Report: Ill. Should Buy Drugs From Canada

CHICAGO (AP)--For weeks, Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been saying that Illinois, its employees and retired employees could save a lot of money buying medicine from Canada.

Now, a report commissioned by the governor and scheduled to be released Monday found that importing drugs from Canada for state workers and retirees would save Illinois nearly 17 percent of its annual expense for prescription drugs, the governor's office said.

Blagojevich plans to ask the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to waive a restriction on importing drugs, said his spokeswoman, Abby Ottenhoff. Federal law bars bringing foreign prescription drugs into the country.

The report is the latest step by Blagojevich to pressure federal authorities into allowing Illinois to bring in significantly discounted drugs from Canada to save the state millions of dollars each year. He has lobbied Congress and launched a Web site featuring a petition in support of the idea.

The report also found Canada employs safety measures similar to those practiced in the United States regarding prescription drugs, Ottenhoff said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ``has raised concerns that their system isn't as safe and they can't guarantee the quality of drugs that will come from Canada,'' Ottenhoff said. ``We looked at everything from the training and education of their pharmacists to the packaging and distribution process and we found that, in every category we looked at, they met or exceeded our standards.''

The FDA and pharmaceutical companies warn that buying Canadian drugs presents significant, potential health and safety risks.

``This whole exercise is unfair, and it's unwise and it's unfortunate that the governor is playing politics with the health and safety of employees,'' said Peter Pitts, associate commissioner for external relations at the FDA.

The study found that, if all eligible prescriptions were filled through a Canadian mail order plan, state employees and retirees using three prescriptions a month would save up to $1,008 per year, Ottenhoff said.

It also found that overall savings for the state and employees combined would be as high as $90.7 million annually. The state's share of this amount would be about $56.5 million, Ottenhoff said.

Illinois spent $340 million on prescription drugs for its employees and retirees last fiscal year, up 15 percent from the previous year.

The report shows that drugs sold in Canadian pharmacies are manufactured in facilities approved by Health Canada--the FDA's counterpart in Canada.

But Pitts, who met Friday with the people who wrote the report, said they told him they never spoke with Health Canada representatives, which he said calls ``into serious question'' the report's findings.

It isn't a healthcare concern, unless you take the long view on it.

Canada has price controls in place for medication. The US doesn't (yet). The companies that make these drugs (this will be a shocker to everyone, I know) want to make money. I don't know what their margins are like in Canada, but I'm positive they aren't as large as they are here in the US.

The reason I say this would be a long term healthcare concern, is because if there isn't any money to be made in finding new medications - then the companies will not have a motive to make them.

I know, milk of human kindness and all that rot. But the shareholders of these companies want to see a return on their investment, not help people (improving people's health is only a side benefit to this business).

My neighbor is a director of an adult multi-level nursing home facility which has about 600 residents at various stages from assisted living to hospital care.

He has been in Canada for two weeks working the drug procurement show. His motives are pure and he is a fine intelligent man. He told me that just by procuring prescription meds in Canada he can save his facility anywhere from $30,000 to $93,000 per month when modeling against his costs in 1999 and 2000.

I had gone to the defense of market forces and against price controls as a good loyal conservative, but when you are talking about almost a hundred grand over 600 people, towing the conservative line smells.

With that line of thinking, you could just as easily insert the line, "when you talk about 300 million people, you could potentially 'save' x."

When defending price controls, why does it become more palatable when the numbers of people increase? You're either for the free market or you're not. Citing your neighbor's situation, you're not.

It may surprise you to know, many of the largest pharma companies have programs where they either discount greatly, or provide at no cost to low-income seniors and other patients who can't afford their drugs. Arbitrarily cutting into those profits by dictating which situations and by how much it's OK to make a profit does not make it any easier for those pharma companies to continue to offer such programs.

I have been largely ignorant of the pharmaceutical drug wars. Being relatively blessed with a healthy family, I've just not made it a priority. We get most of our "prescription drugs" from the local livestock supplier. Same stuff, same production lines, same dosage levels((usually a certain number of ml's per 110lb of mass), and no co-pay.

In my opinion we are a pill solution society and our hold on comfort is only as strong as the next pill. The best thing that could happen in this country is for the pills to stop flowing like ecstacy at a Pee Ditty party.

Need to sleep? Wake up? Get an erection? Drop an erection? Take a pee? Stop the pee? Take a crap? Stop crapping? More hair? Prettier toenails? Rectal itching? Yeast infection? Bad mood? Poor attention span? Feeling Blue? and a thousand other non-serious natural conditions of life can only be countered with a prescription. It's really funny when you think about it.

Now medications which are clinically required for a disease or degenerative condition are a different story to be told. But I'd venture to say that is a much smaller segment of the bidness.

I've had eighteen surgeries and real nasty stuff too. I know the different anesthesia drugs now just by the taste in my mouth before I go under. I'm a real fan of intravenous demerol pushes(not infusions) and morphine. Intravenous dilantin injections OTOH make me want to curl up in a fear filled fetal ball. Dilantin injections have to be worse than battery acid with a bleach chaser. Dilantin is a great torture drug! My rule of thumb is that if you are diseased, dgenerating, or injured enough to be taking serious medications they should be monitored and administered in skilled home nursing or hospital environments. The growth of the pharmeceutical bidness has been exponential to the scale back and denial of hospital admissions. That said, a discharge of a patient should not be accompanied by a half dozen prescriptions and a nurses phone number programmed into a speed dial.

I don't doubt that too many have come to rely on "pills" as a cure-all for what ails them. But to generalize and only point to the indications you mention is short-sighted. Just a quick glance at what sits on the FDA's "pending drug" approval list quickly disputes the claim: diabetes, pulmonary conditions, Parkinson's disease, asthma, kidney disease, and heart disease are among the indications of current or pending FDA approvals.

As to your claim that pharmaceuticals are reducing necessary in-patient hospital care, I would suggest the opposite is true. Advanced medicines are reducing hospital stays because drug therapy can adequately replace the need to be in a hospital, plus, drug therapy has the added benefit of reducing healthcare costs associated with lengthy hospital stays.

Oh great! The solution to out of control medical costs is cost shifting......My philosophy is that the $1,300 per month my family's health insurance costs could be instead used to fund a catastrophic account and MSA account, I could pay fee for service at my doctor's office. I could decide if I really need those flexerylls for my back. They've never worked and a nubaine shot in the butt costs hardly anything, working much better and settles things down. When my wife has a baby I could shop around for best delivery prices. If I have a strep throat or need a tetnus shot at midnight, that local walk-in-clinic will take my $40 and treat me immediately.

Last time we had the ultrasound technician out to our farm to inspect for breeding, gestation, and multiple births in our herd, we had her scan my wife too. Her due date was perfect, sexing was correct, and finger/toe count and heart chamber observations were perfect. The cost was the same as the animals. $3.00 per head, and a $25 trip charge unless you had a herd larger than 100 head which we do.

As for your edict that drug developments have reduced hospital stays and costs.....all I have to say is that's cost shifting only and you have never had much in the way of hospital stays lately. My last surgeries were both shoulder resections and bone chisseling, grinding, and connective tissue work. An outpatient procedure according to my insurance company. Each day I had to be driven to the outpatient department for drainage inspection, blood clot observation, infection IV fluids, and an "atta-boy". This went on for two weeks. I went thru less pain and distress when I had been impailed by a leafspring thru my windshield, skewering me into the drivers seat. The broken femur with shredded quads was worse on the blood clotting issue and the infections were worse, but those were long hospital stays.

In the future I'm just going to announce I hit my head during whatever dumb-ass thing I did to myself in the future. The last time I had convulsive brain seizures I got a six week stay. I guess head injuries are the bomb.

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.