The Maple Peril and Government Inaction – Case 3
In the mid-1990s drugs manufactured in Canada were being imported into the United States. The driver behind these imports was the lower cost of drugs in Canada (Richert 2013). In 2004, Canada’s price review board estimated that on average Americans pay 67 percent more than Canadians for patented drugs (Richert 2013). One example, the antiretroviral drug ritonavir (Norvir) costs $700 per year in Canada and costs $7,800 per year in the United States (Richert 2013). From the uninsured American consumer’s standpoint, purchasing drugs from Canada was the only choice. Canadian drug manufacturers facilitated a strong relationship between Canada and the United States. Low drug prices in Canada are the …show more content…
After September 11, 2001; many decision makers continued to warn against the inflow of counterfeit drugs. The justification behind these warnings was that recent anthrax attacks were a risk that the U.S government was not able to take (Richert 2013). By 2003, the FDA announced that organizations assisting individuals in purchasing imported drugs could be found civilly and criminally liable (Richert …show more content…
Instead of addressing the concerns of the public, the U.S government and PhRMA focused on counterfeit drugs and how Canadian drugs constituted a threat to Americans. Canadian manufacturers make high-quality products, but in the presence of counterfeiters, it is hard to distinguish the good manufacturers from the bad manufacturers. The pharmaceutical industry played a key role by threatening to cut supply from Canadian pharmacies; furthermore, PhRMA used lobbying to stem the flow of Canadian drugs into the U.S.
In this case, government inaction (or wrong action) served the private interest and not the public interest. The FDA and U.S government could have easily placed regulations on packaging, labeling, and distribution as a filter between the legitimate Canadian pharmacies and counterfeit pharmacies. Also, the FDA could have educated the public on the harms of buying from unregistered online pharmacies. Again, the entire backlash could have been avoided if the FDA chose to focus on delivering high-quality drugs at a lower cost instead assisting pharmaceutical corporations. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has been debating whether or not to provide a national pharmacare program to all Canadians which will encourage more bulk buying and affordability of all pharmaceutical
In the mid-1990s drugs manufactured in Canada were being imported into the United States. The driver behind these imports was the lower cost of drugs in Canada (Richert 2013). In 2004, Canada’s price review board estimated that on average Americans pay 67 percent more than Canadians for patented drugs (Richert 2013). One example, the antiretroviral drug ritonavir (Norvir) costs $700 per year in Canada and costs $7,800 per year in the United States (Richert 2013). From the uninsured American consumer’s standpoint, purchasing drugs from Canada was the only choice. Canadian drug manufacturers facilitated a strong relationship between Canada and the United States. Low drug prices in Canada are the …show more content…
After September 11, 2001; many decision makers continued to warn against the inflow of counterfeit drugs. The justification behind these warnings was that recent anthrax attacks were a risk that the U.S government was not able to take (Richert 2013). By 2003, the FDA announced that organizations assisting individuals in purchasing imported drugs could be found civilly and criminally liable (Richert …show more content…
Instead of addressing the concerns of the public, the U.S government and PhRMA focused on counterfeit drugs and how Canadian drugs constituted a threat to Americans. Canadian manufacturers make high-quality products, but in the presence of counterfeiters, it is hard to distinguish the good manufacturers from the bad manufacturers. The pharmaceutical industry played a key role by threatening to cut supply from Canadian pharmacies; furthermore, PhRMA used lobbying to stem the flow of Canadian drugs into the U.S.
In this case, government inaction (or wrong action) served the private interest and not the public interest. The FDA and U.S government could have easily placed regulations on packaging, labeling, and distribution as a filter between the legitimate Canadian pharmacies and counterfeit pharmacies. Also, the FDA could have educated the public on the harms of buying from unregistered online pharmacies. Again, the entire backlash could have been avoided if the FDA chose to focus on delivering high-quality drugs at a lower cost instead assisting pharmaceutical corporations. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has been debating whether or not to provide a national pharmacare program to all Canadians which will encourage more bulk buying and affordability of all pharmaceutical