good 'ol fight' lobbying differences in Canada vs. the way the lobbying between these groups is done here.


Don't want to overwhelm you with all the q's tho, if you have info reply at your leisure. I still need to read all the pbs links.

 

[sandorski]

What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Yes we are being ripped off because we are subsidising drug prices around the world. If canada is allowed to export drugs to the US, you are going to see drug prices in canada go up. Canada's goverment is trying to stop the export as it causing shortages of drugs. Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

 

[rjain]

And most of the large drug companies don't pay for the R&D. They license the patent or buy out the company that developed it. Neither of those expenses can be stated as R&D afaik.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: rjain
And most of the large drug companies don't pay for the R&D. They license the patent or buy out the company that developed it. Neither of those expenses can be stated as R&D afaik.

Which means they are still paying for R&D.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Yes we are being ripped off because we are subsidising drug prices around the world. If canada is allowed to export drugs to the US, you are going to see drug prices in canada go up. Canada's goverment is trying to stop the export as it causing shortages of drugs. Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

Proof?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Yes we are being ripped off because we are subsidising drug prices around the world. If canada is allowed to export drugs to the US, you are going to see drug prices in canada go up. Canada's goverment is trying to stop the export as it causing shortages of drugs. Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

Proof?

Saw a canadian official on tv the otherday talking about these issues

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Yes we are being ripped off because we are subsidising drug prices around the world. If canada is allowed to export drugs to the US, you are going to see drug prices in canada go up. Canada's goverment is trying to stop the export as it causing shortages of drugs. Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

Proof?

Saw a canadian official on tv the otherday talking about these issues

Which said that?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison
Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

This is your theory or has this been researched and concluded?

They make a helluva lot of money and aren't very open about their books, but if you have some info that substantiates it, would love to read it. US firms aren't the only ones selling to canada as well.

/edit: >Saw a canadian official on tv the otherday talking about these issues

I hope you don't believe everything you see on tv.

 

[Mrburns2007]

What kills me is that the FDA yaks on about drug safety as if Canada is a third world country.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
What I have gleaned from the news.

Canada imposed Drug Price controls in the early 90's. Part of these controls states that Drug prices could only rise at the rate of Inflation, though the Drug companies didn't always raise their prices at the rate of Inflation so their drugs would get preferential treatment from the Provincial(the Provinces have Jurisdiction over Health Care) Ministries of Health. I don't know how the Price is determined for Drugs under the regulations, but it certainly would not be set so the Drug companies lose money. Some US companies have recently announced that they will raise their prices to the full extent that the regulations allow(including previous rates of Inflation they passed on) in response to the Internet Pharmacy issue.

Why the discrepancy(sp) between US and others prices? Part of it is Pricing Controls outside of the US, but why would these companies sell their drugs outside of the US if they were losing money? Probably because they are not. The US is certainly using a more Free Market approach to Drug Prices than Canada or Europe, that is certain. As such, US Prices are being set according to the Markets willingness to bear, meaning if (X)x is what the Market will bear, then that is what the Price will be. It also seems quite obvious though that a significant part of the Market will not bear the set Price, thus the Boom of Americans buying their drugs from Canada or Mexico. In a way this issue is very similar to the CD Sales issue, both these Products can be Sold cheaper, but they are not. It also shows that there are weaknesses to the Free Markets' Competition Lowering Price arguement, since we see here(many other instances in other sectors as well) that it has done the opposite.

Do the High Prices in the US fund R&D and do Americans pay for the Price to the benefit of Others? This claim has been made repeatedly by some, but due to the lack of Financial Reports which breakdown R&D, Advertising, Return of Investment(Income), and other factors related to specific Drugs this is impossible to prove or disprove. What is known however, is that many new drugs are only "New" in the legal sense, having enough of a changed chemical composition as to be Patented as "New", but having little to No greater efficacy as the "Old" drug. Certainly the R&D into such drugs is not nearly as expensive as totally New drugs. Take into account also that Investors have been increasingly adamant on seeing Return in the last Decade or so and again one has to wonder how important or expensive is R&D in the greater scheme of things.

Why then are Drug companies increasingly migrating to the US?(similar question seen in another thread) Simple, the US is where the Big Bucks are. Not only do you have the ability to Sell at a much higher Price, but you also have the largest(soon to be replaced by the EU and China) unified Market in the World. So even if the Drug Price in Europe or Canada is set to allow a modest Profit, why settle for Modest when you could have Mindboggling? Instead of taking years to recover the cost of R&D, do it in Months instead(not verifiable).

I think the US Consumer is just being ripped a new one because they are willingly allowing it, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Yes we are being ripped off because we are subsidising drug prices around the world. If canada is allowed to export drugs to the US, you are going to see drug prices in canada go up. Canada's goverment is trying to stop the export as it causing shortages of drugs. Drugs companies are making a profit selling drugs in Canada, but they are not paying for the RnD.

Proof?

Saw a canadian official on tv the otherday talking about these issues

Which said that?

yes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
What kills me is that the FDA yaks on about drug safety as if Canada is a third world country.

Speaking of which, yesterday or the day before a US official and Canadian official gave a joint news conference concerning this issue. The US official brought up the safety issue making some allegations about it. Well, the news conference went downhill from there with the US and Canadian officials getting into a shouting match. An official release from the Canadian government stated that some allegations of Safety had been raised, but that investigations had turned up that the allegations were baseless. It seems that if the US wants to make such allegations, then they should take Public action(Court/legal) to demonstrate whether these allegations have merit or not. Simply making allegations is not Proof of anything.

 

[Jameson657]

Originally posted by: jjsole
What do you mean Zebo by the govt. setting the price? They can't set the price for something they don't produce altho can set the margin levels at which they are resold.

Or are you referring to their negotiating power with the makers because they are purchasing for the whole country. For example do they buy them cheaper than a large pharmacy in the US like walgreens is getting them for.

Could you elaborate?

Like in Michigan, and most other states, the state sets the prices of alcohol. Some states even set the prices of tobacco.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: rjain
And most of the large drug companies don't pay for the R&D. They license the patent or buy out the company that developed it. Neither of those expenses can be stated as R&D afaik.

Even *if* rights to a drug are bought from someone else, there are still years and years of rigorous testing to go through, not to mention the costs of setting up suitable manufacturing sites.

Furthermore, not every drug they buy or even develop makes it to clinical trials. They may spend tens of millions of dollars on a drug on to find out it won't work after all. Those costs have to go somewhere. It all gets rolled into R&D. Averaged, it costs several hundred million dollars to bring the average drug to market.

Your comments that most large drug companies dont pay for R&D is pure rubbish.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rjain
And most of the large drug companies don't pay for the R&D. They license the patent or buy out the company that developed it. Neither of those expenses can be stated as R&D afaik.

Which means they are still paying for R&D.

But the R&D costs can't be determined from the accounting tables.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Your comments that most large drug companies dont pay for R&D is pure rubbish.

Your twisting of my words to mean the exact opposite of what I said is pure rubbish.