Canadian Prescription Rx News

How to Order Canadian Prescription Medications from U.S.A. | News | Frequently Asked Questions | Place Your Order

Click Here to check out prices from a Fully Licensed Canadian Pharmacy!

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:

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.

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 reported worldwide sales of $31.8 billion and pretax profits equal to 30.5 percent of sales.

Governor Blagojevich Starts Internet Petition to Allow Canadian Drug Imports

October 14, 2003 - Gov. Rod Blagojevich wants to bring down prescription drug prices to save money for taxpayers and consumers in Illinois. He is asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow Illinois to explore a plan to import approved medications from Canada for half the price.

You can help Gov. Blagojevich put pressure on the FDA to recognize the drug price crisis in the U.S. and to reverse its policy banning U.S. consumers and local governments from buying their medications for less in Canada.

The Governor is asking consumers to fill out an online petition in support of drug importation at www.affordabledrugs.il.gov

October 31 for Final Submissions in Justice Dept/Rx Depot Lawsuit

October 10, 2003 - U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan has given both sides in the Justice Dept/Rx Depot lawsuit until October 31st to make their final submissions afterwhich she is expected to rule in the case.

The Justice Department is attempting to get the court to rule on a request for a nation wide injunction against Rx Depot, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that would prevent them from carrying on the business of facilitating Americans purchasing medications from Canada.

The Justice Department claims that Rx Depot is breaking the law and putting the public at risk by importing drugs from Canada outside FDA scrutiny. Rx Depot contends that it is doing nothing other than facilitating access to Canadian medications similar to what people do all the time either over the internet from their own homes or actually travelling to the country.

FDA officials continue to contend that the safety of Canadian medications cannot be ensured as they don't fall under the scrutiny of American officials. However, Rx Depot says that there are no problems with medications coming from Canada as all such medications are regulated by Health Canada.

Mayor Michael Albano of Springfield, Mass. has stated his city's intentions to purchase medications for city employees through a Canadian source based on FDA comments to Congress that it would not stop individuals who go to Canada to buy drugs or those who buy them over the Internet.

If operations like Rx Depot are forced to close then seniors and other low income citizens with no internet access will again be forced to pay the much higher costs of medications from their local pharmacies. In many cases these people could easily afford to buy a computer and pay for internet access with the money they would save by purchasing their medications from Canada over the internet. Many seniors, however, erroneously believe that operating a home computer is a complicated procedure and prefer to be able to walk into shops like Rx Depot and place their order.

North Carolina Storefront Closes Shop

August 25, 2003 - A North Carolina storefront operation facilitating the ordering of prescription medications from Canada has closed its doors. Rx Price is Right of Winston-Salem had just opened May 1 when only a month later they received a cease-and-desist order from the N.C. Pharmacy Board.

Five North Carolina had received cease and desist notices from the Pharmacy Board however only two have closed their doors to date. Customers of Rx Price is Right who wish to continue having access to Canadian priced medications will have to either find another storefront operation or else find a way to get internet access so they can order their medications directly from a Canadian pharmacy.

Generics Only US Pharmacy Opens Up

August 13, 2003 - In an apparent response to the increasing practice of Americans seeking to find affordable means of acquiring their much needed prescription medications, an internet pharmacy has begun a service that deals in FDA approved generic forms of medications only.

The pharmacy, ShipDrugs, says that generic prescription medications are always less expensive than their brand name counterparts. They also point out that all medications sold through their facilities have the FDA stamp of approval. ShipDrugs is an internet pharmacy that ships all products to customers by courier thus ensuring speedy delivery.

A generic drug is identical, or bioequivalent to a brand name drug in dosage form, safety, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use and is chemically identical to its branded counterpart.

Drug companies must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA for approval to market a generic product.

New drugs, like other new products, are developed under patent protection. The patent protects the investment in the drug's development by giving the company the sole right to sell the drug while the patent is in effect. When patents or other periods of exclusivity expire, manufacturers can apply to the FDA to sell generic versions.

Health professionals and consumers can be assured that FDA approved generic drugs have met the same rigid standards as the innovator drug.

Montana Board of Pharmacy Files Suit Against Storefront Operation

August 8, 2003 - The Montana Board of Pharmacy has filed suit against Rx Depot, a storefront operation facilitating the purchase of low cost prescription medicines from a Canadian pharmacy.

The suit, filed last week in the District Court in Helena, claims that the operation is violating a number of federal and state laws and should be shut down immediately. RX Depot claims that it is doing nothing different than people can do over the internet from their own homes but is just assisting people who either have no internet access or who don't know how to use their computers to order over the internet themselves.

Some seniors are concerned that if lawsuits are successful in shutting down storefront operations such as Rx Depot that such rulings could spill over to encompass the internet purchases that people regularly make from their homes. This is not likely to occur as the FDA some time ago decided not to enforce drug imporation provisions as long as the prescriptions were for personal use and for no more than a 90 day supply per order.

Look for Old "Status-Quo" on Canadian Drug Imports

August 4, 2003 - It was a slow and steady progression that started with American tourists who happened to purchase some prescription medications out-of-country and discovered that it was not a problem to bring those medications back into the country. Although it was technically against the law to bring back those medications, the FDA and customs officials realized that the law was not meant to prevent individuals from purchasing their own personal medications in another country and bringing them back on their return home.

Thus the policy of allowing people to purchase up to a 90 day supply of their personal medications out-of-country for home consumption began. But then word spread about the savings that were possible and seniors groups started organizing bus trips to Canada for the express purpose of purchasing lower priced prescription drugs. That was fine for people near the international border but too costly and time consuming for those not so near to the border.

The next progression was the internet which allowed people anywhere in the country to do the same thing as those living close to the border had been doing, buy a 90 day supply of their own personal medications from a Canadian pharmacist at greatly reduced prices. At this point there were no alarm bells ringing in the offices of the pharmaceutical giants' offices. Between personal purchases made on out-of-country visits and internet purchases combined, such purchases represented less than half of one percent of the total American prescription purchases.

But then something a lot bigger started happening and that something was "storefronts" facilitating internet puchases for Americans who didn't have access to the internet from their own homes. Throughout the country, entrepreneurs recognized that there were many millions of people who don't have internet access and so they began opening up "storefront" operations that allowed these people to walk into their outlets where the operators would perform internet purchases on their behalf. That's when alarm bells started to ring.

It was at this point that individual pharmacys were beginning to get upset as storefronts just down the street began offering identical medications at a fraction of the prices they were charging. Complaints were made to various state and federal authorities basically saying that these storefronts were operating unlicensed pharmacies and should be shut down. The problem here was that these storefronts were not actually operating a pharmacy but rather they were only facilitating the same types of purchases that people with internet access were making from their own homes.

The major pharmaceutical companies were also upset with these storefront operations opening up but their concerns at that point were significantly increased when various congresspersons and senators began talking about the full legalization of importing prescription medications into the country, not only from Canada, but from up to 25 other countries as well. If such legislation were to come into effect, not only would individuals be able to legally bring in personal medications from out-of-country but so would pharmaceutical wholesalers. Such a law would result in the loss of billions of dollars each year in revenues and profits.

Prescription medication importation legislation has been passed in both the Senate and the House however there are substantial differences in the wording of each bill and these differences are now in the process of being reconciled. One of the most significant differences is a provision in the House bill which orders the Health and Human Services Department to set up a system to allow importation of FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. In past bills the legislation was dependent on the HHS voluntarily certifying the safety of imported medications which they have each time refused to do.

Many pundits predict that such a provision requiring HSS to set up a system will not make it into the final bill in which case the bill will not become law because the HSS is unlikely to voluntarily certify the safety of imported medications. So after all the lengthy discussions and debates on this matter we are almost certain to see this type of legislation fall flat as it has done in the past in which case it will still be illegal to import medications into the country. The bill is now pending in the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

So what happens then to the storefront operations, internet purchases and people travelling across the border to buy their personal medications? Can the authorities cut off all avenues for seniors and other lower income Americans to acquire affordable medications from out-of-country? Probably not. While they could they probably won't, at least not completely. The seniors lobby is just too strong to allow authorities cut off every single avenue.

The storefront operations are perhaps their largest concern because they are an "in your face" problem for individual pharmacies that may be operating right next door. From the pharmaceutical giants' perspective, these storefronts make out-of-country purchases "too" accessible. As a result, we can probably expect to see either federal or perhaps individual state legislation that will make it illegal to facilitate the importation of controlled drugs through "unlicensed" facilities such as storefront operations.

So, in the end, we can probably look forward to a return to the old status quo where people can either make trips across the border or make individual purchases of their medications over the internet. This level of out-of-country medication purchasing offers seniors and low income Americans at least some access to reasonably priced medications while at the same time almost ensuring that the vast majority of prescription medication will continue to be bought at American pharmacies.

City of Springfield Decides to Buy Canadian Drugs

July 30, 2003 - On the heels of the House of Representatives passing a bill last week that would allow Americans to import out-of-country medications, the City of Springfield, Massachusetts has started buying Canadian drugs for their retirees and employees.

Individuals have been buying Canadian medications for years now, either by taking organized bus trips across the border or simply by ordering over the internet but, to our knowledge, this is the first time that a city has decided to make this money saving decision.

Canadian Pharmacy Group Applauds U.S. House Vote
Approving Imported Prescription Drugs

CALGARY, Alberta, July 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The Canadian International Pharmacy Association, Canada's leading group of pharmacies which provide international prescription services to U.S. patients, applauds the outcome of the vote by the members of the U.S. House of Representatives on the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. Members from both sides of the House voted to pass the legislation (243 to 186) last Friday morning.

"We heartily applaud the U.S. House's wise vote to support seniors and America's working poor, who need access to low-cost and safe Canadian drugs," said Andy Troszok, vice president standards of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association. "Despite the drug industry's millions of dollars in lobbying against the bill and conjuring up the wildest accusations against Canada's pharmaceutical distribution system, House members were not persuaded to kill the legislation. The members of the House realized that American consumers desperately need access to more affordable medications and that Canada can deliver a safe alternative."

Troszok says that more than 1 million Americans currently access Canada's safe prescription drugs. "Our members are proud to say that we serve hundreds of thousands of customers each year, and there has never been a major negative incident involving Canadian drugs," added Troszok.

"The drafters of the legislation were mindful of the various straw-man arguments about the safety of imported medications from Canada that the multinational drug companies have used to fight the importation issue. Those issues have been addressed, " said John Myers, CIPA's General Counsel, "as long as the prescription drugs are manufactured in an F.D.A.-approved facility in Canada, the European Union and several other nations."

The legislation will also put in place a series of counterfeit-resistant technologies to the packaging and labeling of imported drugs.

"Although Canada's prescription drug distribution system is as secure as systems in the United States, if these measures provide our patients with additional confidence in the medications they receive from our member pharmacies, then CIPA will support these new requirements", said Troszok. "CIPA hopes to play a role in developing the technologies referred to in the legislation."

To help strengthen the pharmacies' safety message, in June, a U.S. Congressional Research Service Study found that Canadian and U.S. drugs are made and distributed using nearly identical standards.

While the pharmacies sell their drugs at prices up to 30 to 85 percent less than U.S. prices, the major drug manufacturers are not losing that much. After all, Canada's drugs are made by the major pharmaceutical makers including Pfizer, Wyeth and Merck, all of which have subsidiaries in Canada.

To keep Americans paying the highest drug prices, in recent weeks, the pharmaceutical industry lavishly spent millions of dollars to take out a major national media campaign portraying imported drugs as unsafe, encouraged friendly politicians and religious groups to negatively position the move as opening up the country to unwanted medications, and, in an unusual step, may have played a role in having the FDA lobby legislators.

CIPA is hopeful that the U.S. Senate and President Bush will have the foresight to support the House bill. But, it recognizes this is a tough battle that pits it against an all-powerful drug lobby with an unlimited bankroll that affords it one lobbyist per member of Congress, and using lobbying efforts that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) referred to as "dishonest and hypocritical."

The bill (HR2427) was led by Reps. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.).

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only industrialized nations that do not manage their drug prices.

With member pharmacies across Canada, CIPA is Canada's leading association that represents pharmacies providing services to U.S. patients. CIPA's members serve more than one million uninsured and low-income patients in all 50 states. Before patronizing these pharmacies, many customers had been unable to afford their medications.

Medication Importation Bill Passes House

July 25, 2003 - In a hefty majority vote of 243-186 this morning the House approved a bill which would allow the importation of prescription medications, not only from Canada, but from the European Union and seven other nations.

The major difference between this bill from others in the past is that the new bill, sponsored by Reps. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., orders the Health and Human Services Department to set up a system to allow importation of FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. In past bills the legislation was dependent on the HHS voluntarily certifying the safety of imported medications which they have each time refused to do.

But seniors with no internet access shouldn't start breaking out the champagne just yet. Over 600 pharmaceutical industry lobbyists have been working very hard in Washington over the last while in an effort to ensure that importation legislation not become law. Indications are that importation legislation may have problems in the Senate and does not have the support of the Bush administration.

In all likelihood, seniors without internet access will continue to board buses organized to cross over into Canada to pick up their much needed prescriptions at a reasonable price. Meanwhile seniors with internet access can watch the fight from the sidelines and continue as they have been in the past, ordering their medications from Canadian based internet pharmacies.

53 Senators Sign Letter Opposing Drug Reimportation Bill

WASHINGTON, July 25 /CNW/ -- On the heels of an early-morning vote in the House of Representatives to allow the importation into the United States of drugs from 26 countries, 53 Senators from both Parties have signed a letter opposing the provision as House and Senate conferees meet to discuss Medicare prescription drug legislation in the weeks ahead.

It is generally viewed as unlikely that majority Republicans in either House would jeopardize one of President Bush's major domestic priorities -- a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens -- over the relatively obscure and highly controversial drug importation provision.

"The (Health and Human Services) Secretaries of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations have not been able to demonstrate that drug importation is safe or cost effective," the 53 Senators said.

The Senators also noted that "the Senate has three times unanimously supported" legislation requiring that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determine that drug importation could be accomplished safely before importation be permitted, but that the House-passed measure would "eliminate this safety requirement."

"We do not believe it would be prudent to remove these vital safeguards," say the 53 Senators, who note that "drug importation is opposed by the FDA, two Secretaries of Health and Human Services from both Republican and Democratic Administrations, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration."

A copy of the letter follows:

United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 July 24, 2003

The Honorable Bill Thomas Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means U.S. House of Representatives 1102 Longworth Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Billy Tauzin Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce U.S. House of Representatives 2125 Rayburn House Office Building