And alot of Canadians come to the States for medical procedures they can't get
done in Canada without waiting 6 months or better. Seems I heard something about
the doctors not being too happy either.

Norma

Linda J Herman wrote:

> The following article gives the viewpoint of a consumer advocacy
> organization
> As Michael and others wrote - maybe the drug companies' high profits
> should be a welcome announcement for us. The question i would ask is -
> where  the profits going -- towards developing new drugs or elsewhere?
> ALSO
> Murray Kastner wrote that in Canada - "We believe that a modern society
> has as one of its
> basic human rights the medical care of its citizen... "
>   -- Murray I don't think you'll need to do much "running and ducking"
> from this group!!
> Living near the Canadian border, we hear there are organized bus trips to
> Ontario to purchase meds - mostly  by seniors who can't afford the prices
>  in New York.
> Linda
>
> FROM:
>
> "High Cost of New Drug Development Exposed as Myth.
> Arthur A. Levin
> 08/01/2001
> HealthFacts
> Center for Medical Consumers, Inc.
>
> "U.S. drug manufacturers actually spend about one-fifth of the amount
> that they
> claim it costs for the research and development required to market a new
> prescription drug. This finding was published last month in a report
> issued by
> Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a Washington- based consumer advocacy
> organization. Rx R&D Myths is based on reviews of government and industry
> data.
>
> The drug industry's historic defense of extraordinarily high
> profitability has
> been that its revenues are critical for adequately funding the very high
> and
> risky investment costs of drug research and development (R&D). Current
> political
> efforts to control costs and thus industry profits will, the industry
> threatens,
> deprive Americans of important treatments. Alan Holmer, President of the
> Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the
> brand-drug
> industry trade association warned on National Public Radio, "Believe me,
> if we
> impose price controls...and if you reduce the R&D...it's going to harm my
> kids
> and it's going to harm those millions of Americans who have
> life-threatening
> conditions."
>
> But, according to Frank Clemente, director of Congress Watch, "This R&D
> scare is
> built on myths and falsehoods." The report's findings are politically
> important
> because the industry's previously unchallenged scare tactics have been
> very
> effective in stymying efforts to provide Medicare drug coverage and rein
> in
> skyrocketing drug costs. PhRMA, of course, never mentions the fact that
> the
> majority of drugs brought to market (over 75%) are not innovative
> products with
> clinically important therapeutic gains. Many are so-called "me-too" drugs
>
> offering no advantages over existing products and with R&D costs that are
> much
> lower than those for truly innovative new products.
>
> Congress Watch researchers found that the actual after-tax cash outlay
> for the
> R&D involved in getting a new drug to market is approximately $110
> million
> dollars--as opposed to the $500 million figure traditionally bandied
> about by
> the PhRMA. The new estimate of $110 million R&D outlay per new approved
> drug
> also includes the costs of R&D for those drugs that fail to reach the
> market.
> The report also found that "Industry R&D risks and costs are
> significantly
> reduced by taxpayer-funded research." An internal National Institute of
> Health
> document obtained by Congress Watch through the Freedom of Information
> Act
> showed that publically funded research is critical to the development of
> top-selling drugs. NIH estimated that 55% of the research projects
> leading to
> the discovery and development of the five top-selling drugs in 1995 were
> taxpayer- funded.
>
> Undaunted, PhRMA has stood by its $500 million per new drug R&D estimate.
> Jeff
> Trewitt, a spokesperson for the association said that the figure "may
> even be
> conservative." PhRMA's own higher estimate is based on a 1991 published
> study
> that, according to Public Citizen, included significant expenses that are
> tax
> deductible as well as higher than justifiable estimates of the financial
> risks
> of R&D.
>
> The industry successfully fought a nine-year court battle all the way to
> the
> U.S. Supreme Court to keep the federal watchdog General Accounting Office
> from
> seeing all of its R&D financial records. While Congress has the authority
> to
> subpoena industry records it has so far failed to do so. Its reluctance
> just
> might be influenced by the industry behavior documented in another recent
>
> Congress Watch report.
>
> The Other Drug War describes the drug industry as spending over $92
> million to
> hire 625 lobbyists in 2000, half of whom were former members of Congress
> or had
> worked in Congress or other federal agencies. In all of 2000, the
> industry spent
> a total of $177 million on lobbying, $65 million on so-called "issue" ads
>
> attacking its political opponents and sprinkled $20 million around the
> halls of
> Congress in campaign contributions.
>
> I wonder, if the industry has nothing to hide about how it calculates the
> R&D
> costs of a new drug, why does it so strenuously resist efforts by the
> independent General Accounting Office to examine its financial records? "
> ---
> Arthur A. Levin, MPH, is the director of the Center for Medical Consumers
> in New
> York City.
>
> AND FROM:
> INSIDE THE INDUSTRY - FORTUNE 500: DRUG MAKERS ARE 'MOST PROFITABLE'
> INDUSTRY
> 04/20/2001
> American Health Line
>
> "The pharmaceutical industry has proved "largely immune to the economic
> gyrations" that shook several other industries this year, making the
> industry
> "more profitable than any other," according to the new "Fortune 500"
> rankings.
> Fortune reports that the introduction of new pharmaceuticals and
> increased sales
> of patented "blockbuster" drugs helped create "a steady stream of
> revenues" for
> drug makers. The drug industry was the most profitable sector in 2000,
> posting
> an 18.6% return on revenues and a 17.7% return on assets. The
> pharmaceutical
> industry was ranked second in return on shareholders' equity, with a
> 29.4%
> profit rate. Merck & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb both ranked among the
> magazine's 20 most profitable companies. Merck took 11th place with $6.8
> billion
> in profits and Bristol-Myers Squibb finished 19th with profits of $4.7
> billion.
> Pfizer, which saw its revenues rise 82.5% last year, ranked fourth in
> overall
> market value with $243.2 billion. Amgen, Eli Lilly, Schering- Plough and
> Bristol-Myers Squibb all ranked among the top 20 companies producing the
> largest
> return on revenues. Within the drug industry, Merck posted the largest
> total
> revenue with $40.3 billion, followed by Pfizer with $29.5 billion,
> Johnson &
> Johnson with $29.1 billion, Bristol-Myers Squibb with $21.3 billion and
> Pharmacia with $18.1 billion. "
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

--
http://nordike.homestead.com/NordikeHome.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn