How
to Order Canadian Prescription Medications from U.S.A. |
News
|
Frequently Asked Questions |
Place
Your Order
Senior's
Bargain Prescriptions
We
ship anywhere in North America
Canada or the USA !
Click
HERE to Compare Prices at a number of Online Pharmacies
Canada
Pharmacy handles prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs,
nutrition & wellness products, personal care goods and even specialty
products.
Go
Directly to Most Often Prescribed Drugs
or
Go
to our Home Page for whatever you need.
or
Browse By Letter
Order Online
or
Call our Toll Free Line
1-800-891-0844 Code 273
To
ensure full savings be sure to quote
Coupon
Code 273
Newton
Pharmacy
1004 - 7445 132 St.
Surrey, BC Canada
V3W 1J8
Pharmacy Manager: Nelli Jakac License Number 03769
Certified Canadian International Pharmacy
Licensed by: The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia.
If you have any questions or concerns you can contact
the college. Pharmacist is available from 9am - 5pm PST.
News
Medicare
Plan D Drug Prices on the Rise
July 7, 2006
- Over the past five months, virtually all Medicare (Part D) plans raised
their prices for the top drugs prescribed to seniors, according to a
report issued today by the health consumer organization Families USA.
The report, based on pricing data submitted by the plans to the federal
government, contradicts the Bush Administration’s assertions that
the new Medicare drug program is effectively moderating rising drug
costs.
The Families USA
report examines Part D plan prices for the top 20 drugs prescribed for
seniors. It found that:
•100 percent
of Part D plans raised their prices for Zocor (40 mg), a cholesterol-lowering
drug.
•Almost 99 percent of Part D plans raised their prices for Fosamax
(70 mg), a drug used to treat osteoporosis.
•More than 97 percent of the plans raised their prices for Lipitor
(10 mg), a cholesterol-lowering drug.
•More than 96 percent of the plans raised their prices for Actonel
(35 mg), Toprol XL (50 mg and 100 mg), and Xalatan (0.005%), drugs
used for osteoporosis, high blood pressure, and glaucoma, respectively.
•More than 94 percent of the plans raised their prices for Celebrex
(200 mg), Nexium (40 mg), and Norvasc (5 mg), drugs used to treat
pain, gastrointestinal problems, and heart problems, respectively.
•More than 92 percent of plans raised their prices for Aricept
(10 mg), and 89 percent raised their prices for Plavix (75 mg), drugs
used for Alzheimer’s disease and stroke, respectively.
“At the same
time that the Bush Administration and congressional leaders are touting
the effectiveness of the Medicare drug plans, those plans are quietly
raising the prices that they charge,” said Ron Pollack, Executive
Director of Families USA. “As a result, seniors will pay more and
more—as will America’s taxpayers.”
According to the
report, only the prices for the generic drugs furosemide (40 mg) (a
diuretic) and metoprolol tartrate (50 mg) (a drug for high blood pressure),
and the brand-name drug Zoloft (50 mg) (an antidepressant) were not
raised by a majority of the Part D plans.
The report examined
Medicare plan price changes from mid-November 2005 (when enrollment
in the new program began) to mid-April 2006. During that time, the median
price for the top 20 drugs rose by 3.7 percent. Three of the drugs,
Celebrex (200 mg), Lipitor (10 mg), and Aricept (10 mg), rose by 6 percent
or more.
One of the most
significant findings in the report is that, for 19 of the top 20 drugs,
changes in the median Part D plan prices were virtually identical to
the changes in Average Wholesale Price (AWP) established by the drug
manufacturers. “This means,” according to Pollack, “that
Part D plans are doing essentially nothing to contain the fast-rising
prices by the drug industry.”
The Families USA
report also compared Part D plan prices with the prices negotiated by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). According to the analysis,
for every one of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest
price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price negotiated
by the VA. The median price difference as of mid-April 2006 was 46 percent.
Among the biggest
variations between prices negotiated by the VA and those established
by Medicare plans were the following drugs:
•For Zocor
(20 mg), the lowest annual VA price in mid-April was $127.44, while
the lowest Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a $1,147.92 difference,
or 901 percent.
•For Protonix (40 mg), a gastrointestinal agent, the lowest annual
VA price was $214.45, while the lowest Part D plan price was $1,110.96,
a $896.51 difference, or 418 percent.
•For Fosamax (70 mg), the lowest annual VA price was $265.32,
while the lowest Part D plan price was $727.92, a $462.60 difference,
or 174 percent.
•For Xalatan (0.005%), the lowest annual VA price was $279.84,
while the lowest Part D plan price was $555.96, a $276.12 difference,
or 99 percent.
“When Congress
prohibited Medicare from bargaining for cheaper drug prices, it created
a huge windfall for the drug companies and unaffordable prices for America’s
seniors,” said Pollack. “It is time to correct this and to
establish an effective price negotiating system like the VA has achieved.”
For a copy of the
report and to review the methodology, please the Families
USA website..
Nevada
Gives Final Approval for Canadian Drugs
May 4, 2006
- A Nevada legislative panel gave final approval today to rules that
let Nevadans buy low-priced prescription drugs from Canada. Nevada is
the ninth state to challenge a federal prohibition against such imports.
Assembly Majority
Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who pushed the plan in the 2005
Legislature, said the import option is needed because many people pay
twice as much for similar prescriptions in this country and "have
no way to afford the drugs they need to live."
"It's pretty
clear to us that our national policies are a disgrace," Buckley
said, adding, "While we wait for the federal government to do something,
we wait in vain because they are not addressing this issue at all."
Buckley was joined
by all but one other member of the lawmakers' Subcommittee to Review
Regulations in endorsing the rules that had been approved last month
by the state Board of Pharmacy. Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, dissented.
While the federal
Food and Drug Administration and Nevada's attorney general have opposed
the import program, it has been backed by most state lawmakers and by
Gov. Kenny Guinn, who expressed some misgivings but signed the new law
anyway.
Other supporters
included the Nevada State Medical Association, AARP Nevada, and teachers
and public employees unions who said the program will help consumers,
particularly seniors, get lower-cost drugs without ordering from unregulated
Web sites.
The program allows
the sale of prescriptions in pill or capsule form, made up of compounds
that have been approved both by the FDA and its Canadian equivalent,
Health Canada.
The Canadian pharmacies
must maintain a free phone line and provide e-mail access, and contact
a customer's doctor if the customer doesn't provide a prescription written
by a doctor.
Bristol-Myers
Squibb 1st Quarter Results
April 27, 2006
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY - News) today reported financial
results for the first quarter of 2006 and reaffirmed earnings guidance
for the full year.
Bristol-Myers Squibb
posted first quarter 2006 net sales from continuing operations of $4.7
billion, an increase of 3%, despite a 2% unfavorable foreign exchange
impact. The company reported first quarter 2006 net earnings from continuing
operations of $714 million, or $0.36 per diluted share, under U.S. Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), compared to $538 million, or
$0.27 per diluted share for the same period in 2005. On a non-GAAP basis
excluding specified items, first quarter 2006 net earnings from continuing
operations was $637 million, or $0.32 per diluted share, compared to
$670 million, or $0.34 per diluted share for the same period in 2005.
"This was another solid quarter for Bristol-Myers Squibb, as we
continued to grow our key products, execute our strategy and advance
our pipeline," said Peter R. Dolan, chief executive officer, Bristol-Myers
Squibb. "All of our growth drivers -- PLAVIX®, AVAPRO®/AVALIDE®,
ABILIFY®, REYATAZ® and ERBITUX® -- delivered double-digit
sales increases. During the quarter, we launched ORENCIA®, our first
internally discovered and developed biologic, and the product is tracking
above our expectations. We also demonstrated our commitment to biologics
as an essential component of our future growth through our Board of
Directors' approval of a $660 million capital expenditure for the construction
of a large-scale biologics manufacturing facility. We are ramping up
our efforts announced last December to reduce our cost base, which we
expect will deliver a minimum of $500 million in additional savings
in 2007 and an incremental $100 million in 2008, as we prepare the company
for an expected period of sustained earnings growth over several years,
beginning in 2007."
Medicare
D Fails to Deliver
February 6, 2006
- One month after launch, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program
has been plagued with numerous problems that well exceed expected "initial
glitches." The issues have been serious enough to force more than
twenty states to invoke emergency Medicaid coverage for dual-eligible
seniors. House Democrats have written an urgent letter to Congressional
leadership demanding reform and the AARP is already crying out for government-negotiated
prices to address the program's inadequacies. Why?
Too many patients are not receiving their medications or are being overcharged,
while others are still too confused to make an informed decision about
enrollment. The result is that only 3.6 million seniors have actually
enrolled voluntarily, 15 million short of the CMS projected target.
What alternatives are available for U.S. seniors? Whether in the short
term or as a permanent solution, safe and reputable Canadian pharmacies
can offer superior savings vs. most Medicare plans for a lot less hassle.
"We can be a stand-alone solution or a safety-net for when Medicare
drops coverage, either way it's a soft landing," says Ramy Attalla,
Director of Communications at ADV-Care.
A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 25% of eligible seniors
-- as many as 7.4 million people -- would find no financial benefit
whatsoever by enrolling in Medicare D. As well, an analysis by the House
Government Reform Committee concluded that a Canadian option may be
cheaper for seniors who spend less than $1,500 or between $3,000 and
$6,400 for drugs each year.
The notion of Canadian drugs being an attractive alternative was also
reflected in Gov. Tim Kaine's Democratic response to the State of the
Union speech last week..."Our seniors were promised that the new
federal Medicare drug plan would make it easier and cheaper to obtain
their medication. Instead, many are falling victim to the program's
poor planning. They find getting their medicine to be more complex,
more expensive, and less reliable...Many states, following the lead
of Illinois, have set up simple ways to help seniors purchase safe,
American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction
of the price they would pay here."
Should
Medicare Negotiate with Drug Companies
January 23, 2006
- The federal administration’s Medicare prescription drug program
could save billions of dollars and possibly eliminate beneficiaries’
co-payments if Medicare negotiated directly with the pharmaceutical
industry for drugs rather than through private insurance companies,
according to a new report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR).
The report, The
Savings from an Efficient Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, projects
Medicare would earn a surplus of $40 billion over the next seven years
if the United States paid the same prices for drugs as countries such
as Australia and Canada that negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical
industry.
Passed by Congress
in November 2003, the Medicare drug bill is a boon for pharmaceutical
companies: Congressional Republicans included a provision that prohibits
the government from using Medicare’s enormous purchasing power
to negotiate significantly lower prices for drugs, which the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs does on a regular basis.
The new Medicare
drug program “costs the government and beneficiaries considerably
more than is necessary,” says economist Dean Baker, author of the
CEPR report. “If Medicare could negotiate directly with drug companies,
it could save the federal and state governments hundred of billions
of dollars and cut insurance premiums.”
The potential from
direct negotiations with the drug companies are so large the program’s
current projected budget would be enough to fully finance the benefit
with no contribution from beneficiaries, the report says.
The new report backs
up the findings of a November 2005 congressional study that found prescription
drugs would cost 80 percent more under the Bush Medicare plan than drugs
negotiated by the federal government in other programs and more than
60 percent higher than the prices available to Canadian consumers.
The prescription
drug program, which began officially Jan. 1, 2006, has encountered widespread
difficulties, especially for the poorest and sickest seniors who were
forced to switch from state Medicaid programs to the new Medicare plans.
Nearly two-dozen states have intervened, saying they will pay for medications
for any low-income senior who is mistakenly rejected.
Medicare
Part D: Surgery Required
CINCINNATI--(BUSINESS
WIRE)--Dec. 12, 2005--Medicare Part D, the government's new prescription
drug program for seniors, seems to have stumbled coming out of the gate.
Almost a month into the program, prospective beneficiaries are frustrated
and angry over its unnecessary complexity, and doubtful of obtaining
any real benefits. Many are choosing to avoid the program altogether.
In most regions
Medicare recipients are presented with dozens of plans, each one covering
some drugs but not others, with or without discounts for generics. Some
offer supplemental insurance to cover the "Donut Hole"; some
don't. There are low-premiums or high premiums; co-pay or co-insurance;
high-deductibles or no-deductibles: A dizzying mass of confusion for
many seniors.
To compound the
problem, Medicare's own site, www.medicare.gov has been rife with errors,
to the point that any personal analysis done two weeks ago may well
no longer be valid. Medicare's online plan finder contained mistakes
about the prices of drug plans, the drugs they cover, and the pharmacies
in their networks.
This is not to say
that the plans will necessarily help: On Nov 22, Rep. Henry Waxman released
a report showing that costs for pharmaceuticals under Part D would be
roughly 3% higher than buying retail at a discount chain, or 60% higher
than buying from a Canadian pharmacy.
The plan seems to
have been designed more for the convenience of big corporations than
for American seniors. Part D forbids the government from negotiating
with drug companies to obtain lower prices, and the plan itself is being
handled as a for-profit venture by private insurance companies.
As it stands, Medicare
Part D is complicated and wasteful: It badly serves those whom it was
supposed to help. An ill-fitting band-aid at best, the plan will require
major surgery before it can become a cure.
Are
Canadian Pharmacies a Safety Net for Medicare Gaps
Vancouver, Canada
(PRWEB via PR Web Direct) September 13, 2005 -– Medicare's
new Prescription Drug coverage (Part D) begins in 2006 and American
seniors are struggling to assess and understand the complexity of the
program and what it means for them. Even professional caregivers find
themselves confused and concerned about the gaps in coverage and the
high cost of premiums and deductibles. But of particular concern is
the now infamous "donut hole" between the initial and catastrophic
coverage, where patients must pay for 100% of their prescription costs.
As well, seniors
must carefully select a plan that meets their own prescription needs.
Each plan can vary in terms of actual drug coverage and cost of premiums.
Many seniors fear large annual hikes in the premiums after enrollment
and possible reduction of other Medicare benefits. But their greatest
concern – plans that do not cover the drugs they take or arbitrary
shifts in coverage at the whim of the drug companies. Even with coverage
the overall savings may be marginal for some.
Although the new
Medicare drug coverage will benefit some patients, there will likely
be many that will slip through the cracks or receive only partial coverage.
One way to mitigate
Medicare shortfalls is to order prescriptions by mail from Canada. For
5 years, American patients have saved between 30 – 70% on drugs
dispensed by licensed Canadian pharmacies and enjoy the convenience
of having their medications shipped to their doorstep. Analysis shows
that purchasing from a Canadian pharmacy may be an ideal way to shore
up the gaps in any prescription coverage including Medicare.
The former executive
director of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, David MacKay,
will be touring U.S. communities speaking to seniors, caregivers and
advocacy groups about a range of solutions that includes undistorted
facts about Canadian pharmacy services. The tour is sponsored by a reputable
pharmacy licensed in the province of British Columbia.
MacKay emphasizes
that "we don't intend to present the Canadian option as opposition
to Medicare but rather as a compliment to it. The needs of each patient
are different but the golden rule is that when you are faced with paying
for a drug entirely out-of-pocket, Canada is an ideal solution. Therefore,
the overall wisest strategy may be to take advantage of both programs."
MacKay says he intends
to address the concerns about the new Medicare coverage by demonstrating
how savings from Canada can buffer seniors against the program's shortfalls
and coverage gaps. "I have talked to thousands of seniors and caregivers
and they are confused and dismayed. We plan to show them a balanced
menu of solutions to help them make smart choices."
A helpful tool that
automatically calculates Medicare drug expenses can be found on the
AARP website at http://sites.stockpoint.com/AARP/drugbenefit.asp
.
Are
You Really Dealing with a Canadian Pharmacy
June 15, 2005
- Cyveillance®, a provider of online risk monitoring and management
solutions, this week announced the findings of research done at the
request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA needed
to accurately assess the proliferation of online sites that appeared
to be Canadian pharmacies offering prescription drugs at a discount.
The FDA chose Cyveillance to help locate and quantify online Canadian
pharmacy sales and to identify how many of the thousands of sites were
potentially fraudulent.
Starting from the
entire Internet universe encompassing millions of web sites, Cyveillance
analysis discovered approximately 11,000 sites that were designed to
appear as Canadian pharmacy sites. Of these sites, only 1,009 sites
actually sold prescription products. After further detailed analysis,
only 214 of those 1,009 had any registration data indicating a registrant
or owner address located in Canada, or exhibited any data suggesting
they were hosted by a Canadian Internet Service Provider (ISP). Certain
patterns emerged as well from analysis of the fraudulent sites, for
example the fact that over half of the sites registered in the United
States and dispensing drugs were registered to a single firm. These
facts and other actionable data were forwarded to the FDA to support
congressional testimony on this controversial issue.
Americans looking
to purchase medications from a legitimate Canadian pharmacy should do
a little homework before they make a purchase. Is the pharmacy a member
of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association? Are they licensed
by the College of Pharmacies in their Canadian province? Do they provide
an address and phone number at which they can be contacted? These are
the questions that potential consumers should investigate before they
decide from which internet site they will make their purchase.
Canada
Pharmacy is No. 1 Internet Pharmacy
May 5, 2005
- A recent report of the top prescription websites revealed Canada Pharmacy
as the top pharmacy website on the internet. The review included all
American and Canadian Pharmacy websites.
According to a survey
conducted by comScore, Canada
Pharmacy ranks as the most popular site to purchase prescription
medications. Canada Pharmacy outranked the largest American online drugstores
of Drugstore.com, Walgreens and Wal-Mart.
“We are proud
to receive this recognition as the industry leaders. More than 500,000
Americans choose Canada Pharmacy as their source to purchase discount
prescription medication from Canada, so this is no surprise,” said
Mark Catroppa, one of the founders of Canada Pharmacy. “Our success
is attributed to our low prescription prices, excellent customer service
and our convenient online and phone ordering process.
Catroppa stated;
“As the leading Canadian mail order pharmacy, we set the standard
under which our industry follows. We were very pleased with the results
of this survey.”
Will
Canadian Internet Pharmacies Be Outsourcing
February 12,
2005 - There is a very good chance that Canadian internet pharmacies
supplying reasonably priced medications to American customers may soon
have to begin outsourcing for pharmaceutical supplies.
In November last
year, President Bush made a visit to Canada and there was a great deal
of speculation that one of the topics of discussion would be about Canada
allowing internet pharmacies to supply medications to Americans. While
no one knows what went on at these meetings, about one week later, Canada's
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh announced the government's intentions
to crack down on Canadian doctors countersigning or re-writing prescriptions
of American doctors thus allowing Canadian pharmacies to fill the prescriptions.
About two weeks later it was announced that Bush had decided that it
was about time to start allowing American imports of Canadian beef.
Since that time, a Canadian doctor was suspended for two years for re-writing
prescriptions from American doctors without actually having seen the
patients in question.
It may not be too
long before Canadian internet pharmacies will be forced to begin outsourcing
from other first-world nations like Great Britain, New Zealand and Israel
in order to continue supplying their long term customers with reliable
medications. Canadian internet pharmacies have a reputation of supplying
only approved medications produced in officially licensed facilities
but there are a number of other nations that follow the same strict
standards practiced in Canada and the U.S.
So, unless the FDA
changes its policy of allowing Americans to import a three month supply
of their own medications, it appears that there will continue to be
a supply of reasonably priced medications available from a number of
reliable sources for some time to come.
Canadian
Government Rejects Restricting Drug Exports
December 3, 2004
- Following public criticism of a Liberal MP's bill that would have
required the Minister of Health to apply U.S. law to Canadians, the
Liberal government has announced in the House of Commons that it does
not support the bill. Bill C-282 was introduced in November by Liberal
MP Wajid Khan (Mississauga-Streetsville). It would have amended the
federal Food and Drug Act by requiring export permits for pharmaceuticals.
It included an obligation by the Minister of Health to determine whether
the export would violate laws in the United States or other recipient
countries.
Current U.S. law does not prohibit the importation of medications from
Canada, but concern arose from the possibility that the U.S. may move
to tighten restrictions on pharmaceuticals from Canada.
The international pharmacy industry employs thousands of Canadians directly
and indirectly. Bill C-282 was criticized as a threat to Canadian industry
and sovereignty and a sell-out to U.S. drug manufacturers opposed to
imports from Canada.
Robert Thibault, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Health,
announced in the House of Commons on December 1, "(I)t is important
to highlight that the bill does not have the support of the Minister
of Health, the Minister of State for Public Health nor the Minister
of International Trade." Thibault also criticized the bill because
it "puts on Canada the burden of enforcing the laws of the U.S.
and other countries respecting the importation of prescription drugs."
Conservative MP Steven Fletcher (Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia) noted
the Liberals' recent flip-flops on international pharmacy, and cited
"the economic benefit of a new industry and the more than 4,000
jobs it carries with it." He added, "On October 31, the Minister
of Health told CBC Television, 'I see no evidence of shortages across
the country; at least no evidence has been produced to me'. A few days
later, the Prime Minister said that his government would not be taking
any action to shut down the Internet pharmacy industry. If that is the
case and the health minister has seen no evidence of shortages, this
bill is contrary to what the government has said publicly."
The Canadian international pharmacy industry employs an estimated 4000
Canadians directly and a much larger number of Canadians indirectly
in supporting industries such as Canadian generic drug makers, pharmaceutical
wholesalers, website development companies and computer programming
firms.
American
Seniors Urge Canada to Ignore Bush on Pharma Exports
November 30,
2004 -
In anticipation of President George Bush's visit to Canada, a public
interest group offered their gratitude to Canadians for assisting the
elderly and poor in America with obtaining affordable prescription drugs
along with words of caution regarding their own President's agenda.
"I know that
those Americans who cannot afford the exorbitant prices of prescription
drugs in the United States, would want to thank the Canadian pharmacies
that mail us affordable drugs and the Canadian people for supporting
them," said Michael Burgess, Executive Director of the New York
State Alliance for Retired Americans, an organization based in Albany
New York that has been referring older New Yorkers to Canadian pharmacies.
"Clearly, our own government is under the control of the multinational
drug companies and is allowing them to gouge the elderly and the poor.
Thankfully, Canadians have been the first people to help us. We are
proud to have Canada as our neighbor," he added.
Canadian drug prices
are controlled by the government, unlike those in the U.S., where drug
companies can make larger profits by charging prices that many patients,
especially the elderly, cannot afford.
Mr. Burgess advised, "I fear that President George Bush is bringing
the agenda of the multinational pharmaceutical giants with him to Canada
and he may try to push their desire to shut down the Canadian pharmacies
that help the uninsured in America. We hope that he won't try to do
that because in the presidential campaign, he told older Americans that
if he was convinced of the safety of re-importation, he would support
it."
Both Canadians and
Americans should be concerned because, "If George Bush makes your
Prime Minister shut down the Canadian pharmacies, lots of Canadians
will be out of work and thousands of Americans won't have access to
their medications - lots of needy people will suffer but Big Pharma
won't. If these pharmacies were to be shut down though, the calls for
Canadian pricing levels in the United States by consumer groups will
dramatically increase," he added.
Indeed, in the face of saber rattling from the multinational drug companies,
Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh appears to bowing. During a recent
speech at Harvard University he postulated, "If the consequence
is that cross-border internet pharmacies don't exist anymore, then that's
the consequence." Five days later, a bill (Bill C-282), introduced
by Liberal Member of Parliament Wajid Khan (Mississauga-Streetsville)
and apparently intended to restrict severely or eliminate the cross-border
pharmaceutical trade, received its first reading in the House of Commons.
The Canadian international
pharmacy industry employs an estimated 4000 Canadians directly and a
much larger number of Canadians indirectly in supporting industries
such as Canadian generic drug makers, pharmaceutical wholesalers, website
development companies and computer programming firms. These jobs are
threatened by Bill C-282. Canada Post will also lose very significant
revenues given that the national postal agency currently delivers more
than two and a half million pharmaceutical packages a year to the United
States.
Will
Canada Shut Down Drug Exports to the U.S.
November 17,
2004 - Last week, Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh called
practices of the internet pharmacy exporters "unethical" and
"unprofessional". The minister indicated that the government
is discussing measures to end the cross-border drug trade, including
changes to the Food and Drug Act that would prohibit Canadian doctors
from writing prescriptions for anyone but Canadians and visitors to
Canada. This would effectively end the practice of "co-signing",
whereby internet pharmacies pay doctors up to $10 to sign off on each
American prescription so that it can be dispensed by a cross-border
trader. Without the ability to pay Canadian doctors to "co-sign"
prescriptions, internet pharmacies would no longer be able to ship drugs
to the U.S.
The Minister was
responding to concerns expressed by a number of Canadian lobby groups
opposed to the exportation of Canadian pharmaceuticals to the U.S. On
October 18, 2004, groups including CARP - Canada's Association for the
Fifty-Plus, the Best Medicines Coalition (BMC), the Canadian Treatment
Action Council (CTAC), Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA), the
Coalition for Manitoba Pharmacy and the Manitoba Society of Seniors
came together to jointly call for immediate action to stop the exportation
of drugs from Canada to the U.S.
Pharmaceutical
Executive Supports Canadian Drug Imports
September 24,
2004 - An executive from Pfizer, the world's largest drugmaker,
citicized the pharmaceutical drug industry yesterday for resisting legislation
that would allow imports of lower costing prescription drugs from Canada
and other countries.
The executive, Peter
Rost, speaking at a news conference yesterday on Capitol Hill said:
"Holding up a vote on importation, stopping good importation bills
has a high, high cost not just in money, but in American lives. Every
day we delay, Americans die because they cannot afford life-saving drugs."
Rost, who is a vice president of Pfizer involved in the marketing of
growth-hormone products, said the federal government could still regulate
imports to guarantee their safety if they were concerned. Rost said
that European countries have been exporting and importing drugs between
themselves for over 20 years and safety has not been a problem..
Rost said that his views on drug importation were personal and did not
represent the views of his company.
Fear
the Latest Tactic Against Drug Importations
September 1,
2004 -
The latest tactic in the war against U.S. seniors having access to less
expensive foreigh prescription medications may just work. That tactic
is fear. Last month, Lester Crawford, the FDA's acting commissioner,
said tampering with prescription drugs imported from Canada could be
a way for terrorists to launch an attack on Americans.
He said possible
action by terrorists is the most serious of his concerns about the increasing
efforts of states and cities to import drugs from Canada to save money.
Crawford added that terrorists could try an attack similar to the 1982
Tylenol tampering case, in which seven people died after ingesting cyanide
that had been placed in painkiller containers at Chicago stores.
The American Progress
Action Fund suggested that Crawford's warning was a way for President
Bush's administration to use "the fear of terrorism" to justify
opposition to the state of Vermont's recent plan to import Canadian
medications and to beat back presidential challenger John Kerry's call
on Bush to approve drug imports for senior citizens. The center called
the warning a "cynical, baseless and transparent" tactic.
Just this week,
the British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline began running newspaper
ads that question the quality and safety of medications obtained from
Canadian websites. Last month the California legislature approved a
bill that calls for creating a state-sponsored website to help consumers
find and buy prescription drugs from Canada. While the bill is likely
to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, many states already provide
such information online.
The pharmaceutical
giants were out in force at the Republican National Convention this
week shoring up their position with regard to the importation of less
expensive foreign drugs for American patients.
Among the functions
they sponsored were two breakfasts, sponsored by Pfizer, for Oregon
delegates, a state that has recently sought permission from the federal
government to import cheaper medications from Canada. Other events included
an afternoon tea, a nomination-night party for the top brass of President
Bush's campaign team co-sponsored by AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb
and a breast-cancer awareness luncheon funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
Vermont
Files Suit Against FDA Over Drug Reimportation
August 19, 2004
- The State of Vermont this afternoon formally filed suit against the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in U.S. District Court in Burlington,
Vermont, becoming the first state in the nation to challenge the FDA’s
legal arguments for blocking reimportation proposals.
“Vermont will
not sit back and watch as the cost of health insurance and prescription
drugs continues to rise. Nor are we content to simply ignore the law,”
Governor Douglas said. “Real leadership means challenging those
laws and policies you oppose, and working within our systems to change
them. It is our hope and expectation that Vermont’s leadership
will result in a legal precedent that benefits every Vermonter, and
every American.”
Governor Douglas
acknowledged that the cost of prescription drugs is but one piece of
the problem, and reimportation one part of the solution. As he has done
many times before, Douglas said he would continue to urge Congress to
take immediate action to increase competition among manufacturers, speed
the approval of generic drugs, preserve states’ ability to pool
their purchases, protect state pharmaceutical programs that may be impacted
by the new Medicare law, and review recent increases in the cost of
pharmaceuticals.
“Reforming
the American pharmaceutical marketplace must be our top priority,”
he said. “The ultimate goal is to get the best possible market
prices at our pharmacies here at home.”
The complaint argues
that the FDA decision was “arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise
unreasonable” and in direct violation of the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. The MMA requires
the federal government to create rules permitting reimportation of prescription
drugs by wholesalers, pharmacists, and state benefit programs, and to
issue guidance describing the circumstances under which the FDA will
grant waivers allowing reimportation for personal use—neither of
which the FDA has done.
According to the
complaint, Vermont is seeking a court order that will “require
prompt adoption of regulations and waiver guidance and appropriate consideration
of Vermont’s proposed program.”
Vermont had sought
a waiver from the FDA authorizing a pilot drug reimportation plan. The
goal of the pilot project was to demonstrate how a plan could be safely
implemented, and ultimately serve as a model for other states to implement
similar programs.
Douglas and Attorney
General William Sorrell agreed the suit was necessary, saying the federal
government’s grounds for denying the waiver request are not legitimate.
“Vermont presented
a legal and responsible plan to import prescription drugs,” Governor
Douglas said at the time of the FDA rejection. “The claims on which
they’ve based (the) denial are, in our view, unsubstantiated and
we have no choice but to pursue…all legal remedies available.”
After the complaint
has been filed with the court and served on the federal government,
the federal government has 60 days to respond.
A copy of the complaint
is available at: http://www.vermont.gov/governor/priorities/priorities.html
California
Sen. Deborah Ortiz Calls for Canadian Drug Imports
August 19, 2004
- Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) and other advocates called for Gov.
Schwarzenegger’s support of SB 1149 after a two-day trip to research
the safety of importing prescription drugs to Canada. Dr. Paul Zickler,
co-founder of DoctorSolve Canadian pharmacy joined the group as they
toured several pharmacies in Manitoba and British Columbia, Canada.
According to Zickler,
Canadian pharmacies understand that safety is a concern, and as a result,
are proactive and up-front about their security practices.
“Our goal is
to educate the public that the efficiency, professionalism and safety
of Canadian pharmacies equals, and often exceeds, that of their U.S.
counterparts. They offer a safe, affordable alternative to Californians
and other consumers that cannot afford full price prescription medications,”
says Zickler.
A statement issued
by Sen. Ortiz’s office August 4 summarized the group’s findings:
“We found these drugs are safe, available and ready for importation.
Now we need Governor Schwarzenegger to back our legislative efforts
to provide every Californian who depends on prescription drugs with
a legal, affordable and continuous supply.”
Gary Passmore, spokesman
for the Congress of California Seniors, adds, “The Canadian pharmacies
we visited were reputable. They are closely regulated. They provide
the exact same products, from the same sources, in the same kind of
sealed packaging as in the U.S. They are shipped to consumers using
reliable shippers. And they are safe.”
The safety measures
Passmore mentioned include:
•Only manufacturers’ sealed bottles on pharmacy shelves;
•Health Canada drug tracking numbers on all packages, to certify
authenticity;
•Licensed
pharmacists reviewing patient medical data to refer to Canadian
licensed doctors for a second opinion.
The group asked
for Gov. Schwarzenegger’s support of SB 1149, a bill that would
require California’s Board of Pharmacy to guide consumers to Canadian
pharmacies with recognized safe handling and distribution standards,
as well as identify foreign pharmacies and suppliers that consumers
should avoid.
Kerry
to Fully Legalize Canadian Drug Imports if Elected
July
27, 2004
- Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has promised to legalize
the growing trend by Americans to purchase prescription drugs from Canada
as part of a platform that proclaims health care is a "right and
not a privilege."
Kerry's
platform vows to expand medical coverage to help address the needs of
more than 40 million Americans who have no health insurance, including
coverage for all the 8.5 million children who have none. For many seniors
in America, the price of prescription drugs is a key issue in the 2004
election. And the Kerry campaign pledges to lower costs and open markets
to cheaper foreign supplies.
"We
will end the disgrace of seniors being forced to choose between meals
and medication," says the platform, which delegates will endorse
today. "Our seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs,
while options abroad are far cheaper and just as safe. We will allow
the safe reimportation of drugs from other countries."
Presently,
while importing drugs from foreign countries is technically illegal,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been allowing Americans to
import up to a three month supply of their own medications either when
they make a visit to Canada or order their medications over the internet.
Faced
with rising prescription costs, a growing number of Americans, including
state and city politicians who have employee-benefits programs, import
drugs from Canada, often drugs that were shipped from the United States
in the first place.
House
of Reps Vote for Canadian Drug Imports
July
14, 2004
- The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday voted to allow U.S. citizens
to buy prescription drugs from Canada. The importation provision was
part of a bill that passed on a 389-31 vote for $83.1 billion in spending
in the next fiscal year for funding of the Agriculture Department and
the Food and Drug Administration.
The
bill stops the FDA from enforcing its ban on importations of prescription
drugs from countries with lower prices.
Nearly
1,000 Lobbyists Employed to Push Medicare Bill
June
23, 2004
- In the final push for Medicare prescription drug legislation, the
pharmaceutical industry, HMOs and related interests spent more money
and hired more lobbyists in 2003 than ever before, according to a report
issued today by Public Citizen.
The
pharmaceutical and managed care industries spent a combined $141 million
last year, according to Public Citizen’s analysis of newly released
federal lobbying disclosure records. Drugmakers and HMOs hired 952 individual
lobbyists in 2003 – nearly half of whom had “revolving door” connections
to Congress, the White House or the executive branch. That’s nearly
10 lobbyists for every U.S. senator.
“The
Medicare Modernization Act, a top priority of President Bush, promises
to safeguard industry profits at the expense of America’s taxpayers,”
said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “Considering
the legion of lobbyists unleashed by pharmaceutical companies, HMOs
and allied industry front groups, no wonder taxpayers ended up with
a bill tailor-made to serve these special interests instead of senior
citizens.”
Since
1997, Public Citizen has conducted an annual study of Washington lobbying
by the pharmaceutical industry. Today’s report, The
Medicare Drug War, exposes the extent of the drug industry’s latest
lobbying barrage. Among its findings:
- In 2003, the
drug industry spent a record $108.6 million on federal lobbying activities
and hired 824 individual lobbyists – both all-time highs. In 2002,
based on a more narrowly defined survey, the drug industry spent $91.4
million and hired 675 lobbyists.
- This army of
lobbyists helped ensure that the new drug benefit will be administered
by private companies. The new law expressly prohibits the government
from using its bargaining clout to negotiate lower prices and effectively
bans the “reimportation” of cheaper drugs from Canada.
- The Pharmaceutical
Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents more
than 40 brand-name drug companies, shelled out more than $16 million
last year on lobbying, a 12.5 percent increase from the year before.
PhRMA alone hired 136 lobbyists.
- HMOs and other
managed-care health plans mounted an extensive lobbying effort. Managed
care companies that lobbied on the Medicare bill spent $32.3 million
on federal lobbying in 2003. HMOs and health plans hired 222 lobbyists
to work on the Medicare bill.
- Managed care
lobbyists helped ensure their clients got a windfall in the bill –
$531.5 billion over 10 years based on data from the Medicare actuary
– as enrollment in managed care plans is expected to climb from 12
percent to 32 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.
- The Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association spent more on lobbying than any other health
plan in 2003, shelling out $8.1 million. The two major industry trade
associations – the American Association of Health Plans (AAHP) and
the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), which merged in
October 2003 – spent a combined $8.3 million.
Both the pharmaceutical
and managed care industries relied heavily on lobbyists with “revolving
door” connections. In all, 431 lobbyists employed by the drug industry
or HMOs – or 45 percent of all their lobbyists – previously worked for
the federal government. Among them were 30 ex-U.S. senators and representatives
– 18 Republicans and 12 Democrats.
“The revolving door
between the White House and K Street has made the Bush administration
indistinguishable from the industry,” said Craig Aaron, senior researcher
for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch and lead author of the report. “If
it wasn’t bad enough that most of the key negotiators working on the
Medicare bill were preparing to cash in on K Street as soon as it passed,
Bush has brought in more drug industry and HMO insiders to implement
and promote this disastrous new law.”
Florida
Gets Tough with Storefront Operators
June
19, 2004
- The Florida Department of Health has issued a cease-and-desist order
against "storefront" operations in the state offering to facilitate
the purchase of cheaper medications from Canada. The storefront operators
have been providing their customers with price quotes as well as helping
to fill out the paperwork needed to send prescriptions to licensed pharmacists
in Canada.
"Individuals
who fraudulently practice any type of health care without a valid Florida
license commit a crime that puts the health of our citizens and visitors
at risk," John Agwunobi, DOH secretary, said in a news release distributed
Friday. "Advertising as a licensed health care provider without a valid
license is an offense. DOH will continue to expose businesses that fraudulently
represent themselves in Florida," the release said.
The
order says the 12 companies are not licensed by the DOH or an appropriate
regulatory board. Documents contend the companies violated federal laws
by advertising in a way that would lead customers to think the services
are approved by the State of Florida and Board of Pharmacy.
Although
people have been able to order
Canadian medications over the internet for years, many people, especially
seniors, are not computer or internet "savy" or they have
no access to the internet. For such people, these storefront operations
have given them the ability to enjoy similar savings. As a result of
this action taken by the DOH these people will have little choice but
to get computers with internet access if only for the purpose of making
their medication orders from Canada.
Canadian
Internet Pharmacies as Safe as U.S.
June
19, 2004 - As the demand for and the cost of prescription drugs
rise, many consumers have turned to the Internet to purchase them. However,
the global nature of the Internet can hinder state and federal efforts
to identify and regulate Internet pharmacies to help assure the safety
and efficacy of products sold. Recent reports of unapproved and counterfeit
drugs sold over the Internet have raised further concerns.
The
U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on
Governmental Affairs therefore had asked the Government Accounting Office
(GAO) to prepare a report that was filed today entitled Internet
Pharmacies: Some Pose Safety Risks for Consumers that examined (1)
the extent to which certain drugs can be purchased over the Internet
without a prescription; (2) whether the drugs are handled properly,
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and authentic; and
(3) the extent to which Internet pharmacies are reliable in their business
practices.
GAO
attempted to purchase up to 10 samples of 13 different drugs, each from
a different pharmacy Web site, including sites in the United States,
Canada, and other foreign countries. GAO assessed the condition of the
samples it received and forwarded the samples to their manufacturers
to determine whether they were approved by FDA, safe, and authentic.
GAO also confirmed the locations of several Internet pharmacies and
undertook measures to examine the reliability of their business practices.
GAO
obtained most of the prescription drugs it sought from a variety of
Internet pharmacy Web sites without providing a prescription. GAO obtained
68 samples of 11 different drugs—each from a different pharmacy Web
site in the United States, Canada, or other foreign countries, including
Argentina, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Spain,
Thailand, and Turkey. Five U.S. and all 18 Canadian pharmacy sites from
which GAO received samples required a patient-provided prescription,
whereas the remaining 24 U.S. and all 21 foreign pharmacy sites outside
of Canada provided a prescription based on their own medical questionnaire
or had no prescription requirement. Among the drugs GAO obtained without
a prescription were those with special safety restrictions and highly
addictive narcotic painkillers.
GAO
identified several problems associated with the handling, FDA-approval
status, and authenticity of the 21 samples received from Internet pharmacies
located in foreign countries outside of Canada. Fewer problems were
identified among pharmacies in Canada and the United States. None of
the foreign pharmacies outside of Canada included dispensing pharmacy
labels that provide instructions for use, few included warning information,
and 13 displayed other problems associated with the handling of the
drugs. For example, 3 samples of a drug that should be shipped in a
temperaturecontrolled environment arrived in envelopes without insulation.
Manufacturer
testing revealed that most of these drug samples were unapproved for
the U.S. market because, for example, the labeling or the facilities
in which they were manufactured had not been approved by FDA; however,
manufacturers found the chemical composition of all but 4 was comparable
to the product GAO ordered. Four samples were determined to be counterfeit
products or otherwise not comparable to the product GAO ordered. Similar
to the samples received from other foreign pharmacies, manufacturers
found most of those from Canada to be unapproved for the U.S. market;
however, manufacturers determined that the chemical composition of all
drug samples obtained from Canada were comparable to the product GAO
ordered.
Some
Internet pharmacies were not reliable in their business practices. Most
instances identified involved pharmacies outside of the United States
and Canada. GAO did not receive six orders for which it had paid. In
addition, GAO found questionable entities located at the return addresses
on the packaging of several samples, such as private residences. Finally,
14 of the 68 pharmacy Web sites from which GAO obtained samples were
found to be under investigation by regulatory agencies for reasons including
selling counterfeit drugs and providing prescription drugs where no
valid doctorpatient relationship exists. Nine of these were U.S. sites,
1 a Canadian site, and 4 were other foreign Internet pharmacy sites.
For
a full copy of the report including the scope and methodology click
here.
U.S.
Group Encourages Reporting 'Artificial Shortages' Created by U.S. Drug
Companies
April
12, 2004 - Canadian health care consumers are being encouraged by
a nonprofit organization in the United States to help document cases
where they are unable to get prescription medications due to supply
cutbacks by drug companies seeking to discourage U.S. citizens from
buying lower-priced Canadian drugs. The request was made today by Results
for America , which on November 25, 2003 launched a powerful, consumer-friendly
"Canadian Drug Savings Calculator" that consumers have used so far to
calculate more than $32 million in possible savings on prescription
medications.
Civil
Society Institute President Pam Solo said: "It is appalling for us to
contemplate a scenario under which U.S. drug companies create artificial
shortages of lifesaving medicines in another country in the hopes of
drying up the supply of lower-priced medications for American citizens.
This approach hurts Canadian consumers. It hurts U.S. consumers. We
want to make sure that drug companies are held accountable for any potentially
life-endangering situations they may be creating."
Canadian
consumers who find that they cannot fill their prescriptions due to
sudden shortages of key medications are encouraged to go to http://www.resultsforamerica.org/health/medmail.php
and use the form on that Web page. Results For America will collect
instances of any reported shortages and report it to Canadian authorities
and the news media.
Results
for America advised that Canadian consumers of the most popular medications
in the U.S. -- Accupril, Actosm, Advair Disku, Allegra-D, Alphagan-P,
Aricept, Arimidex, Avalide, Avandia,Avapro, Casodex, Celexa, Clarinex,
Coumadin, Cozaar, Depakote, Detrol LA, Diovan, Exelon, Flonase, Flovent,
Fosamax, Glucophage XR, Hyzaar, Lamictal, Lipitor, Mirapex, Mobic, Nasonex,
Neurontin, Paxil, Pravachol, Premarin, Prempro, Prevacid, Prograf, Proscar,
Risperdal, Serevent, Singulair, Synthroid, Topamax, Vioxx, Xalatan,
Zocor and Zyrtec -- should be particularly alert to the potential for
manufacturer-created shortages.
Results
for America, a project of the nonprofit Civil Society Institute, is
not involved in any way in the health care industry or the recent lobbying
on Medicare reform.
Pawlenty
Fights Back on Pfizer Supply Limitations
February
26, 2004
- In a reaction to Pfizer Inc.'s move to cut off or limit supplies of
it's medications to Canadian pharmacies selling to Americans, Minnesota
Gov. Tim Pawlenty intends to ask the state's pension fund to draft a
shareholder resolution opposing such moves.
The
governor's idea is a novel idea in the battle that consumer groups and
government officials have been waging to prevent pharmaceutical companies
from reducing or cutting off supplies to Canada. Late last year, Minnesota
Attorney General Mike Hatch launched an investigation into whether GlaxoSmithKline
and other drug companies are committing a conspiracy as they limit drug
sales to Canadian pharmacies.
Senate
Discusses Making Internet Drug Purchases Illegal
February
13, 2004
- A bill that passed in the Health and Finance Committee that would
make it illegal to buy prescription drugs over the internet is now being
discussed in the Senate. The bill calls for criminal penalties for those
who buy their prescription medications from any source other than a
U.S. registered or licensed pharmacist.
This
bill is exactly what hundreds of thousands of seniors and lower income
citizens without drug coverage have feared might become law. These people
have been taking advantage of the often enormous savings that can be
realized by purchasing their medications from foreign sources, especially
Canada. Many of these people simply cannot afford the higher prices
charged at local pharmacies and, if this bill becomes law, will be forced
to make some tough decisions on which expenses to reduce or cut out
completely.
Personal
medication purchases from foreign countries have traditionally represented
less than 1% of total pharmaceutical sales within the country, a percentage
that the American pharmaceutical industry seemed to be prepared to tolerate.
But, with large cities and entire states now investigating the possibility
of purchasing their medications from Canada, tensions are increasing
on both sides of the border because of the potential increase in volume.
Seniors
and low income citizens can only hope that, in their efforts to stem
the massive importation of medications from Canada, lawmakers will not
cut off the long-standing practice of allowing imported medication purchases
for personal consumption. With 2004 being an election year, seniors
can demand to know where candidates stand on personal consumption prescription
imports from Canada and make their case for continuing to allow this
life saving avenue to remain open.
FDA's
Anti-Import Campaign Moves to California
February
12, 2004
- Federal authorities, who just finished a similar campaign in Illinois,
will begin a consumer information campaign in California next week to
discourage the state and local governments from trying to buy prescription
drugs from Canada.
California
state and local governments have been looking into the possibility of
accessing cheaper medications from Canada but the FDA is telling them
that it is illegal for states and cities to bring in drugs from foreign
countries, even Canada.
Next
week, the FDA along with local pharmacy organizations will be distributing
fliers to be handed out at local pharmacies warning people of the dangers
of buying medications from foreign sources. The fliers tell consumers
that foreign drugs might not be manufactured according to FDA safety
standards, that drug ingredients approved in foreign countries might
not yet be evaluated by the FDA, the drugs could be counterfeit and
patients taking foreign drugs might not be properly supervised by a
doctor.
But
proponents of plans to import drugs from Canada say that the FDA's safety
argument doesn't hold water. They say that the drugs Canadians use are
the same drugs sold here and are often produced by the same manufacturers.
Already,
there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who purchase their medications
from Canada either over the internet or by travelling to the country.
But the practice of massive drug imports by states and large cities
could develop into a supply problem (see article below). Canada's population
is 1/10th the size of the U.S. and drug manufacturers have said they'll
supply the country only enough medication to meet the needs of their
country.
Canadian
Pharmacy Group Warns Against Massive U.S. Importation
February
6, 2004 - Proposals supporting drug reimportation from Canada, advanced
by several of the candidates for the U.S. Democratic Presidential nomination,
are ill-considered and dangerous, according to the Coalition for Manitoba
Pharmacy. "Saying you support massive reimportation of prescription
medicines is irresponsible and lazy policy," said Lothar Dueck, president
of the Coalition. "These statements by the candidates pander to people
eager for relief, by making false promises."
The
coalition says that some of the wide-scale re-importation proposals
being put forward would put the Canadian healthcare system at risk.
The Canadian system is not set up to supply medicines to the entire
U.S. population which has ten times the population of Canada and drug
manufacturers only ship to Canada sufficient supply to meet the needs
of Canada's population.
Prescription
purchases from foreign sources, including Canada, have traditionally
represented less than 1% of total drugs sales in the U.S however if
massive scale re-importation became the norm there is no telling how
high that percentage could become. The present practice allows individuals
to puchase their own pharmaceuticals either by visiting the foreign
country or by making their purchases on the internet. While this practice
has proven to be sustainable such would likely not be the case if institutional
massive-scale ordering were to become the norm.
Michele
Fontaine, vice president of the Coalition. said, "These simplistic proposals
make no sense. If politicians sincerely want to help patients get access
to medicines, why don't they sit down with the experts and do the hard
work of figuring out a policy that has a chance of working safely?
Health-Care
Discount Plan Now Available
January
9, 2004 - Finally, there is a health-care discount plan that is
available to those who, for one reason or another, are not enrolled
in any health insurance plan or cannot afford to pay the high premiums
of an insurance plan. There is now a "plan B" available to
these people that is designed to offer substantial savings from a whole
variety of health service providers.
The
organization offering this service, called Plan
B for Health, has made arrangements with over 600,000 health care
providers throughout the U.S. that offers their members often huge savings
from what they would otherwise be faced with paying. Savings can be
as much as 30% with doctors and hospitals and 50% on dental and vision
health care costs. They even have arrangements with alternative health
care providers like chiropractors, acupuncture practitioners, massage
therapists, homeopaths and so on where the savings can amount to up
to 30%.
PlanB
for Health is an especially good deal for seniors with no insurance
coverage. Over 200 models of hearing aids are available to members and
include many styles. Their hearing care plan makes hearing services
affordable with discounts up to 50% on services and products at over
1,600 locations throughout the U.S from one of the largest providers
of hearing healthcare services in the country.
In
addition the organization has discount arrangements with home care,
assisted living, nursing homes, skilled care, intermediate care, and
custodial. They have designed a plan to assist seniors to find the resources,
answers and support necessary to meet and plan for the challenges of
aging. If someone's current health provider is not already a participant
in the Plan B for Health system they will contact the provider to encourage
them to join.
Plan
B for Health has a discount plan involving American pharmacies but they
don't presently have any arrangements with Canadian pharmacies so people
will still have to continue purchasing their Canadian prescriptions
through their usual source. Canadian pharmacies, however, are not allowed
to sell prescriptions to Americans that fall under the "narcotic"
category so the Plan B for Health discount pharmacy plan can still come
in useful for such purchases.
In
our opinion, it is still better to have full health insurance coverage
but, for many, coverage is simply not a viable option either because
of the large premiums or for those who are ineligible for regular health
insurance coverage. Under the Plan B for Health system, at least everyone
is eligible to join and while the system won't pay for a patient's health
care costs it will certainly offer members substantially savings on
what they would otherwise have to pay.
Editorial
- December 31, 2003 - It has been a very volatile year in the arena
of drug importations from Canada. During the year, hundreds of "storefront"
operations offering to facilitate Canadian prescription orders opened
up and many have already been closed down by state pharmacy boards.
Some states and cities have either been investigating or have already
begun ordering their medications from Canadian sources but the Federal
Drug Administration continues to advise them that these actions are
illegal.
It
has become fairly evident that the FDA is content to continue allowing
personal prescription purchases made either by actually visiting Canada
or by making personal orders over the internet. It has become equally
clear that they don't want to see this practice become institutionalized
either by way of storefront operations operating within the country
or through massive ordering schemes organized by city or state governments.
Prescription
purchases from foreign sources, including Canada, traditionally represent
less than 1% of total drugs sales in the U.S., an amount that the pharmaceutical
manufacturers may be prepared to accept. They are obviously not prepared
to accept institutionalized prescription drug importation and many have
begun limiting sales of their products to Canadian pharmacies participating
in such processes.
2003
has seen an unofficial negotiation process with one side demanding unfettered
access to less expensive medications from foreign sources and the other
side demanding that all drug importations cease completely. Maybe 2004
is the year that a satisfactory compromise will be reached.
Details
of New Medicare Bill
November
25, 2003 - The Medicare Bill that has just passed the Senate and
is expected to become law after receiving the signature of President
Bush will enable seniors to purchase insurance coverage for prescription
drugs. However, many seniors aren't sure whether the bill will save
them money or cost them more.
Following
are the bare details of the bill and each family will have to "do
the math" to figure if the new plan will offer any savings in their
particular case.
- Starts in
2006, when Medicare beneficiaries can sign up for a stand-alone
government prescription drug plan or join a private health plan that
offers prescription drug coverage.
- Will be free
for the poorest seniors, but most will be charged an estimated
premium of $35 a month.
- Will require
most participants to pay the first $250 of drug costs annually.
After meeting that deductible, insurance will pay 75 percent of
drug costs up to $2,250.
- Will require
most participants to pay all drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100.
- Insurance
will pay 95 percent of all drug costs over $5,100 for most participants.
The Kaiser Family
Foundation provides a Medicare
Drug Benefit Calculator to help you determine your own costs under
the new bill.
Drug
Importation Bill is Good News for Home Computer Sellers
November
21, 2003
- The Medicare reform bill headed for final House and Senate consideration
before Thanksgiving includes a provision that would allow imports from
Canada only if the Health and Human Services Secretary certifies they
pose "no additional risk" to public health. Similar bills have twice
failed to become law over the years as the HHS has always failed to
make such a certification.
The
purpose of the bill was to allow large scale importation of drugs by
American drug wholesalers and pharmacy chains that would have resulted
in citizens being able to purchase lower priced medications at their
local drug store. With certification required from HHS this isn't going
to happen.
Many
seniors have been gaining access to lower priced Canadian medications
from "storefront" operations throughout the country that facilitate
the ordering process using the stores' computers and fax machines. However,
the FDA recently won a ruling from US District Judge Claire Eagan that
forced one of the major storefront operations to close its doors. Oklahoma-based
Rx Depot and Nevada-based Rx of Canada, the targets of the lawsuit,
together had 88 stores operating in 27 American states.
With
the new bill having virtually no chance of becoming law combined with
the closing of storefront operations around the country citizens will
have no choice but to go back to the old methods of receiving their
Canadian prescription drugs. For many years, the FDA has been turning
a blind eye to individuals importing their own 90-day supply of medications
either by making trips to Canada or by ordering them over the internet.
Perhaps
foreseeing the FDA trying to cut of individual purchasing of personal
medications from out of country the House of Representatives voted 237-176
to bar the FDA from spending any money on enforcement actions against
drug imports during the current fiscal year.
Many
seniors, however, consider themselves to be "computer illiterate"
and therefore have resisted getting one for their home. For many, the
cost of purchasing a computer and signing up for internet access would
be more than offset by the money they would save from ordering
their medications over the internet. This could be a huge opportunity
for home computer retailers who could offer seniors the service of coming
to their homes, setting up the internet service and showing them how
to use search engines to access Canadian internet pharmacies.
Canadian
Pharmacy Association Calls for Ban on Drug Exports
November
14, 2003
- A growing number of Canadian pharmacies are exporting prescription
drugs to American citizens, creating regulatory challenges for those
mandated to protect public safety says National Association of Pharmacy
Regulatory Authorities' (NAPRA), Canada's voluntary umbrella association
of provincial and territorial pharmacy licensing bodies.
The
federal and provincial regulatory systems in Canada were not originally
designed to regulate the export of prescription drugs. Provincial self-regulation
of the profession of pharmacy and the distribution of drugs is intended
to protect Canadians. Similarly, the federal drug approval process is
designed so that Canadians will have safe and effective access to drugs.
Some
government agencies have encouraged the export of prescription drugs
because this trade fulfills the public policy objective of regional
economic development. NAPRA believes that this objective may conflict
with the public policy objective of Canadians' access to health care,
specifically access to drugs and pharmacy services. Because of the conflict
resulting from these competing objectives, NAPRA say that those government
agencies responsible for their implementation must also be responsible
for the consequences.
NAPRA
says the export of prescription drugs is not always consistent with
their vision of contemporary and indeed, future pharmacy practice. They
say that this vision is founded on how pharmacists must respond to the
needs of Canadians in the context of the Canadian healthcare system.
NAPRA
says that, for these reasons, a Canadian solution is needed and they
are requesting that the federal government ban the exporting of drugs
from Canadian pharmacies to citizens of other countries until such time
as governments can implement systems that will ensure the effective
regulation of these practices to protect public safety.
Meanwhile,
Health Canada spokeperson Krista Apse stated that to date, there have
been no drug shortages in Canada because of this (Internet) practice.
Rx
Depot and Rx of Canada Ordered to Close Operations
November
7, 2003
- An American company facilitating the purchase of lower priced Canadian
prescriptions has been ordered by a US judge to stop supplying this
service until a trial can be held on the matter.
Both
Oklahoma-based Rx Depot and Nevada-based Rx of Canada have been charged
for the practice of forwarding American prescriptions to Canadian pharmacies
to have the orders filled. Both operations combined have 88 stores operating
in 27 American states.
Yesterday,
US District Judge Claire Eagan rules that the companies have to close
down their operations until a trial can be held to determine whether
or not they have broken any laws with regard to the importation of foreign
and even the re-importation of US made drugs into the country.
The
trial will determine which of the two parties is correct in their respective
interpretations of the law. The Food and Drug Administration contends
that these companies are breaking the law by importing drugs into the
country. Meanwhile the companies contend that they are not importing
drugs at all, but simply facilitating orders placed with them by individuals
and that the medications are delivered directly to their customers'
addresses.
Americans
have the option of ordering their medications from Canada over the internet
themselves however most, if not all, of the customers of these facilitating
companies either do not have access to the internet or don't know how
to go about placing an order on the internet.
Gutknecht
Says Drug Companies Policies Harmful
November
1, 2003 - U.S. Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Rochester, is asking the Justice
Department to investigate drug manufacturers for manipulating the drug
supply by restricting shipments to Canada to block cross-border sales.
"Six
major pharmaceutical manufacturers have moved to restrict supply of
prescription drugs to Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers," Gutknecht
wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft, in a letter signed by 21 other
House members. "It is obvious that these actions are an attempt to prevent
American consumers from accessing affordable prescription drugs. This
action is putting lives at risk in the United States and Canada."
A month
ago, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed a suit against GlaxoSmithKline,
claiming the drug company was leading an industry-wide conspiracy to
keep Minnesotans from buying Canadian drugs.
On
Thursday, a bipartisan group of U.S. congressmen from both the Senate
and the House of Representatives said they were preparing a bill that
would fully legalize the import of Canadian drugs, and would expand
the FDA's powers so it would regulate the quality of both domestic and
imported drugs. If passed, such a bill could turn Canada, with its government-regulated
drug prices, into the major supplier of drugs to the United States.
The
weapon the pharmaceutical companies have been wielding recently has
been to limit the supply of drugs they will sell to Canadians in order
to stem the reimportation of these drugs back into the U.S. But this
tactic can only go so far, because Canada has a powerful potential defence
under World Trade Organization rules. If drug companies make important
drugs too expensive or difficult to obtain, WTO rules say, the government
can impose "compulsory licencing" under which domestic companies can
be allowed to make generic copies of the previously patent protected
drugs.
Lilly
to Limit Product Sales to Canada
October
19, 2003
- Eli Lilly and Co. has joined the list of pharmaceutical giants who
have decided to prevent its drugs from being sold to American consumers
from Canada at prices far below those available in the United States.
Lilly has written 24 Canadian drug wholesalers telling them it will
limit sales of its drugs based on company estimates of product amounts
that should be sufficient to supply the Canadian market only.
Previously,
pharmaceutical giants Pfizer of New York and GlaxoSmithKline of Great
Britain took similar steps against Canadian pharmacies that sell drugs
to U.S. customers.
Battle
lines are continually being re-drawn between the two sides, one comprised
of millions of senior citizens living on fixed incomes and supported
by a growing number of U.S. Governors, members of Congress and presidential
candidates who wish to formally legalize the purchasing of Canadian
prescription drugs. On the other side are the pharmaceutical giants
and their supporters who want this "Canadian alternative"
avenue closed off, forcing seniors to purchase their medications from
American regulated avenues only.
The
FDA meanwhile seems to be maintaining their policy of allowing personal-use
prescription purchases from Canada either over the internet or by actually
making trips across the border. They have, however, been lending their
moral support to the pharmaceutical industry in various testimonies
by stating that they cannot insure the safety of medications purchased
outside of the U.S.
State
of Minnesota Launches Suit Against Glaxo
October
18, 2003
- With Minnesotans facing skyrocketing health care costs and no substantial
legislative reforms having been implemented, Attorney General Mike Hatch
has issued a report entitled, “Follow the Money. The Pharmaceutical
Industry: The Other Drug Cartel,” which describes the pharmaceutical
industry’s undue influence over the legislative process at both the
State and federal levels.
Hatch
also announced the filing of a legal action against GlaxoSmithKline,
the world’s second largest drug manufacturer, to compel the company
to produce documents in connection with his office’s ongoing investigation
into the company’s boycott of Canadian prescription drug imports.
GlaxoSmithKline
previously notified Canadian wholesalers and pharmacies that it will
stop supplying them with its pharmaceuticals if they sell drugs to United
States citizens. In May, 2003 the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office
served a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) on Glaxo in connection with
the office’s investigation into whether the company violated the State’s
antitrust laws and illegally restrained trade by forcing Canadian companies
to comply with its boycott demands and conspired with other drug companies
to block Canadian drugs sales. Glaxo has refused to produce to the Attorney
General’s Office documents that are located in Canada, where the boycott
occurred, or England, where it is headquartered.
“Glaxo’s
arrogance has been demonstrated two-fold: first by boycotting Minnesotans
who go to Canada to save money on their drugs, and now by essentially
‘boycotting’ this office by refusing to produce its records in Canada
and England,” Hatch said.
In
the action against Glaxo, the State requests the Hennepin County District
Court to order Glaxo to produce documents regarding its refusal to supply
Canadian wholesalers and pharmacies that sell drugs to the United States
via the Internet. The Attorney General’s Office, which has been investigating
the drug manufacturer for months, was forced to make the request in
court after Glaxo refused to supply the documents responsive to the
CID.
Glaxo,
which has its U.S. headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, manufactures
a wide variety of well-known prescription drugs, including blockbusters
Paxil (for depression), Zantac (for ulcers), Augmentin (an antibiotic),
Zyban (for smoking cessation), Advair (for asthma), and Avandia (for
diabetes). In 2002, Glaxo