Why do pills cost so much? Blame Canada

The Repository (Canton, OH) ^ | January 22, 2005 | JIM HILLIBISH

[SuziQ]

It tells me that Merck has no problem selling drugs cheaper in Canada because of bulk buying. They just don't want Americans to know about it. Which they will find out soon enough if they go to dotcom pharmacies.

I'd be curious to know what drug companies liabilities are in Canada. Do they have the same exposure there as they have here with respect to greedy tort lawyers looking to cash in on claims of people being 'damaged' by prescription drugs? I'd guess they don't because you can still buy cyclamates and saccharin in Canada, and those haven't been legal in the US for years.

I'm thinking that goes a LONG way toward explaining why they can sell the drugs so much cheaper in Canada. They don't have to worry about being sued, so they don't have to buy 'extortion insurance', which is what helps drive the cost of pharmaceuticals up in this country.

[beaver fever]

Saccharin was banned in Canada in 1979, cyclamates didn't turn up in Google wrt Canada but I haven't seen that product for sale in Canada since the seventies so it may have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market.

As for the liabilities of drug companies; thirty percent of the drugs sold in Canada are proprietory and they came from US sources so they have already passed FDA testing in addition the must pass Health Canada testing similar to the FDA. So Drugs originating from the US are tested twice before they are approved. All other drugs are generics that must pass quality controls through Health Canada to ensure that they are safe and contain the compounds in the dosages advertised by the manufacturer.

In terms of liability considerations, if memory serves me the problems with Viox were first discovered in Canada in a Health Canada lab.

Canada has liability laws similar to the US but we only just recently allowed class action suits which means the legal environment in liability cases is similar to the US.

However Canadians is a less litigators than Americans simply because we have had less recourse to the courts than Americans in civil liability cases. Although Canadian lawyers were allowed to advertise pro bono services in the 1970's. This has led to an upsurge in personal injury cases but only in auto accident claims.

In cases of medical liability, doctors are protected from liability because the participate in Provincial Medical Plans. So patients claiming injury due to malpractice must first make a complaint to the Provincial Medical Association.

This discourages frivolous complaints. Only after appeal to a ruling by the Medical Association are plaintiffs free to sue in open court. Plaintiffs may only sue for real damages and compensation for disability. They cannot receive awards for pain and suffering.

This is my understanding of the Tort system in Canada. I may be wrong on finer points, in which case I defer to comments by a Canadian lawyer.

[SuziQ]

Plaintiffs may only sue for real damages and compensation for disability. They cannot receive awards for pain and suffering.

So they can't fleece pharmaceutical companies like they can here in the States? This is one of the major costs of drug production, the need to collect enough money to pay for the vultures who may come after the companies based on a jury's interpretation of a plaintiff's maladies.

Even drugs that have passed FDA tests have been pulled from the market because some person percieved it to be the cause of a problem and sued the company. The anti nausea drug, Bendectin, was taken off the market in the early 80's because some lawyers convinced some juries that it was the cause of birth defects. As far as I know, there was no study that supported this claim, only the emotions of the juries feeling sorry for women with babies that were born with deformities, some of which would occur naturally in a given number of births. Taking this drug off the market doomed thousands of pregnant women to weeks of nausea and vomiting, putting their health at serious risk.

[beaver fever]

If you are selling me a car an I low bid you, you can always refuse to sell it to me.

If drug companies are unhappy selling drugs in Canada cheaper than in the US they can refuse to do so. Several companies have refused to sell drugs in Canada for the government mandated price.

[beaver fever]

If the Canadian government did that they would be violating the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty of Rome, which Canada signed, provides protection for intellectural property and mandates stiff panalties for patent infringment.

Also the Canadian government does not manufacture drugs.