Eli Lilly limits sales to Canadian pharmacies, trying to fight drug sales to Americans

Associated Press ^ | 10-18-03

[Brian S]

Eli Lilly and Co. has begun to limit its drug sales to Canadian pharmacies, joining other drug companies that are trying to prevent their medications from being sold to U.S. consumers from Canada.

The Indianapolis-based drug maker told 24 Canadian drug wholesalers in a letter that it will limit sales of its drugs to amounts that Lilly estimates are sufficient to supply the Canadian market only.

[Bogey78O]

Affordable is a catch word the left abuses too much.

A 100$ bill sold for 50$ is more affordable.

[Gary Seven]

So Eli Lilly is saying that the drugs they produce to sell to Canadians are unsafe for Americans? What a bunch of schmucks.

[TomGuy]

Drug companies are playing the same game one Jesse Jackson does, just that their shakedown is of the American purchasers. Most drugs cost 50% to 80% less outside the US (same drugs and same drug companies) as the drug companies continue to shakedown the American consumer, under the guise of research and development.

[Paleo Conservative]

think they ought to completely cut off sales to Canada. The Canadian and other socialist health care systems are parasites. They get the fruits of American pharmaceutical companies' investments in research for new drugs without paying for the research. Most of the drugs whiners like you complain about being "too expensive" didn't even exist 20 years ago.

[cherry]

why is it always the "poor" seniors that get all the attention....

truth is , the cost of drugs for all citizens is high because Drug companies have a sugar daddy in Uncle Sam....

as long as Uncle Sam provides respectively rich health plans for seniors, the dissabled, the poor, immigrants, and government workers, then the Drug companies have us by the collar...they know when benefits are provided, they will be used, and mostly, overused....

[RatSlayer]

"Starting immediately, if a Canadian wholesaler tries to order more Lilly product than Lilly's estimate of what is appropriate for Canadian use, "they will not be able to have it," Smith said."


Teacher:
CLASS, CLASS, SHUTUP!. Econ 101 is now in session.

Alright students, what happens to the supply of a product when you force an artifically low price for the product.

Students (in chorus):

THE SUPPLY GOES DOWN!

Teacher:
Very good.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[TomGuy]

They get the fruits of American pharmaceutical companies' investments in research for new drugs without paying for the research.

Except that those "American" companies are manufacturing many of those drugs in India, Japan, etc., and importing them for their own profit.

[InvisibleChurch]

where do they say the drugs are unsafe?

[Paleo Conservative]

So what? Last I heard the US still had a capitalist economic system. Perhaps you might find more like minded people on DU.

[Dan Evans]

Drug companies are playing the same game one Jesse Jackson does, just that their shakedown is of the American purchasers. Most drugs cost 50% to 80% less outside the US (same drugs and same drug companies) as the drug companies continue to shakedown the American consumer, under the guise of research and development.

Research and development isn't a guise. It costs almost a billion dollars to develop a new drug and not very much at all to produce it. That's how drug companies can to sell the product in countries where people can't afford to pay American style prices. It's a lot like the software business, almost any price they can get for their product is profit so they charge whatever the market will bear. And that is the fairest way to do it.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Drug companies are playing the same game one Jesse Jackson does, just that their shakedown is of the American purchasers. Most drugs cost 50% to 80% less outside the US (same drugs and same drug companies) as the drug companies continue to shakedown the American consumer, under the guise of research and development.

I don't see it. There is no moral responsibility to set your prices below what the market will pay. And it is the plain truth that the more profit they make, the more research and development they do.

Here's what should be done:

1. Return patent expiration to 17 years, increasing the necessity of developing new drug products while reducing the number of essential pharmaceuticals not available on generic.

2. Except for stuff that appeals to addicts, get the government out of the business of saying which products durg companies can sell. This will greatly reduce reseach costs and thus product cost.

[chance33_98]

"We think it's an appropriate step to take to protect the integrity of our products and the safety of our patients here in the U.S. and Canada," Lilly spokesman

I think is what he is referring to.

[TomGuy]

So is price competition. Which currently doesn't exist.

So, why are the drug companies/pharmacies afraid of foreign competition?

Of course, if you have a sizeable holding of drug company stocks, you don't mind seeing them shakedown the populace.

[Dan Evans]

So what difference does it make where the drugs are manufactured?

[Steve Eisenberg]

It costs almost a billion dollars to develop a new drug

This is mostly because of fear that if you let the free market in drugs operate, there will be another thalidomide. But it is a myth that government micromanaged testing can take away risk, since somebody has to go first, and testing a drug on a few thousand people isn't definitive.

[Tennessee_Bob]

Then you have the issue of those folks who have contributed for 40-50 years to a retirement plan, only to have that plan go nearly bankrupt because of bad investments, building skyscrapers, and giving millions of dollars in bonuses to their employees - leaving the retirees to watch their copays go from $5/10/25 for generic/preferred/non-preferred in 2002 to $20/30/60 in 2003, and then to $30/70/150 in 2004 - while the payments for their benefits nearly triple in a two year period.

[InvisibleChurch]

i can understand that, but it goes deeper than that... people will think they are getting lilly's "brand name" drug from canada, but the 'pharmacist' in canada runs out of said drug, or is tired , or is in a crappy mood, and substitutes another drug and sends it under the guise of a lilly drug, or merck or anyone else... most likely the customer isn't going to pay attention or even know if the pill is the right one... i don't believe the FDA has a system set up to check drugs that are sent over the mail between countries... so this guy gets sick and dies; who does the trial lawyer go after? canada? no... they go after lilly or glaxxo or merck, the company with the deep pockets... most of the money pharmacueticals make go into research and development, so that there are drugs to cure or treat cancers and diabetes and erectile disfunctions, all those things we want in life... i'd rather pay high prices than have no options