Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-do-drugs-eh dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Canadians are in a kerfuffle over the Trump administration's preliminary plan to allow Americans to import lower-cost prescription medications from Canada.

The plan was announced July 31 and is part of the administration's long-sought effort to drag down the US's skyrocketing drug prices. But it's a long way from being a reality. Even if the plan does pan out, it will likely be years before regulators review, approve, and scale up efforts to import drugs.

Still, Canadians are infuriated by the idea and already brainstorming ways to toss it down the garburator, according to a report by health-news outlet STAT. Many fear that American importation would exacerbate current drug shortages in Canada.

"You are coming as Americans to poach our drug supply, and I don't have any polite words for that," Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa told STAT. Prof. Attaran went on to refer to the plan as "deplorable" and "atrociously unethical." "Our drugs are not for you, period."

[...] On Monday, August 12, Canada's Minister of Health Ginette Petitpas Taylor was set to meet with pharmacists, patients, and industry officials to discuss a response to the US plan, according to STAT. Petitpas Taylor has pledged to "ensure there are no adverse effects to the supply or cost of prescription drugs in Canada."

In order to protect Canadians, some advocates and policy experts suggested that Canada could begin controlling the export of pharmaceuticals, pass new laws simply banning exporting drugs meant for Canadians, or impose new tariffs.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:39PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:39PM (#879596)

    If you think pharma is a free market, executives [wikipedia.org] have an $800 Epi-Pen to sell you.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Funny=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:13PM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:13PM (#879611) Homepage Journal

    Bingo. Monopolies are the most harmful thing there is to a free market and patents are government granted monopolies. Now there's a good reason for them to exist despite that but in their current state they do as much harm as good.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 13 2019, @02:23PM (3 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 13 2019, @02:23PM (#879655) Homepage
      Don't confuse the paid-by-the-number-they-grant USPTO with a functioning patent office.
      Patents are absolutely necessary in order to prevent the abuse of the small by the huge - i.e. to protect against monopolistic (oligopolistic) practices.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:32PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:32PM (#879709)

        Ideally, patents protect inventors and developers, encouraging them to bring valuable inventions to market.

        In practice, patents more often create a barrier to entry for "little guys" who can't compete with the patent muscle of bigger corporations that play in their space. Threat, and actuality, of litigation between entities mismatched 100:1 or worse in financial capacity only ends one way: the way the big player wants.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:38PM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:38PM (#879859) Journal

          Threat, and actuality, of litigation between entities mismatched 100:1 or worse in financial capacity only ends one way: the way the big player wants.

          Yep, and the occasional exceptions [wikipedia.org] prove how incredibly difficult it is for a single person to challenge a giant corporation on this stuff.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:58PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:58PM (#879872)

            The big boys miscalculate sometimes, or, maybe they figured it was worth a $400M risk for the sales advantage...

            More often, they'll just stonewall the patent holder until his rights expire, then introduce his feature the following year. I've been told an anecdotal tale how the invention of hydraulic assisted power steering was stifled this way, by a bitter engine inventor's son who was similarly unable to get investment or licensing interest in his better mousetrap.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:30PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:30PM (#879739) Journal
      Don't forget the FDA helpfully blocking competitors.