Re: Nice to know all is Peachy in the Canadian HC system
From: fresh~horses (fresh~horses_at_despammed.com)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: aristotle: "Gall bladder complications"
- Previous message: Ilena Rose: "Re: Cell phone and tetra tower dangers by Dr Cherry"
- In reply to: fresh~horses: "Re: Nice to know all is Peachy in the Canadian HC system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Sep 2004 09:43:15 -0700
fresh~horses@despammed.com (fresh~horses) wrote in message news:<abf8de5b.0409151857.5ff8e279@posting.google.com>...
> kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote in message news:<df%1d.2549$mb6.1614@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > -Acrimony on the rise at Canada health summit
> > Wed Sep 15, 2004 01:44 PM ET
> > (Adds new figures, comments from Martin, paragraphs 9, 15-17)
> >
Big Pharma's Healthcare Fix
by Tony Clarke, Polaris Institute
The Toronto Star
September 15, 2004
As the television cameras zoomed in on the First Ministers' healthcare
summit this week, one of the major players was missing, namely, the
brand-name pharmaceutical companies known as 'big pharma.' After all,
when it comes to healthcare programs in this country, especially
developing a national pharmacare program, the brand-name drug
corporations are arguably among the most powerful decision makers.
So, why has Prime Minister Paul Martin refused to take seriously the
premiers' challenge to develop a national pharmacare program? Clearly,
escalating drug costs is a matter of life and death for a growing
number of Canadians. The Liberals had promised a national plan for
prescription drugs in the election campaign and the premiers'
pharmacare push has, according to weekend polls, significant popular
support.
But, Ottawa's refusal to play ball on pharmacare at this week's summit
cannot simply be reduced to bargaining tactics in the same old
'national bickerfest' between the feds and the provinces. Instead, it
may have more to do with powerful pressures being exerted behind the
scenes by the pharmaceutical industry.
In Ottawa, the big pharma lobby machine today is Canada's
Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies, better known as Rx&D.
Composed of 55 companies, Rx&D includes the world's leading drug
manufacturers like Glaxo-SmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca,
Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Bayer, Eli Lilly and
Proctor & Gamble. The current executive committee of Rx&D itself
includes such pharmaceutical heavyweights as Jean-Michel Halfon,
President and CEO of Pfizer Canada; Andre Marcheterre, President of
Merck Frost Canada; Paul Luca, President and CEO of Glaxo-SmithKline;
and Philip Blake, President and CEO of Bayer Inc.
A prime objective of Rx&D's lobbying operations is to curb the market
expansion of generic drug manufacturers in Canada. The generic drug
industry exists to produce and sell prescription drugs at lower prices
than the patented drugs of the brand name companies. According to York
University's School of Health Policy and Management, the average cost
per claim in 1997 ranged from $92.56 for a patented drug to $22.94 for
the generic version. A prime reason for such disparities is that the
brand-name pharmaceuticals were highly successful during the previous
decade in lobbying for federal legislation to protect their interests
over the generics.
The Mulroney government brought in three pro-big pharma laws. In 1987,
Bill C-22 was enacted which weakened the government's ability to use
licensing arrangements to allow the public greater access to cheaper,
Canadian-made generic drugs. In 1993, Bill C-91 was passed, allowing
the big pharmaceutical companies, largely based in the U.S., to extend
their brand name patent protection from 17 to 20 years. Also, in 1993,
amendments were made to the Patent Medicines Regulations Act, giving
Health Canada more tools for rejecting generic drug approval besides
simply allegations of patent infringement.
Nor was the Chrétien government immune to big pharma pressures.
Responding to the anthrax scare in the U.S. that came on the heels of
9/11, Ottawa announced on October 18, 2002, it was going to suspend
the Bayer Company's patent protection for a drug called Cipro and,
instead, allow a Canadian generic drug manufacturer, Apotex, to
produce this drug at much lower costs. Apotex had agreed to sell its
generic version of Cipro to health authorities for 95 cents a pill,
compared to the Bayer price of $1.59. But, when big pharma unleashed
its counteroffensive, which included a threat to sue Ottawa for
reversing Bayer's patent protection, the Chrétien government backed
down, announcing they would honour the Bayer patent on Cipro and would
only purchase supplies of the drug from the pharmaceutical giant.
Now, big pharma has focused its sites on the proposed national
pharmacare program. It is hard to imagine how the Martin government
can 'fix healthcare for a generation' without dealing with the fastest
growing expense item in Canada's healthcare system. Since 1995, the
cost of public drug coverage programs has doubled. According to the
Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada spent almost $15
billion on prescription drugs in 2002. Between 2001 and 2002 alone,
prescription drug expenditures increased by $1.2 billion, enough
revenue to hire 5,300 new doctors or 24,000 new nurses.
For big pharma, however, the escalating amounts spent on their
prescription drugs by public drug programs represents a rapidly
expanding market that must be protected at all costs. But, a national
pharmacare program could pose a serious threat. Such a program would
undoubtedly include a national listing of approved drugs for purchase
plus bulk buying of these approved drugs at reduced costs. What's
more, the generic industry has just announced a plan for brokering a
deal between Ottawa and the provinces by guaranteeing $5 billion in
cost savings.
Meanwhile, the brand-name pharmaceutical corporations are counting on
insurance policies they have already taken out in the form of
political donations. Between 1993 and 2002, big pharma corporations
contributed well over a million dollars [$1,185,649] to the governing
Liberal party, says York University's Robert MacDermid, who monitors
political party donations in Canada. As well, big pharma gave Martin
$73,000 for his leadership bid.
So, if Paul Martin really wanted to be more transparent about
healthcare policy making by televising this summit, he should have
invited the CEOs of the brand-name pharmaceutical corporations to join
himself and the premiers at the table. Then, at least, Canadians would
see how the real decisions are made on these issues.
- Next message: aristotle: "Gall bladder complications"
- Previous message: Ilena Rose: "Re: Cell phone and tetra tower dangers by Dr Cherry"
- In reply to: fresh~horses: "Re: Nice to know all is Peachy in the Canadian HC system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
