For those who say imported drugs are unsafe.

[uscitizen]

Where legal drugs really come from

While the FDA and the drug industry have talked at length about the threat posed by drugs brought in from Canada, what they neglect to mention is this: prescription drugs bought by Americans increasingly are produced in foreign countries with minimal FDA oversight and then shipped to the U.S.

In 2002 pharmaceutical imports to the U.S. totaled $40.7 billion, a nearly fivefold increase from $8.7 billion in 1995. Seventeen of the 20 largest drug companies worldwide now make drugs in Ireland, largely because of tax incentives. Pfizer's Lipitor for cholesterol, the largest-selling drug in the world, is made in Ireland. So too is Viagra, for erectile dysfunction.

AstraZeneca's Nexium, for heartburn and acid reflux, comes from Sweden, France and other countries. TAP Pharmaceutical Products' Prevacid, another brand prescribed for heartburn and acid reflux, comes from Japan. Because of the rapid rise in drug imports, especially from Ireland, Britain and Germany, the U.S. balance of trade in pharmaceuticals has tipped sharply into deficit.

During the early 1990s, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, imports and exports of pharmaceuticals were "almost equal at just under $10 billion each." Since then the U.S. trade deficit has spiraled from nearly $600 million in 1995 to more than $20 billion in 2002, the last year for which complete data are available.

The trend is continuing. Singapore is on track to be a potential Ireland. Lured by tax breaks and other incentives, American drug giants like Merck are investing heavily in the Southeast Asian country. According to the Singapore Economic Development Board, Merck has invested more than $500 million to build two plants, which will produce the cholesterol drugs Ezetrol and Zocor.

CNN.com - Why we pay so much for drugs - Jan. 27, 2004

 

[uscitizen]

How does it feel to be the pawn of corporations helping them to perpetrate their deceptions on America?

 

[Oddball]

You do know, of course, that the primary reason that American prescription medications are less expensive in other countries is because of the huge subsidies on them, don't you?

How does it feel to be a dupe, in continuing to distract form the fact that the FDA's exorbitantly expensive and foot-dragging approval process is the primary reason for the high costs of prescription drugs?

 

[uscitizen]

Profit maximization is the primary reason for much of the cost of presc drugs in the USA.

 

[Oddball]

Yup....You're a dupe.

First of all, if the FDA process costs in excess of $1/2 BILLION to bring a new medication to market, how much more does the creator of that drug need to charge to cover R&D costs, let alone make a profit?

Secondly, I know of no real libertarian who mewls about legitimate companies making legitimate profits. You can quit posing as such any time now.

 

[uscitizen]

Yup....You're a dupe.

First of all, if the FDA process costs in excess of $1/2 BILLION to bring a new medication to market, how much more does the creator of that drug need to charge to cover R&D costs, let alone make a profit?

Secondly, I know of no real libertarian who mewls about legitimate companies making legitimate profits. You can quit posing as such any time now.

Me posing as a libertarain? Whatcha smoking man?
Show me where I am or have posed as a libertarian.

You corporate pawn.

 

[geauxtohell]

You do know, of course, that the primary reason that American prescription medications are less expensive in other countries is because of the huge subsidies on them, don't you?

How does it feel to be a dupe, in continuing to distract form the fact that the FDA's exorbitantly expensive and foot-dragging approval process is the primary reason for the high costs of prescription drugs?

Can't blame the FDA for trying to keep unsafe drugs off the market. Hell, look at the hissy fit people have over the drugs that are approved. Then all the stupidity that goes with that, like sticking a black box warning for suicide on SSRIs, though there is absolutely no evidence that their is a link between SSRIs and suicide.

What usually happens is the controlled studies are done over small populations. If the drug has a rare side effect that affects .0001% of the population, that is not going to be apparent until the drug is on the market and taken by several thousand people.

At the very least, the FDA was able to keep Thalidomide as an indication for morning sickness off the shelves in the USA.

 

[uscitizen]

Thee FDA did not do as well with Chinese made Heparin.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thee FDA did not do as well with Chinese made Heparin.

No they did not. It leads one to wonder why a potentially dangerous drug like Heparin would be outsourced to a country that the FDA can't keep tight tabs on.

Furthermore, heparin is IV only, which means it was so dangerous that the patients crashed and died in the hospital under medical care.

 

[Oddball]

You do know, of course, that the primary reason that American prescription medications are less expensive in other countries is because of the huge subsidies on them, don't you?

How does it feel to be a dupe, in continuing to distract form the fact that the FDA's exorbitantly expensive and foot-dragging approval process is the primary reason for the high costs of prescription drugs?

Can't blame the FDA for trying to keep unsafe drugs off the market. Hell, look at the hissy fit people have over the drugs that are approved. Then all the stupidity that goes with that, like sticking a black box warning for suicide on SSRIs, though there is absolutely no evidence that their is a link between SSRIs and suicide.

What usually happens is the controlled studies are done over small populations. If the drug has a rare side effect that affects .0001% of the population, that is not going to be apparent until the drug is on the market and taken by several thousand people.

At the very least, the FDA was able to keep Thalidomide as an indication for morning sickness off the shelves in the USA.

No argument about having safe medications. That said, $500+ million is waaaaaaay too much to spend to pass any decent testing process, that isn't skimming off the top or purposefully delaying approvals to line the pockets of the bureaucrats. Moreover, there's no recourse to sue the FDA when bad drugs, like Fen-phen or Vioxx, get approved and harm people, because of sovereign immunity.

A private entity like Underwriters' Laboratories could do just as thorough a job at a fraction of the costs.

 

[geauxtohell]

You do know, of course, that the primary reason that American prescription medications are less expensive in other countries is because of the huge subsidies on them, don't you?

How does it feel to be a dupe, in continuing to distract form the fact that the FDA's exorbitantly expensive and foot-dragging approval process is the primary reason for the high costs of prescription drugs?

Can't blame the FDA for trying to keep unsafe drugs off the market. Hell, look at the hissy fit people have over the drugs that are approved. Then all the stupidity that goes with that, like sticking a black box warning for suicide on SSRIs, though there is absolutely no evidence that their is a link between SSRIs and suicide.

What usually happens is the controlled studies are done over small populations. If the drug has a rare side effect that affects .0001% of the population, that is not going to be apparent until the drug is on the market and taken by several thousand people.

At the very least, the FDA was able to keep Thalidomide as an indication for morning sickness off the shelves in the USA.

No argument about having safe medications. That said, $500+ million is waaaaaaay too much to spend to pass any decent testing process, that isn't skimming off the top or purposefully delaying approvals to line the pockets of the bureaucrats. Moreover, there's no recourse to sue the FDA when bad drugs, like Fen-phen or Vioxx, get approved and harm people, because of sovereign immunity.

A private entity like Underwriters' Laboratories could do just as thorough a job at a fraction of the costs.

I won't debate the fact that the bureaucracy hemorrhages money. I do think the FDA is a necessary evil.

As for civil litigation, I don't see much point in suing the FDA anyways. The FDA really just serves as a watchdog and has no real financial gain from any single drug going to market. The pharm companies are usually the grossly negligent (by suppressing adverse outcomes in research of drugs, etc) and that is why they can, and frequently are, sued. One of my wives law professors went into early retirement, because was a plaintiffs attorney that got in on the Fen-phen suit.

I suppose we could privatize everything, but I don't think that is the full answer either. Privatizing entities does not make them immune from acting in bad faith either and the invisible hand of the market is not all knowing. Case in point: look at the banks.

When it comes to public health concerns, I really don't see how anybody but the government could be the approval authority.

Same with licensing physicians, nurses, health care providers, etc.

 

[Ringel05]

A good example of why not to take foreign made drugs.

(Watch out for those nasty side affects!)

 

[Paulie]

You do know, of course, that the primary reason that American prescription medications are less expensive in other countries is because of the huge subsidies on them, don't you?

How does it feel to be a dupe, in continuing to distract form the fact that the FDA's exorbitantly expensive and foot-dragging approval process is the primary reason for the high costs of prescription drugs?

I can definitely attest to this. I'm waiting VERY impatiently for the FDA to approve over the counter marketing for a product from a company I'm invested in.

I wouldn't be surprised if they reject it simply because the product could literally replace acetaminophen for a variety of indications, and a big conglomerate like Johnson & Johnson pulls a few strings to protect Tylenol.