By Andrea Worthington Snarr

Part 2

With the shock and dissatisfaction consumers experience as they fill prescriptions at the corner pharmacy, many politicians are jumping on the bandwagon, waving their price control flags at the big, bad drug companies. Doing this makes them look as if they're taking action on an important issue.

It's true that drug companies have their part to play in this problem. They aren't altruists finding drugs to cure people as Congressman Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, is determined to show. He helps many senior citizens take bus trips to Canada to buy their prescriptions in an effort to get the message out about what American drug companies are doing. He criticizes the pharmaceutical industry for increased spending on lobbying and for inflated profits.
In fact, he is quick to point out that the pharmaceutical industry gave $7.3 million in campaign contributions and avoided $3.8 billion in tax loopholes, while the top 10 drug companies' profits average an annual $2.5 billion. Using raw data released from Fortune 500, Sanders shows the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more pure profit than the top seven auto, oil, airline, and media companies.
Do Utah Representatives feel this pressure? In all fairness, Jim Matheson says he has not been pressured in any way by pharmaceutical companies. He doesn't see the drug companies buying influence. Rather, he supports the rights of special interest groups to get their information out, and adds, "I haven't had a lot of visits from drug companies."
However, it is the free market that drives pharmaceutical companies to risk billions in drug development. Without this motivation of big profits, development is stifled. Alyson Jacox agrees. "Stringent price controls from the U.S. government would slow drug development," she states.
Another example of price control failure occurred in Germany. Price controls were placed on some drugs in the early 1990s. Ferdinand Protzman of the New York Times, reported the effects: shortages of needed drugs, job loss, intimidated doctors and reductions in research and development budgets.
In fact, European firms like GlaxoSmithKline have moved essential work to America since price controls have made development an American business opportunity. And Britain's Department of Health recently decided to look into deregulating prices there as they are here in America. Apparently, price controls have done there what they have always done throughout history: brought economic stagnation and decline, rationing, black markets and inflation.
The question then becomes, what can we do to maintain our free market atmosphere while putting a harness on greed and corruption within drug companies?

Prescriptions for
responsible solutions

In light of this information, many realize that imposing price controls on drug companies will only hurt America's healthcare system. Also, why run the risk of importing drugs that may be unsafe? In this climate, what can the American consumer do about prescription drug costs?
There are many possible solutions that might make a difference. Concerned citizens can help a great deal by contacting their representatives to voice their opinion about responsible solutions.
Pharmacist Kort Delost believes that the best solution is making drug companies compete. By instigating a national drug formulary where drug companies could bid on producing bulk quantities of certain drugs, all pharmacies could have access to buying these drugs to sell to consumers at discounted prices. This solution allows current distribution laws to continue to protect consumers while still offering drugs at better prices. Drug companies would then control themselves through the rules of the free market. Delost is convinced that this solution would reduce drug prices by 20 - 30 percent overnight.
Consumers must also be more proactive in the way they buy drugs. This can be done legally and safely already. Often, researching other available options here in the U.S., such as mail order from a legitimate company, can yield big savings. For instance, some mail order pharmacies in the U.S. offer a three-month supply for one insurance co-pay, saving a consumer two more trips to the pharmacy--and two additional co-pays. Dr. John Graham, director of the Pharmaceutical Policy Research Center at Canada's Fraser Institute, concluded "a shopper can save almost as much money by bargain hunting within his own area as by crossing the border."
Another idea to help solve the problem is putting restrictions on drug company advertising. Most people have noticed that consumers and doctors are bombarded by marketing for new drugs, especially in the past few years. These ads cost money. Currently, drug companies spend more dollars on advertising than on research and development. However, Congressman Matheson doesn't view limits on advertising as a viable solution. "Companies have a right to promote their products. But the nation can address the issue with public policies that allow tax benefits for R&D and not for advertising. This way, we help drug companies set priorities that reflect public values," explains Matheson.
Congressman Matheson sees a two-fold solution. First, he believes in spreading the cost of drug advancement across the nations receiving the benefits, namely the aforementioned industrialized countries. This can be accomplished through trade agreements and is more fair than having Americans foot the bill for R&D, says Matheson. Secondly, he states that generics must come to market on a more timely basis. "It is very easy to extend patents. A patent runs out in 17 years and we have abuses of patents being extended two-and-a-half years over and over. We do have competition between drug companies when patents have expired. We need to address the issue," says Matheson.
Lastly, there is nothing like realizing what benefits our medical climate offers U.S. residents. No one will argue that the system needs reforms, especially when it comes to costly pharmaceuticals. However, consumers can be grateful for the advances that health care in a deregulated, free market offers.
As Alyson Jacox sees it, "One system is driven by desire for monetary gain, the other by politics. Both have flaws and weaknesses, but I have much greater confidence in the U.S. system." Sure, there are a lot of things wrong with the system, but if you have a life-threatening illness, there is no place like home.