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