Another year, another bill, and another
amendment to legalize prescription drug importation. Importation's
proponents are attempting once again to sneak it into law by
amending annual, must-pass legislation. Their target this time is
the Agriculture appropriations bill, but almost any bill could be
game. Whatever means they use to try to pass importation, the
objections to it will still be the same: importation would not
lower prices significantly, would threaten the development of new
drugs, and would pose serious safety risks. The White House is
right to threaten a veto.
Back in December 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy
promising a veto for any Senate legislation that would allow re-
importation of prescription drugs without addressing the safety
concerns that such importation raises. As adequately addressing the
safety issue would undermine the one advantage of importation-that
is, lower prices due to foreign governments' prices-control
regimes-and probably would be impossible anyway, this amounted to a
blanket veto threat on the prospect of drug importation.
On Monday of this week, the White House
renewed its threat, focusing specifically on the 2006 Agriculture
appropriations bill, to which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom
Coburn (R-OK) are expected to propose an amendment that would force
the FDA to allow and regulate importation.
The amendment "is expected to be stripped out during
conference discussions," according to The Hill. It's really
just as well.
As Heritage analysts have long
recognized, re-importation-by which U.S. drugs are exported to a
foreign country like Canada, subjected to price controls, and then
re-imported to the U.S.-is bad health care policy. To begin with,
it wouldn't work: drug companies would cut their sales to Canada,
and Canadian pharmacies would stop selling to Americans-either
because they don't have the drugs in stock or because their
government forces them to, which has already begun to happen for
gray market re-importation.
Still, allowing importation would be a
foot in the door for government manipulation of drug prices in the
United States, which would have a devastating effect on the quality
of health care that U.S. citizens receive. Most apparently,
re-importation would stifle drugmakers' spending on the research
and development of new drugs, slowing or even ending recent years'
constant and unprecedented pharmacological innovation. As America
is the only major country now that does not regulate drug prices,
turning off the spigot of innovation here would impact drug
development worldwide.
Moreover, legitimate safety concerns
about imported drugs remain unaddressed. Imported drugs may be
counterfeited, unapproved, adulterated, or misbranded. Even with
congressionally granted authority, the FDA would not have the
ability to address these issues comprehensively.
The bottom line, as Nina Owcharenko,
Senior Health Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, has explained,
is that support for drug importation is premised on a series of
myths, none of which are true:
- Importation will lower
prices.
- Importation will force other countries
to pay their 'fair share' for drug development.
- Importation is free trade, despite
other countries' price controls.
- Importation is safe.
- Importation won't negatively impact
research and development of new pharmaceuticals.
There is, unfortunately, no 'quick fix'
for high drug prices-re-importation would make little difference
while causing potentially great harm. A better course would be for
Congress to focus on targeting assistance to low-income Americans
who do not have health or drug coverage, and thus reduce the number
of Americans without drug coverage, and for the Administration to
negotiate with other countries to reduce or end their use of price
controls on prescription drugs.
Further Reading
Debunking
the Myths of Drug Importation by Nina Owcharenko
Why
Drug Re-importation Is Bad Policy by Nina Owcharenko
Time
to Stop Drug Re-importation by Nina Owcharenko
Policy Weblog:
The Beginning of the End for Importation?
Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Writer at
The Heritage Foundation.