Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Glaxo Tries New Tack on Cheap Canadian Drugs
The Wall Street Journal | January 22, 2003 | Joel Baglole

Posted on 01/22/2003 8:36:00 AM PST by Genaro

Prescription drug maker GlaxoSmithKline PLC asked Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers yesterday to "self-certify" that they're not exporting its drugs outside Canada. Pharmacies and wholesalers that fail to comply will have their Glaxo supplies cut off.

In a Jan.3 letter, the British drug maker had warned Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that it would cut off their supplies as of yesterday if they continued to sell Glaxo products outside Canada, primarily to the U.S. "GSK's products are approved by Health Canada for sale in Canada only," Glaxo had said, adding that Canadian pharmacies could be violating the company's patent rights and risk lawsuits if they continue shipping prescription drugs outside Canada.

The new notice gives pharmacies more time before supplies are cut off, as well as requiring the self-certification. Patty Seif, a Glaxo spokeswoman, said self-certification would probably take the form of a letter written to Glaxo by Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers. She wouldn't say how many companies would be asked to self-certify or when the deadline for certification would occur. "We're implementing this today," she said, adding: "We will continue to ensure a sufficient (drug) supply for Canadians."

U.S. residents can save as much as 70% by buying medication in Canada and having it shipped, thanks to the low value of the Canadian collar and government price caps on drugs. Demand for such savings has fueled a proliferation of Canadian Internet pharmacies catering to Americans as far away as Texas. Canada has an estimated 80 Internet pharmacies, with annual sales of about 500 million Canadian dollars.

A debate over the merits of purchasing medicine online from Canada has been growing. While some U.S. politicians refer constituents to Canada for cheaper drugs, and Canadian provincial governments promote the Internet pharmacies as job-creation vehicles, drug makers worry the industry is eroding profits, and doctors are concerned people may receive the wrong drugs in the mail.

News of the self-certification request was met with anger by Canadian pharmacists and politicians.

"Even if Glaxo cuts off the Canadian supply, Americians will find cheaper drugs in Australia or Ireland," said MaryAnn Mihychuk, Industry minister for the western province of Manitoba, where a number of Canada's Internet pharmacies are based. "I doubt Glaxo can shut down the entire Internet," she added.

Kris Thorkelson, chief executive of CanadaDrugs.com, a Winnipeg-based Internet pharmacy that fills an average of 1000 prescriptions a day for Americans said self-certification is "unrealistic." Mr. Thorkelson, also president of the Manitoba Internation Pharmacists Association, said his association is considering its legal options against Glaxo.

Mr. Thorkelson said the association had raised $1 million (Canadian) in the past few weeks for a possible legal challenge.

Some drug wholesalers have endeavored to appease Glaxo. McKesson Corp., of San Francisco, the largest drug wholesaler in Canada, has announced it will provide only two bottles of each Glaxo drug-which include Zyban, a smoking-cessation aid, and Paxil, an antidepressant-to Canadian pharmacies that sell prescription drugs outside Canada.


TOPICS: Canada; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; drugs; glaxo; prescriptions; pricecontrols
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: Nathaniel Fischer
Look at Fortune 500 reports if you need varification. These are facts,

The average annual cost per prescription of the 50 drugs used most frequently by seniors as of January 2001: $956.00

Amount of seniors lacking drug coverage for at least part of each year: 47%

Chance that an American filing for bankruptcy last year did so because of medical expenses: 1 in 2

Percentage change last year in the profits of Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies: +35

Percentage change in the total profits of all Fortune 500 companies: –54

Mean after-tax profits for pharmaceutical companies in 2000: 18.6%

Mean after-tax profits for all other Fortune 500 companies combined: 4.9%

Amount prescription drug prices rose in between 1981 and 1999: 306%

Amount consumer price index (CPI) rose for the same time period: 99%

Amount pharmaceutical companies spend on profit: 18.6%

Amount pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing and administration: 30%

Amount pharmaceutical companies spend on research and development: 12%

Amount of new drug research and development sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal
agencies: 60%

Amount of new research the pharmaceutical industry is funding: 11%


Number of pharmaceutical lobbyists registered in Washington, DC: 600+

Number of U.S. Senators: 50

Number of U.S. Representatives: 435
21 posted on 01/22/2003 12:13:28 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Genaro
Good for Glaxo. This is what happens to a socialist, price controlled system. This complex problem cannot be solved on the backs of the pharmaceutical industry alone. Americans are glad to "save" 70% on drugs, I'm sure but they are breaking the law and our Justice Department chooses to ignore it because it's a hot potato.

I would agree if Glaxo were refusing to sell to Canada as a whole in protest of that country's price controls. But that's not what Glaxo is doing: it's refusing to sell to Canadian pharmacies that sell to Americans because it wants to keep Americans isolated in a high-priced monopoly bubble.

I'm a capitalist. I believe that Americans should have the right to shop for medications in any market we choose. It may be "illegal" in your view for consumers to save money, but I don't give a crap about protecting the pharma-barons' money-grubbing, government-enforced monopoly. I'll buy my medications from wherever in the world I can get them, whether you and Glaxo like it or not.

22 posted on 01/22/2003 2:58:14 PM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
I would agree if Glaxo were refusing to sell to Canada as a whole in protest of that country's price controls. But that's not what Glaxo is doing: it's refusing to sell to Canadian pharmacies that sell to Americans because it wants to keep Americans isolated in a high-priced monopoly bubble.

I'm a capitalist. I believe that Americans should have the right to shop for medications in any market we choose. It may be "illegal" in your view for consumers to save money, but I don't give a crap about protecting the pharma-barons' money-grubbing, government-enforced monopoly. I'll buy my medications from wherever in the world I can get them, whether you and Glaxo like it or not.

Canada puts in price controls that allow the Pharmaceutical companies to make a profit on a per-unit basis, but if everyone did that, the companies would not make any money.

People get all emotional about pharmaceuticals, so let's substitute books. Suppose that Canada said that Tom Clancy books couldn't cost more than US$10. Well, Random House would still sell novels there, because they only cost $3 or $4 to print. But if the US slapped that kind of control in place, then of course Tom Clancy wouldn't write any more books, since the royalties would be minimal.

Now, back to Pharmaceuticals. If Glaxo refused to sell in Canada, I bet the Canuck govt. would probably figure out a way for someone else to sell the same drug there. And yes, it's unfair, but there's not a lot that we can really do about it. Yes, drug companies make a lot of money, but they came up with the pharmaceuticals in the first place. And look at some of the most touted drugs in the past few years: Rogaine and Viagra. Neither one cures a life-threatening disease, but the drug companies know that it'll be very difficult for some citizens group to get price controls on these drugs for the "human interest" or whatever. If a company discovered a cure for all cancers tomorrow, you'd better believe that you'd get all kinds of people bitching that they were making money on the backs of cancer sufferers.

23 posted on 01/22/2003 5:11:02 PM PST by Koblenz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson