THE
FEDERAL
government
should
stop
the
special
trade
protectionism
it
has
for
pharmaceutical
companies,
and
allow
the
legal
import
of
cheaper,
generic
drugs.
This
issue
has
been
a
point
of
contention
for
years,
for
Americans
with
all
kinds
of
illnesses,
ranging
from
cancer
patients
to
people
with
HIV
and
AIDS.
Now
—
finally
—
thanks
to
a
particularly
outrageous
move
by
Abbott
Laboratories
to
raise
the
price
of
its
AIDS
drug,
Norvir,
to
500
percent
of
its
previous
cost,
this
issue
is
getting
some
serious
consideration.
Typically,
whenever
consumers
and
advocacy
groups
raise
a
stink
and
demand
they
be
allowed
to
legally
import
drugs
from
Canada
or
Europe
for
a
fraction
of
the
price,
there
is
a
lot
of
government
hand-wringing
and
more
than
just
a
little
sweating
from
the
drug
companies.
The
federal
government’s
claim
that
Americans’
health
would
be
at
risk
because
it
could
not
guarantee
the
safety
of
foreign-imported
drugs
seems
spurious.
Are
we
really
supposed
to
believe
that
citizens
of
Canada
and
Western
Europe
are
putting
their
health
at
risk
for
the
cheaper
drugs?
We
import
all
kinds
of
products
from
overseas,
and
they
must
undergo
scrutiny
for
safety
before
they
can
be
sold
here.
It
seems
unfathomable
that
the
federal
government
couldn’t
devise
regulations
for
the
safe
import
of
foreign
drugs.
The
drug
companies
try
to
tell
us
that
they
don’t
make
huge
profits
from
the
drugs,
despite
the
often
enormous
cost
difference
between
those
same
drugs
here
and
in
foreign
countries.
They
also
say
that
a
lot
of
the
money
that
is
made
off
of
existing
drugs
gets
put
back
into
research
and
development,
to
work
on
discovering
better
drugs.
While
both
the
arguments
from
the
drug
companies
and
the
federal
government
have
a
grain
of
truth,
none
is
strong
enough
to
present
unsolvable
barriers
to
allowing
more
affordable
imported
drugs
into
the
United
States.
THE
MAIN
REASON
we
don’t
have
cheaper,
generic
drugs
in
this
country
is
simple:
greed.
The
recent
debacle
over
the
AIDS
drug
Norvir
illustrates
why
the
government
needs
to
stop
pampering
pharmaceutical
companies,
and
start
standing
up
for
patients.
Abbott
Laboratories
began
marketing
Norvir
in
1996.
At
the
time,
it
was
only
the
second
in
a
class
of
revolutionary
drugs
known
as
protease
inhibitors,
which
radically
changed
the
course
of
medical
treatment
for
people
with
HIV
and
AIDS.
In
addition
to
the
benefits
of
Norvir
itself,
doctors
soon
discovered
this
drug
had
the
distinctive
ability
to
enhance
the
benefits
of
other
protease
inhibitors.
So
Norvir
also
became
widely
used
as
a
supplemental
drug.
Norvir
soon
became
an
integral
part
of
the
so-called
“cocktail”
of
drugs
that
so
many
people
with
HIV
and
AIDS
take.
This
made
Norvir
a
huge
success.
Since
its
introduction,
the
total
sales
of
Norvir
have
passed
the
$1
billion
mark.
Usually,
as
a
drug
becomes
more
widely
used
and
more
profitable,
its
price
goes
down,
not
up.
But
in
January,
Abbott
Laboratories
decided
to
raise
the
average
price
of
the
drug,
used
by
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans
with
HIV
and
AIDS,
from
about
$1,500
per
year,
up
to
about
$7,800
per
year.
That
means
the
same
dose
of
the
drug
today
costs
five
times
more
than
it
did
a
year
ago.
Compare
the
price
here
to
the
average
cost
of
the
same
exact
drug
in
Europe.
The
typical
yearly
cost
of
Norvir
in
Europe
is
somewhere
around
$700
to
$750.
That
means
Americans
are
now
paying
10
times
more
for
Norvir
than
are
Europeans.
THERE’S
ANOTHER
IMPORTANT
factor
in
the
Norvir
debacle,
too.
The
initial
research
and
testing
of
the
drug
was
made
possible
by
a
federal
grant
to
Abbott
Laboratories
from
the
National
Institutes
of
Health.
That
federal
grant
money
came
directly
from
taxpayers.
“The
grant
was
critical
in
allowing
us
to
make
the
rapid
progress
that
we
made,”
Dr.
John
Erickson
recently
told
the
New
York
Times.
Erickson
was
the
former
chief
of
Abbott
Laboratories’
drug
research
program.
Taxpayer
money
subsidized
Norvir,
which
went
on
to
be
a
huge
profit-maker
for
Abbott
Laboratories,
a
company
that
now
is
turning
around
and
charging
the
public
exorbitantly
high
rates.
The
fact
that
Norvir
was
developed
with
the
help
of
a
federal
grant
is
important
for
another
reason,
too:
Part
of
the
fine
print
in
any
such
grant
is
that
the
government
has
the
right
to
insist
on
“reasonable”
prices
for
the
discoveries
made
with
its
money.
A
five-time,
overnight
increase
in
the
cost
of
a
billion-dollar,
already-profitable
drug
is
hardly
reasonable.
Activists
are
pressuring
the
government
to
use
its
leverage
in
the
Norvir
case,
and
there
is
some
evidence
that
at
least
a
few
politicians
are
finally
listening.
The
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services
held
a
hearing
Wednesday,
April
14,
on
Norvir
in
particular,
and
on
the
question
of
cheaper
imported
drugs
in
general.
The
National
Institutes
of
Health
is
also
set
to
schedule
hearings
on
the
issues.
At
least
six
members
of
the
House
have
signed
a
letter
to
petitioning
Tommy
Thompson,
Bush’s
health
secretary,
asking
him
to
assert
the
right
to
“reasonable”
prices.
One
bill
has
already
been
introduced
in
the
Senate
to
gradually
allow
imported
drugs
from
Canada,
Europe
and
Australia.
And
John
Kerry,
the
presumptive
Democratic
presidential
candidate,
has
voiced
his
support
of
legalizing
imported
drugs.
Activists
are
also
encouraging
a
boycott
of
Abbott
drugs.
While
Abbott
has
a
monopoly
on
Norvir
(and
no
one
is
suggesting
that
patients
in
need
of
the
drug
stop
taking
it
to
make
a
political
statement),
consumers
can
express
their
displeasure
with
Abbott’s
pricing
by
purchasing
other
brands
on
drugs
where
Abbott
has
competitors.
But
in
the
long
run,
the
solution
to
the
problem
of
unaffordable
drugs
is
to
allow
the
import
of
foreign
medicines.
There’s
nothing
like
competition
to
keep
down
price
gauging.
