It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

protects the interests of Canadian consumers ensuring prices of medicines sold are not excessive

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is an portion from a story of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in Canada



The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is an independent quasi-judicial body that protects the interests of Canadian consumers by ensuring the prices of patented medicines sold in Canada are not excessive, and provides stakeholders with price, cost, and utilization information to help them make timely and knowledgeable drug pricing, purchasing, and reimbursement decisions.


Simple question, why can't the US have the same sort of board to protect consumers?

www.publicnow.com...:30:21+00:00-xxx3040




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Well, the fines that fund the FDA come from the pharma companies that pass it on to the consumer. The Pharma companies also pay off politicians here with campaign contributions. That costs money too, it is passed on to the consumers. On top of that, the pharma company execs kind of like this arrangement they have put together in the USA. Why would they or their puppet FDA that over sees them want to change anything.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The cost of the drug seems to have nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

It is more about a CEO saying this is what it will cost. Epipen, Naloxone Hydrochloride, Evzio, Oncaspar, to name a few drugs that are old. The company just said, well we will get more $.

I think the pharm co's need to make $. And of course R+D isn't cheap. But there is no rhyme of reason to costs.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The board you are looking at likely is part of the reason why we pay so much in the US. The socialized medicine countries bulk purchase the medicines they are going to buy from the pharma companies and they force the companies to sell the drugs under cost.

And like everything else, the companies make up the missing cost by pushing that onto other consumers. In this case, we in the US end up paying for that undercutting from each and every country that does it.

All those undercutting countries add up making our meds that much more expensive. So we effectively end up subsidizing a lot of the rest of the world.

If no one paid the cost of the medicines and everyone undercut the cost, what do you think would happen?
edit on 21-12-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is little proof of this actually being the case.

I have heard that as a reason, but actually I think it may be an excuse.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

There is little proof of this actually being the case.

I have heard that as a reason, but actually I think it may be an excuse.


No. It is.

Because the governments are the only game in town, the company either sells to them or not at all. And because the government is the only game in town, it will do things like deny treatment with a new drug it doesn't want to pay for (rationing -- something we are told would NEVER happen if the US had such a system) because it's not cost effective for the person being treated (too old, etc.) or not good enough v. an existing treatment even if it might offer far fewer side effects.

We also end up subsidizing a LOT of the global R&D efforts. There are a lot of countries where they will simply take a new medicine patent if the country thinks the medicine produced is too expensive and they will then allow any company to make a generic version, so a lot of companies do their R&D here in the US for patent protections.

If the US went to a system like many countries had, R&D would be severely curtailed in a lot of the pharma companies and new drugs and patents severely reduced.

Now, that's not to say there aren't things that couldn't be done to reduce drug costs just like there are things that could reduce health care costs in general, but a single payer board is the wrong way to go.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ok, the drugs that have been around for 60 years literally go up over night, I listed a few earlier. Diabetes-asthma have doubled- is this retroactive R+D?

I get that new drugs cost money but epipen isn't new- that is gouging. And the companies are begging to have a regulatory panel to oversee them because they are not being fair with the pricing.

The companies seem to have little problem fronting the huge $ to throw the product on TV. Like Opdivo
Specialty Drug $29,000 a month.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Using price controls limit supplies.

The US is currently subsidizing all these socialist nations that do have price controls. They enjoy the quality of healthcare because the US is indirectly paying for it.

Price controls in the US would have serious impact on the entire global health industry. If these price controls were lifted from every nation, the prices would stabilize across borders. Meaning, US would see prices drop while other nations see prices increase, and supply would remain relatively accessible.



The number of reports of medicine shortages in the EU is increasing(1.;2.). Shortages are occurring across the supply chain and all classes of medicines are affected, from complex chemotherapy agents and anaesthetics to diabetes, hypertension, and asthma medication.

www.pgeu.eu...:medicine-shortages.html" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link

So it's a question of high prices for medicine, or greater possibility of being out of stock.
edit on 21-12-2016 by GodEmperor because: link



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The Canadian government recognizes that companies need to make their R&D costs back, so they don't allow generic for the initial life of the patent on the drug.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Because Donald Trump is going to get diseases cured in America. See my thread on it, or his 100 day plan video (which is 2 minutes, 37 seconds). I really believe that he wants to try to do this, as part of making America Great Again. If I am wrong, it will be a very sad day for me. If I am right, he will get 81% of the popular vote in 2020.

There is enough research out there to cure a lot of diseases. A lot of the problem is funding for restrictive FDA trials (read RED TAPE!) in bringing things to market. A drug costs billions of dollars, and usually has a horde of lethal side-effects. If diseases can be cured, it will make America a lot more powerful country.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

The cost of the drug seems to have nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

It is more about a CEO saying this is what it will cost. Epipen, Naloxone Hydrochloride, Evzio, Oncaspar, to name a few drugs that are old. The company just said, well we will get more $.

I think the pharm co's need to make $. And of course R+D isn't cheap. But there is no rhyme of reason to costs.


They can sell a drug in England for half the price they sell it for in the USA. The person buying the meds pays for every expense the Pharma companies incurr. That includes charity contributions, fines, lawyer fees they pay and lawsuits they pay. It also includes campaign contributions and expenses for salesmen. They are now paying for TV ads too and of course doctors training sessions in the bahamas for those who prescribe a lot of their meds.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

There is little proof of this actually being the case.

I have heard that as a reason, but actually I think it may be an excuse.


No. It is.

Because the governments are the only game in town, the company either sells to them or not at all. And because the government is the only game in town, it will do things like deny treatment with a new drug it doesn't want to pay for (rationing -- something we are told would NEVER happen if the US had such a system) because it's not cost effective for the person being treated (too old, etc.) or not good enough v. an existing treatment even if it might offer far fewer side effects.

We also end up subsidizing a LOT of the global R&D efforts. There are a lot of countries where they will simply take a new medicine patent if the country thinks the medicine produced is too expensive and they will then allow any company to make a generic version, so a lot of companies do their R&D here in the US for patent protections.

If the US went to a system like many countries had, R&D would be severely curtailed in a lot of the pharma companies and new drugs and patents severely reduced.

Now, that's not to say there aren't things that couldn't be done to reduce drug costs just like there are things that could reduce health care costs in general, but a single payer board is the wrong way to go.


The board regulates the price of drugs to prevent gouging by the suppliers. There is no denial of treatment, the health plans in each province may or may not pay for some treatments because there could be little to no benefit, but that is not stopping anyone from paying for it out of their own pocket. There is also additional health insurance you can buy to cover some of the cost that the provincial plans do not.

Did you even watch the video in the link you posted? What does Norway and England have to do with Canada? If you did watch the video, your answer to why drug prices are so high is there……….the system in the US is so fragmented that there is little to no bargaining power so the big companies charge what they want. R&D has very little to do with it, it’s all about maximum profit and the US allows it. The video also states that by law Medicare can’t even negotiate the price but adds 6% on top of it.

You are losing at the blame game but please play again.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

not entirely true. In Europe there is free movements of goods. Yet prices are negotiated at the country level. So, one pharmaceutical may cost less in European country A than in country B, for various reasons. So wholesalers buy up stock in country A and move it to country B to sell it there for profit.
Companies are enforced by state laws to guarantee that they provide sufficient stock to a country to prevent out-of-stock situations and risk the life of patients. The number of packages of a pharmaceutical for country A is set the year before, based upon the number of packages sales the year before, including some variability to meet changing market demands. Yet wholesalers can do whatever they want, they are not bound by that law, leading to stock disruptions
edit on 22-12-2016 by whismermill because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9

log in

join