Daniel Hines notes in his blog at http://rxforamericanhealth.blogspot.com/2016/02/harvard-review-author-ignores-very.html
that the conclusion that ‘cheap drugs’
from Canada won’t lower prices simply because no one believes that Pharma will “lean
back” and “allow” personal importation simply because they are “selling drugs at
a terrific discount to Canada and other countries” does not address the harm
done by the long-running opposition by Pharma to personal importation of
brand-name medicines, and gives it a ‘license’ to continue its pricing abuses
in the name of profit.
“Pharma has no
inherent authority to either ‘allow’’ or ‘disallow’ Americans from personally
importing their medicines,’ Hines notes, explaining that this is clearly the prerogative
of the U.S. Congress.
“That is why over
the past 15 years, Congress has passed or considered many bills in support of personal
importation of medicines, only to see behind-closed-door deals with PhRMA, the
trade group of the Pharmaceutical industry leading to the passage of the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare); ‘poison-pill amendments from legislators, who are recipients of Pharma’s contributions, to require ‘certification’ by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services of each and
every medicine personally imported; Pharma-led efforts directed at personal
importation claiming to protect product safety or intellectual property rights
that were turned aside because of public outcry that the legislation would have
trampled on individual liberties.”
Hines says the
extent of the healthcare crisis that has been generated by the excessive costs
of prescription medicines making them a major driver of rising health care
costs, calls for a comprehensive, coordinated approach to lower drug prices.
“There is a
distinct role for personal importation of medicines as part of strategies that
will help end the crisis caused by the pricing practices of Pharma that have
denied millions of Americans access to their prescribed medicines simply because
they are unaffordable.”
He also noted that
there must be a recognition of the potential of the harmful effects upon
society when ‘profitability’ far exceeds the basic requirements that will earn
a business the funds that are necessary to guarantee its ability to maintain
its operations, and to enter into new products and markets, rather than allow
Pharma to continue charging what the traffic will bear.
He calls for a
number of actions:
- · A recognition that a medicine that is unaffordable is, in and of itself, unavailable;
- · Brand name medicines imported from Canada—and other Tier One Countries-- are not ‘cheap drugs’. They are instead valid medicines that can provide a vital lifeline of maintenance medicines that would otherwise be denied to millions of Americans;
- · No one, not even the most fervent supporters of personal importation of safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries (not just Canada) has ever suggested that personally imported medicines are the sole answer to lower medicine prices in the U.S.;
- · The role of personal importation prescription medicines is not an inherent authority of Pharma not the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but is within the province of the U.S. Congress to establish the direction of prescription medicine policy, including but not limited to personal importation;
- · Congressional support of personal importation, is evidenced by continuing Congressional initiatives on a number of fronts including appeals to the HHS Secretary to grant waivers, as well as bi-partisan bills on behalf of personal importation;
- · Tell Pharma that when it threatens to curtail its Research and Development, that much of the cost of that R&D is borne by the U.S. Taxpayer, whom, after supporting such R&D, is subject to the highest prices in the industrialized world for their medicines;
- · Take action on the political front. Americans have traditionally expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo at the ballot box, leading to historic changes in national policies (i.e., social security, anti-trust legislation, Medicare);
Hines noted that
the 2016 Election is of watershed proportions.
He calls for voters to make sure that they now where candidates stand on
the cost of prescription medicine, the right and the ability of Americans to determine
the safety and efficacy of personally imported medicines and the right to have
access to those vital medicines.
To that end, he offers the ‘planks’ of a
platform that he believes will lower prescription prices;
1.
Price negotiation for Medicare and other programs;
2.
A ‘stakeholder’ role for the American public that
supports so much of Pharma R&D, by an increased presence of consumer
advocates and private citizen in policy development, hearings, and
opportunities for public comment;
3.
A revised patent policy that ensures the public
investment in R&D is protected in legislation that will penalize Pharma if it
is abusive in its pricing practices;
4.
Reciprocal Memorandums of Understanding between
regulatory agencies of Tier One Countries as validation of the safety and
efficacy of the oversight of personally imported medicines from those
countries;
5. Passing legislation that allows personal
importation of brand-name medicines from licensed registered pharmacies in Tier
One Countries whose standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of
the U.S.;
5.
Impose criminal penalties for abuse of pricing
practices based on a ‘what the traffic will bear’ philosophy;
6.
Greater transparency in Pharma pricing practices;
7.
An end to direct to consumer advertising for
prescription medicines
“When these steps are taken—and only then—will we remove the burden of paying the highest prices in the industrialized world for our medications,” Hines concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment