Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005
Pfizer exec: pharmas charge too much for drugs
|
|
Thread rating:  |
outrider - 07 Jun 2005 21:47 GMT Rost says that on average, drugs in Europe are about half the price of those in the United States.
"You have certain drugs that cost 10 times more in the U.S.," says Rost. "We're talking about exactly the same drug, made in the same plant, by the same manufacturer."
CBSNews.com Home Insider's Rx For Drug Costs June 5, 2005
If you think you're paying a lot for prescription drugs, you're right. Drug prices have been rising faster than inflation and Americans pay more for brand-name prescription drugs than anyone else in the world.
Why? Well, the drug companies and the government say we have to, so the companies can keep developing new drugs.
But that's no consolation to the tens of millions of elderly and uninsured who can't afford to pay for the drugs they need. Correspondent Bob Simon talks Dr. Peter Rost, a critic of the way drugs are priced and sold in the United States, who also happens to be a vice president of marketing for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.
Rost has taken the risky and possibly career-shattering step of opposing his own employer, and the rest of the drug industry, by saying America can have cheaper drugs if it set up a system like the one in Europe.
Rost says that on average, drugs in Europe are about half the price of those in the United States.
"You have certain drugs that cost 10 times more in the U.S.," says Rost. "We're talking about exactly the same drug, made in the same plant, by the same manufacturer."
And Rost says these are drugs that are also made in the same plant. "It is stunning," he says. "Once people become aware of it, it is stunning. And obviously, they get upset."
One example: the commonly prescribed cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, made by Pfizer, the company he works for. In the United States, the full retail price is about $76 dollars for a month's supply. The exact same drug costs $55 dollars in Canada and just $43 dollars in Italy.
It's the high price of drugs in the United States that has outraged Rost and led him to put his career on the line to try to help America's uninsured find a way to get cheaper drugs. He's a physician and a businessman who's worked in the drug industry for 20 years - both in America and Europe - marketing and pricing prescription drugs.
"We're the wealthiest nation on earth, yet we have between 49 and 67 million Americans without any kind of insurance for drugs," says Rost. "And they pay full price, cash, and they can't always afford drugs."
He says that's because drug pricing is not a free market in the United States, the way it is with most other industries. Brand-name drugs have patents, which means no other drug company can make the same drug until the patent runs out in 20 years.
Remember: Rost is an executive for Pfizer, but he's not speaking for the drug company.
"The industry likes to talk about the U.S. as a free market. A free market in this case simply means that the drug industry is free to set whatever price they want. And mostly patients and others simply have to pay. There isn't a choice," says Rost. "In a situation like that, you can obviously raise your prices as much as you can get away with."
Rost makes a comparison to a car company that can charge whatever it wants for a car: "What's going to happen is if they double their price on cars? Imagine what's going to happen to their sales? A new car is not a necessity, but where you're sick, to get treatment, to get well, and to survive, that is a necessity."
But why can't you just buy a generic? "For some areas, that works fine," says Rost. "For many areas, there aren't generics available."
Instead of Americans taking buses across the border to Canada to buy affordable drugs, Rost thinks the drugs should come to them. That's what happens in Europe, where a tightly regulated system of importing drugs from country to country has been in place for more than 20 years.
Here's how it works in Europe. Pharmaceutical companies sell the exact same drug to different countries at different prices. For example, most drugs cost less in Spain than they do in Denmark. So an entire industry has developed that buys up drugs in countries where they're cheaper, and sells them in countries where they're more expensive, at a discount, of course. The practice is called parallel trading.
Paranova is a parallel trading company just outside Copenhagen, owned and run by Eric Pfeiffer. Paranova is stacked with drugs coming from and going to different European countries.
Pfeiffer showed 60 Minutes how parallel trading works to get cheaper drugs into the marketplace. An asthma inhaler is expensive in Denmark and cheaper in Spain. Pfeiffer's company bought a lot of it from Spain, and is now repackaging it to be sold in Danish pharmacies, at a discount. They don't make drugs; they're just the middlemen.
"Effectively, what we do is take it out, put the label on and then it's put back in the boxes again with a leaflet in Danish language," says Pfeiffer.
"We sort of walk a little bit into the world of the absurd when you figure out that what you're doing is spending money to make something cheaper," says Simon.
"Yes," says Pfeiffer.
The original asthma inhaler is never opened. In fact, no one at Paranova ever touches any of the drugs, only the outside packaging, and the factory is inspected regularly by the Danish health authorities.
Pfeiffer says this same arrangement could happen between Canada and the United States: "Or between Europe and the United States. And by doing it from Europe, it would even be cheaper than from Canada."
To help ensure safety in Europe, you can't buy parallel traded drugs over the Internet, only from a licensed pharmacy. Danish pharmacist Uta Porksen showed 60 Minutes how it works for the consumer.
She displayed an asthma inhaler that's called Spirocort in Denmark. It happens to be the exact same drug as a product called Pulmicort, which was imported by Paranova. The big difference? The Spirocort costs about $40 dollars more.
"If I come in and I've got a prescription for Spirocort, you're gonna give me the Spirocort, right, the more expensive one?" asks Simon.
"The law in Denmark is made the way that I have to ask the patient if he wants the cheaper one. And we always ask the patient," says Porksen.
"Ok, you're asking me if I want the one that's $40 dollars less?" asks Simon.
"Yes," says Porksen.
"And I'll ask you, 'Is it the same thing? And you'll says, 'Yes.' And I'll say, 'Give me the cheaper one.'"
"Yes, and you will get the cheaper one," says Porksen.
But is parallel trading safe? It depends whom you ask.
"I would be happy to let FDA in here to see how we do it and they would have no problem whatsoever," says Pfeiffer.
"So, if the big question for Americans, as it is, is, 'Is it safe to ship drugs from country to country as long as it's properly regulated?'" says Simon.
"Yes," says Pfeiffer. "For sure."
But in America, the drug companies say they aren't so sure that importing drugs from country to country really is safe.
Pfizer, the drug company Rost works for, declined to talk to 60 Minutes about Rost, but Pfizer's vice president of global security, John Theriault, did tell say that importing drugs is potentially dangerous.
"The position we take is that the more times a product changes hands, the more opportunity there is for the introduction of bad medicine," says Theriault.
"Some people might be skeptical of your saying it's not safe to import drugs from overseas," says Simon. "You do work for Pfizer and all the drug companies tend to lose money if drugs are cheaper."
"I'm not making a pricing argument today at all. But I don't think that patient safety should be sacrificed for affordability," says Theriault. "I think there needs to be a solution to this problem. But opening the flood gates to product from all over the world to freely enter the U.S. market, I think, is a mistake."
"Clearly this is a matter of profits. It's not necessarily a matter of safety," says Rost. "I mean, I think it would be derogatory to claim that Americans would not be able to handle re-importation when the rest of the educated world can do this."
How many cases of death or serious disease have there been due to this practice?
Rost says "there have been none known due to this practice."
So it works? "It works very well," says Rost.
Has anyone in Europe been hurt by taking a bad drug because of parallel trading?
"I don't know that anyone has," says Theriault. "But the point is that we're making the safety issue before that happens."
"My job is to ensure the safety of the American public," says Dr. Richard Carmona, surgeon general of the United States. He recently chaired a task force to study drug importation. It concluded that building a safe system to do it in the United States would be difficult, and very expensive.
"It could be done. The evidence that we have says it could. But the cost to do it, the additional regulatory authority necessary, the hiring of more people, then you have to step back and say, 'Well, is that cost gonna outweigh any savings benefit that we provide the American public,' and that's a very tough one."
"Why are drugs so much more expensive in the United States than they are in almost any other country?" asks Simon.
"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead."
The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development.
Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut back on research and development because it's their bread and butter. They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell when the patents on their existing drugs expire.
He recently testified before a Senate committee, urging Congress to pass a bill legalizing the importation of cheaper drugs from overseas, even though his own employer is against it.
"Stopping good re-importation bills has a high cost, not just in money but in American lives," says Rost, who says he still works for Pfizer.
Pfizer, however, claims that Rost lacks the credentials to say anything about importing drugs from other countries. The company sent a letter to the Senate committee saying, "We have no basis to support Dr. Rost's purported expertise in this area..." Pfizer also sent 60 Minutes a letter saying: "Dr. Rost has ...no substantive grasp of how importation threatens the safety of the U.S. drug supply."
"It's an attempt to discredit me. And they should have known better because they know that I have a lot of experience in this area, so it's completely wrong, and they knew it," says Rost. "I mean, you have an insider here who knows how things really work, who has lived this."
When he goes to work, what kind of response does he now get from his co-workers? "The majority of the feedback has been basically treating me like a sinner, somebody who has fallen from the righteous way," says Rost, who works from home a lot now.
He's still employed by Pfizer, but he's not sure how long that will last.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that, if passed, would allow the United States to import cheaper drugs from other countries, just as they do in Europe. The pharmaceutical industry opposes it. But the large drug companies have announced they are expanding their programs to offer low cost drugs to the poor.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:29 GMT Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and completely runs them together.
For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel trading" is that a company sells at different prices to different markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug from here to there, to even out the difference.
Should this be illegal to do (as it is in the US currently)? In my mind, it's a matter of contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket at a "senior citizen's discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for an industry to develop to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them (at a fraction of the senior discount) to people of *other* ages? Why or why not? Of course this is exactly the same problem, but in a different guise. One can apply this to all kinds of other discounted or special market products which companies use to sell products to limited markets to fill up their unused capacity. There are empty seats on airliners as well as movie theaters. There are empty seats in football stadiums. Why aren't there people in them?
>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead." <<
COMMENT
How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph. It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their share of research costs? What happens when you find you can sell a drug to a poor country at less than your marginal cost to make more of it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an airplane) but fine you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any price which will allow it to share in development costs? This is the essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What then?
>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development. Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut back on research and development because it's their bread and butter. They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell when the patents on their existing drugs expire. <<
COMMENT:
Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron. Pharmaceutical companies do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business. More specifically, these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN), retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or whatever. And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living, will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit. I have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's like yacht building or horse breeding.
SBH
outrider - 07 Jun 2005 22:41 GMT I'll just respond to the part where you single me out. I wish you could learn to remove the "personal" from your readings of my posts, and your responses to them, and to me. This isn't about me. It's about what's going on...information. But thank you for your cogent analysis. I don't disagree. I don't agree. It's all your opinion. I welcome it. Zee
> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, > intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > SBH Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:14 GMT > I'll just respond to the part where you single me out. I wish you could > learn to remove the "personal" from your readings of my posts, and your > responses to them, and to me. This isn't about me. It's about what's > going on...information. But thank you for your cogent analysis. I don't > disagree. I don't agree. It's all your opinion. I welcome it. Zee Saying "I don't agree. I don't disagree." does little to advance the point I *think* you were trying to make, to wit: My meds cost too much. It's a little like saying " I sometimes pass gas." What points exactly do you disagree with and what is your countervailing evidence?
>> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, >> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> >> SBH elgoog - 07 Jun 2005 22:47 GMT > Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, > intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What > then? Unlike movie tickets or airplane seats, these drugs may mean the difference between life and death. Creating a level playing field to eliminate the comparative price advantage would incur a human toll in those countries with lesser ability to pay - but, then we do that today to our own citizens.
> >>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the > pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > SBH Let Darwin decide. </facetious>
-elgoog
Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:38 GMT >> Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, >> intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > those countries with lesser ability to pay - but, then we do that today > to our own citizens. Well exactly how would you creat a "level playing field" when dealing with societies who appear to feel a perfect right to not do basic research and sponge off of those who do? You can't force them to pay the freight but you can always mandate lower U.S. drug prices. Would you then also mandate all U.S. citizens to continue investing in drug companies.
It is not possible to creat a "level playing field" because of so many people and societies of differing abilities and differing attitudes. Clearly, many in the U.S. and world wide think they are owed the best meds & health care and that someone else should pick up the tab. At some point someone is going to have to pay--unless of course you would advocate forcing bright talented people into drug research, a situation heretofore called slavery.
And yes, it is a matter of "life and death." But then again so are functional automobile brakes. Should we mandate taxpayer funded research on brakes, government regulated brake prices and coerce engineering schools into X number of graduates in brakeology?
Where does it end?
>> >>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the >> pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -elgoog cwrj - 07 Jun 2005 23:27 GMT A book by Marcia Angell, MD, a former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, makes the point that most drug research work in this country is done by University researchers and The National Institute of Health. Those organizations are financed by the public in one way or another, so it would seem the taxpayer ends up paying twice for a lot of drugs. So much for pharmaceutical R & D.
Angell indicates , as well, that the industry is often somehow able to lump those horrendous marketing fees into the R&D category. Go figure.
zee - 07 Jun 2005 23:40 GMT Now we're getting somewhere!
Zee
Robert - 08 Jun 2005 09:31 GMT > Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, > intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > SBH I really don't know why people are not seeing what you and I see. They call the pharm companies as evil money hungry devils and then say that they would still be in business because of their decent desire to continue an honest living producing drugs and serving their country. The presence of money creates growth. No money you see a slow down. Many hospitals closed because they couldn't pay the bills and these were non-profit. According to their philosophy they would still be operating. Reduce the profit and they will flourish according to them. Where in the world does this thinking come from?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 08 Jun 2005 20:33 GMT >>I really don't know why people are not seeing what you and I see. They call the pharm companies as evil money hungry devils and then say that they would still be in business because of their decent desire to continue an honest living producing drugs and serving their country. The presence of money creates growth. No money you see a slow down. Many hospitals closed because they couldn't pay the bills and these were non-profit. According to their philosophy they would still be operating. Reduce the profit and they will flourish according to them. Where in the world does this thinking come from? <<
COMMENT:
>From people who write for a living, and usually have it published just once, so don't give a flying *&^% even if it's reposted or photocopied after that.
People who write novels or books or anything else that would be damaged greatly in value, start to become very incensed about copying and theft. The music and movie industries go bananas and get laws passed. And copyright is historically much longer than patent, for reasons that don't make very much sense, but which reflect on the fact that people who run things in most societies are generally people of money and words and guns and smoke and mirrors, and are not inventors, tinkerers, chemists, physicists, or generally people who can do math past grade 5.
SBH
outrider - 08 Jun 2005 21:12 GMT And then there are the people who wish they could write for a living but can't, not because they don't have talent, but because they don't understand talent is the last thing that sells.
Although they talk a good show about the corporate identity, these people wouldn't write what the corporate identity citates, and would resent that teh corporate identity would own every word they wrote.
When a freelancer sells an article (unless she is a Shannon Brownlee and not even then 95 per cent of the time) she signs away lst NA Serial Rights. The publisher owns all, and will reprint at will, without paying. The recent copyright legal action looked good in the headlines, but de facto comes down to the same thing as before. The man owns all. You don't want to write for the man? Get out of the way someone else will. (I believe you would call this free market).
The other bit of misinformation you have Steve is that any writer is writing their own opinion, or has some say over what's going in the story, or any say in if where and when it will get published. Not freelancers, not staff writers, and not novelists. There is only one novelist The New Yorker doesn't dare edit. (Know who? ) The rest are subject to the mighty red pen.
The only time a writer gets to say whatever he or she wants it's called vanity publishing. Or the internet.
Hank - 13 Jun 2005 03:43 GMT > And then there are the people who wish they could write for a living > but can't, not because they don't have talent, but because they don't [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The only time a writer gets to say whatever he or she wants it's called > vanity publishing. Or the internet. And the point you are making has what relationship to drug prices?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:37 GMT Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and completely runs them together.
For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel trading," is that a company sells at different prices to different markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug from here to there, to even out the difference.
Should this be illegal to do (as it is in the US currently)? In my mind, it's a matter of contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket at a "senior citizen's discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for an industry to develop to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them (at a fraction of the senior discount) to people of *other* ages? Why or why not? Of course this is exactly the same problem, but in a different guise. One can apply this to all kinds of other discounted or special market products which companies use to sell products to limited markets to fill up their unused capacity. There are empty seats
on airliners as well as movie theaters. There are empty seats in football stadiums. Why aren't there people in them?
>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead ." <<
COMMENT
How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph.
It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their share of research costs? What happens when you find you can sell a drug to a poor country at more than your marginal cost to make more of it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an airplane), BUT find you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any
price which will allow it to share in development costs? This is the essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a
semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What then?
>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development. Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut back on research and development because it's their bread and butter. They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell when the patents on their existing drugs expire . <<
COMMENT:
Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron. Pharmaceutical companies do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business. More specifically, these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN), retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or
whatever. And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living,
will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of
other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit. I have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's like yacht building or horse breeding.
SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Jun 2005 22:47 GMT Boy, what a confused article. It talks about two separate subjects, intellectual property rights and differential drug pricing, and completely runs them together.
For one thing, the Europeans DO honor intellectual property rights. A drug company CAN charge all the market will bear, when it comes to selling a patented drug. The only thing that happens in the "parallel trading" is that a company sells at different prices to different markets, and there are re-distributors that operate by moving a drug from here to there, to even out the difference. Should this be illegal to do (as it is in the US currently)? In my mind, it's a matter of contract law. If a movie theater sells a ticket at a "senior citizen's discount" to a senior, should it be illegal for an industry to develop to buy these tickets from seniors and sell them (at a fraction of the senior discount) to people of *other* ages? Why or why not? Of course this is exactly the same problem, but in a different guise. One can apply this to all kinds of other discounted or special market products which companies use to sell products to limited markets to fill up their unused capacity. There are empty seats on airliners as well as movie theaters. There are empty seats in football stadiums. Why aren't there people in them?
>>"The United States does a lion's share of research in the world for research and development of drugs," says Carmona. "That's why the Canadian government sells it cheaper. They don't have the overhead ." <<
COMMENT
How amusing that Zee should post an article containing this paragraph.
It's perfectly true, of course. So how DO you make people pay their share of research costs? What happens when you find you can sell a drug to a poor country at more than your marginal cost to make more of it (in the same way you can sell those last seats on a theater or an airplane), BUT find you cannot sell the drug to the poor country at any
price which will allow it to share in development costs? This is the essential problem drug companies are faced with. They solve it now by a
semi-socialist system in which the rich are charged higher prices, and the poor are given an effective discount. Oddly enough, parallel trading acts to destroy this system so that it cannot be used. What then?
>>The surgeon general's task force report agrees with the pharmaceutical companies -- that if they lower their prices, they'll spend less on creating new drugs, and research and development. Rost doesn't buy that argument. He says drug companies won't cut back on research and development because it's their bread and butter. They have to develop new drugs or they won't have anything to sell when the patents on their existing drugs expire <<
COMMENT:
Well, this only shows that Rost is a moron. Pharmaceutical companies do NOT need to be in the parmaceutical business. More specifically, these companies are owned by INVESTORS who do NOT need to invest their money in pharmaceutical companies, but rather could just as easily (and in a matter of minutes) be investing the same $ instead in oil (SWN), retail stores (WMT), internet search enginees (GOOG), bananas (CQB), or
whatever. And who all know it. To the extent that profit is removed from drug development, companies that do drug development for a living,
will simply disappear (sometimes literally overnight) at the expense of
other companies which are allowed by the market to make a profit. I have made the point that drug development dollars disappeared from India and Brazil when these countries removed the profit incentive for it. There is no intrinsic reason drug development needs to exist anywhere on Earth, except as people are willing to pay for it. It's like yacht building or horse breeding.
SBH
Jeff - 07 Jun 2005 23:45 GMT That drugs cost a lot less in Europe and Canada is not something new.
Jeff
outrider - 08 Jun 2005 00:03 GMT > That drugs cost a lot less in Europe and Canada is not something new. > > Jeff I think the story is Rost.
Zee
|
|
|