posted on March 20, 2004 04:25:52 AM new
Toronto telemarketer fined for deceptive tactics
Last Updated Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:11:53
OTTAWA - A Toronto-based telemarketing company which targeted Americans has pleaded guilty of using deceptive practices to sell discount health cards. Medical Discount Inc. has been fined $125,000 by the Competition Bureau.
The company and several directors have also been banned for four years from engaging or participating in, or assisting others in any activity involving the sale or offer for sale of health-care discount programs.
The company was associated with nine Ontario corporations which marketed the discount cards under the names MedPlan and Global.
* MARKETPLACE: Telemarketing
The Competition Bureau received hundreds of complaints from Americans between March of 2001 and January of 2003 who felt pressured to buy the medical discount plans and disclose bank account information. Money was withdrawn from bank accounts without the authorization of the account holder ? and promises of full refunds or a free trial period were often ignored.
In addition, several American states and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have launched actions of their own against the company. Those cases are ongoing.
posted on March 20, 2004 08:20:03 AM new
Every nation has it's scumbags, but what stopwhining says is true...if American citizens could afford American medicines, this would not have happened, at least not in Canada.
___________________________________
posted on March 20, 2004 08:24:01 AM new
stopwhining - if us residents can pay the same price as canadians are paying for us drug,this would not have happened.
Would you be willing to forgo the U.S. Research and Development on future drugs, so we can pay lower drug prices today?
posted on March 20, 2004 08:26:32 AM new
Quite a few of these so-called Canadian telemarketers are actually US companys who operate in Canada to bypass US laws and as long as they don't break Canadian laws it's hard to shut them down until enough evidence is gathered to charge them with fraud.
Telemarketers are an absolute bane in todays society. These crooks operate anywhere and everywhere.
posted on March 20, 2004 09:10:33 AM new
Ahh, my favorite subject, Twelve - drug companies! Where's Helen? This is one of her favorite subjects too!
If the U.S. would be honest with it's prescription drug taking citizens, this stuff wouldn't happen. Tell my why a pill made from Pfizer Canada costs $1.00 but the same pill made at Pfizer U.S. costs $2.00? Wages are the same. Production costs are the same. Any ideas? Sounds to me like your government, that supports big drug companies like you wouldn't believe, is the one ripping off old people to the tune of billions each year. New pill formulas are just re-concoctions of the old recipes but are given new high-tech names. This is called "research". I'd like to hear one of you tell me what all these decades of research have given us. Drug companies are money making machines. Helping people is the last thing on their minds.
posted on March 20, 2004 09:57:16 AM new
Would you be willing to forgo the U.S. Research and Development on future drugs, so we can pay lower drug prices today?
The same drug made by the same company and exported to Canada is sold at lower prices than to the US market. The US consumer is subsidizing the drug companies by paying higher prices. There is no difference in the content or quality of these drugs.
The cards twelve refers to are discount cards that you allegedly take to your pharmacy to get a better price on your prescriptions. They are bogus, worthless,garbage.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on March 20, 2004 10:19:34 AM new
dave - Okay....then how about the drug companies take the cost of R & D and spread it equally around to ALL who purchased their drugs, no matter the country they sell to?
The costs of R & D are very high. Canada has price caps on their drugs that don't actually equal the cost of producing that drug.
One of my biggest concerns with this is that if all of the US were to buy drugs from Canada then one of three things might happen. 1) drug companies will stop selling to Canada in the quanties they are now and which are needed to meet the needs of Canadian citizens - which would raise their costs and 2) soon other foreign markets would also want to be a part of this 'trade' program - and what assurances are there on the quality of their drugs. 3) R & D would not be funded for new drugs.
A while back when we had another prescription thread someone posted that a lot of Canadian drugs really weren't that much cheaper anyway. A few were...but many weren't.
posted on March 20, 2004 10:28:31 AM new
KD - I'd like to hear one of you tell me what all these decades of research have given us.
Surely you don't believe that there aren't people taking drugs today that weren't available decades ago, do you?
One would be the drugs that HIV/AIDS patients take. Were those available decades ago?
There are many. My MIL takes a med that keeps her tremors down to a mild shake, that wasn't available when they first started. There are new cancer drugs. The list is long.
posted on March 20, 2004 10:41:17 AM new
You're so bad, Linda!
Linda a/not true, b/not true and c/not true.
a/We have our own drug manufacturing plants here. The only importing going on is different plants making different drugs. These manufacturing plants are American.
b/The foreign markets are already involved. Chemicals come from all over the world.
c/Funding for research is a BIG LIE. It plays on people's hearts. Guess how much money has gone into cancer research in the last century? And in the last century, even with all that money, they're no closer to finding a cure, let alone a good treatment. It's still radiation, cryogenics or chemo. These same researchers can't even find a cure for the common cold.
posted on March 20, 2004 10:47:48 AM new
KD - Bad? Just give back what I get all the time.
So it sounds like you're in favor of eliminating all R & D since it's done nothing to save lives or help make people feel better, according to you? Even with cancer and HIV/AIDs patients?
I don't agree with that. Many lives are now being saved by drugs that weren't available before.
------------
This is from Forbes.com
Research and development costs for new drugs have soared in recent years. In 2000, it cost $802 million to make a new drug compared with $318 million in 1987, according to the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
FDA Myths
1. FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan, holds that other affluent countries like Canada and the UK set their prices for patented drugs so low that they do not pay for research and development (R&D) (McClellan 2003). We can find no evidence to support that claim.
On the contrary, audited financial reports of major drug firms in the UK, show that all research costs are paid, with substantial profits left over, based solely on domestic sales at British prices (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2002). Likewise, 79 research drug companies in Canada submitted reports showing their R&D expenditures have risen more than 50% since 1995, all paid for by domestic sales at Canadian prices (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002). Sales to the U.S. and elsewhere are in addition to the positive, domestic balance sheets.
2. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that European or Canadian prices are "slowing the process of drug development worldwide" (McClellan 2003). There is no known verifiable evidence to support this claim. In fact, drug research has been increasing steadily in Europe as well as in the U.S., with some countries having a more rapid increase than the U.S. (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002).
3. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that "price controls discourage the R&D needed to develop new products" (McClellan 2003). But there is no known verifiable evidence to support this claim.
R&D expenditures have been growing rapidly, though it is becoming more and more difficult to discover breakthrough drugs on targets not already hit (Harris 2003). The truth kept from Americans is that first-line treatment for 96% of all medical problems requires only 320 drugs (Laing et al. 2003). In wealthy countries, more drugs might be appropriate to treat people who do not respond to first-line agents.
4. FDA Commissioner McClellan charges that efforts to negotiate lower prices for patented drugs by other countries (and by major employers, unions and governors in the U.S.) are "no different than violating the patent directly" to make cheap copies (McClellan 2003). This charge echoes the drug industry and implies that large buyers seeking better value should be considered a criminal act.
___________________________________
Linda, it's all propaganda. The drug companies make as much profit as BANKS. How is that possible? How can they look an AIDS patient in the eye and say they can't afford their drug? Or an old lady that needs her medication but can't afford it? In what best interest of these high profit machines would it be to come out with medicine that actually works and is low cost? What about coming out with cures? How would that benefit these companies?
I'm for independant research, Linda. Anything less has "tainted" written all over it, imo.
posted on March 20, 2004 11:13:58 AM new
Then there's this view.
Canada, by population, is one-tenth the size of the U.S. Its market for drugs is substantially smaller than the $200 billion worth consumed here. And here's the thing: Drugs are not "cheaper" in Canada. They're made less expensive for the consumer by the state's imposition of substantial price controls. The "cost" of a pill consumed in Canada is identical to one consumed in this country.
So, you know who's going to shut this down? One of two entities: the drug companies themselves or the Canadian government.
It works this way: Pfizer knows how much Viagra is being consumed in Canada. At some point, it can say, "We know how much Canadians consume by themselves, and it's substantially lower than the amount we're selling there now. We'll solve this by limiting the amount of Viagra we send to Canada to the amount they were consuming in 2003[/]."
Seriously, a company the size of Merck (NYSE: MRK) doesn't need to sell to Canada. And if its operations in Canada are cannibalizing its U.S. market, don't think for a second that the company wouldn't demand that Canada fix the problem itself, lest Merck sell to Canadian sources all of its drugs for the same exact price that it sells them in the U.S. Given the endgame choice between putting its foot down and demanding that Canada control its borders or allowing its share price to crash due to billions in profits rushing out the door, is it that hard to figure what Merck would do?
[i]Merck doesn't need Canada. Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) doesn't need Canada. GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) doesn't need Canada. These companies sell to Canada cheaply because they can make it up elsewhere -- in the U.S. When "elsewhere" is at risk, and Canadian reimportation's the cause, then Canada may have a problem. If Merck caps the amount of Zocor it ships to Canada, who do you think is going to have priority access: a clinic in Moose Jaw or the city of Seattle?
None of this, of course, is really fair to Canada, except that by artificially setting prices, the Canadian government puts itself at risk of having suppliers say that selling there isn't worth it. Do we really believe that Canada will let its own access to these drugs be put at risk?
This isn't a very good social outcome, but Canada, along with every other country that artificially puts a ceiling on its drug prices, enjoys what's called a "free rider" benefit on the backs of U.S. drug consumers.
Drug companies are able to sell medications more cheaply elsewhere because they can charge what the market will bear in the U.S. Our consumers bear the bulk of the cost it takes not just to produce and distribute drugs -- that's generally pretty cheap -- but to develop them in the first place.
One need only look at the problems facing orphan diseases -- ones that no drug company seeks to address because the market is simply economically too small to make the capital outlays worthwhile. What happens when the lower prices drug companies can count on push more diseases past being too small to address? Even a company that focuses on these smaller markets, like King Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: KG), isn't going to expend the effort if it cannot reasonably make a profit.
posted on March 20, 2004 12:22:33 PM new
Your post says...
So, you know who's going to shut this down? One of two entities: the drug companies themselves or the Canadian government.
"It works this way: Pfizer knows how much Viagra is being consumed in Canada. At some point, it can say, "We know how much Canadians consume by themselves, and it's substantially lower than the amount we're selling there now. We'll solve this by limiting the amount of Viagra we send to Canada to the amount they were consuming in 2003."
Whoever wrote this article is goofy. We make our own Viagra for one thing. We make most drugs, so the article is off-base from the get-go.
(sp)
[ edited by kraftdinner on Mar 20, 2004 12:49 PM ]
posted on March 20, 2004 12:57:46 PM new
I think I'm going to start writing my own articles, Helen. I'm going to print reports abouts how well financially I'm doing and how most things I do are accepted by everyone in the world as being truths. Hopefully, I'll be able to get people to use my articles in their posts as proven facts.
posted on March 20, 2004 03:00:35 PM new
KD - And if you'd read the first word on the next paragraph, you'd see they then said "seriously" like in they were just using that as an example....being silly.
It was just one person's opinion, but one that doesn't look like it's too far off base at least according to another article which says:
Drug companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C., Wyeth and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., have restricted supplies to Canada if they suspect Canadian drug importers are shipping back into the United States.
posted on March 20, 2004 03:13:29 PM new
taken from CBC news [online]
Eli Lilly to limit drug sales to Canada
Last Updated Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:07:40
WASHINGTON - Eli Lilly has joined the list of U.S. drug makers limiting sales to Canadian pharmacies to try to prevent their drugs from being re-imported and sold to Americans.
The drug manufacturer, based in Indianapolis, said in a letter to 24 drug wholesalers in Canada that it will limits its sales to amounts the company believes are sufficient for the Canadian market only.
Four other American drug companies – Pfizer, GlazoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Wyeth – took similar steps this year to try to prevent re-imports to the U.S. from Canada.
Because of Canadian regulations and the Canada-U.S. exchange rate, prescription drugs often cost 50 per cent less in Canada than they do in the U.S.
The FDA and U.S. Department of Justice have taken companies to court for re-importing U.S.-made drugs from Canada.
posted on March 21, 2004 07:03:33 PM new
As long as we are beating up Pfizer, here are some interesting facts.
This is found on their page Countries outside the United States may have different regulatory requirements or medical practices than those in the United States, and they may reference different information.
This is their UK based R & D.
http://www.pfizer.co.uk/template4.asp?pageid=102
Now saying this I know for a fact that Pfizer in the state of Wisconsin, I can only speak for this state because that is where I live. Pfizer gives FREE medicines to seniors who can't afford medicine. They also give FREE Zoloft to anyone that can't afford it. Of course you have to prove that you can't afford it to get it. Also Physicians get FREE drugs all the time and can and will help out in a pinch. I am in the middle of having Cataract surgery I needed certain eye drops, cost $48.00 at my local drug store and $58.00 at Walgreens. I called the drs. office and got them free. There are also other drug companies that give free medication, but if you don't ask they can't tell you.
posted on March 21, 2004 08:32:54 PM new
Libra - I appreciate your post. I know the FDA has stated their concern about drug quality from imported medications.
And in my town the doctors depend heavily on the drug companies free samples you mention. They are always given to those the doctors know cannot afford to buy them. I don't see the drug companies as being 'the bad guys' - ripping off Americans. I see them as just another business working to make a profit.
(CBS) It may come as no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable business in the country. Americans pay far more for their prescription drugs than citizens of any place on Earth.
It will also come as no surprise that as a political issue, the high price of drugs has united both Republicans and Democrats. More than a million Americans now buy their medications in Canada.
And it's no longer just older people taking buses across the border. Mayors and governors from Minnesota to Alabama are helping Americans get Canadian drugs by mail.
Such purchases are technically illegal. So far, the government has declined to prosecute individual customers or the cities and states involved. But the FDA - The Food and Drug Administration - has raised the specter of safety.
For more than a year, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Mark McClellan, has been waging a campaign against Canadian importation. The FDA has also issued a serious warning that using Canadian drugs could be unsafe. Correspondent Morley Safer reports. How unsafe? How common are the problems for drugs that people are buying in Canada?
“Well, that's the problem. We don’t know,” says Dr. McClellan. “Because we don't have the authority to tell where these drugs have come from, or to monitor closely how they're getting into the United States. And to make sure that the drugs that come in are safe, it could be a widespread problem.”
“That's a lot of hooey. There is no reason that buying drugs in Canada is any less safe than buying them in the United States,” says Dr. Marcia Angell, who was executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 11 years. She’s currently writing a book on the secrets of the drug industry.
“The people who say you have to worry about the safety of drugs from Canada are imagining the way it was in the old days. That there's a moat around the United States that drugs that are sold in the United States are made by only American companies. And made in this country,” says Angell.
“It's not that way anymore. Pfizer, for example, has 60 manufacturing sites in 32 countries. So the drugs are made all over the world. They're sold all over the world.”
Most of Pfizer's anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor is made in Ireland. The same Lipitor that's sold in both U.S. and Canadian pharmacies. Other familiar drugs like Zocor, Nexium, and Prevacid are the same as the ones sold in Canada. They're much cheaper there because the drug companies must abide by Canadian government price controls.
Do the drug companies still make a profit?
“Oh, sure. Why else would they sell them in Canada? They're not charities. Of course they make a profit,” says Angell. The United States is the only industrialized country without some form of control on the prices of drugs. The U.S. also accounts for more than half of the industry's profits.
In order to keep those profits up, the drug companies have joined the FDA in trying to shut down imports from Canada, and Canadian pharmacies are feeling the pressure. In one pharmacy just over the border, Americans account for 30 percent of its business. They were nervous about having 60 Minutes mention the actual name of the pharmacy.
“We've had several letters from the big multi-nationals, certainly threatening to cut off the drug supply very explicitly if you are supplying medications to U.S. patients,” says the pharmacist.
This pharmacy supplies drugs to municipal workers in the city of Springfield, Mass., through a program set up by former Springfield Mayor Michael Albano.
“Major pharmaceutical companies are saying, ‘We're going to limit our supply.’ What does that tell you? It tells you that they want to keep the artificially high prices in America,” says Albano. “How brazen is that? It just boggles my mind that they can get away with this.”
When Albano was faced with a budget crunch last year, he had to lay off firefighters, police officers, and teachers. By arranging for 3,000 city employees, retirees, and family members to buy Canadian drugs, the city can make substantial savings.
“We can save anywhere from $4 to $9 million on an annual basis if I get everybody enrolled and everybody goes to Canada. And that's a huge amount of money right now,” says Albano. “If I can save $9 million for my city and put it back, redirect it back into police and fire and to public education, it'll make a world of difference. So it's a huge savings.”
Does he do it himself?
“I do it for my family's use. My son Mikey is diabetic. And we get his insulin and related products for diabetes from Canada,” says Albano, who saves that saves his family $250 a year because there is no co-payment. “And it’ll save the taxpayers who front 76 percent of the payment about $850 a year. So it's a rather substantial savings for my family and for the taxpayers of Springfield.”
The FDA says importing drugs from Canada or buying drugs from Canada is unsafe. Does Albano agree?
“The American public is not buying that safety issue. The fact is that it is getting insulting for the FDA to say that. I view myself as a responsible father,” says Albano. “And I could tell you that I would not let my son inject insulin into his body three times a day if I thought there was a safety factor here.”
Mayor Albano concedes that casually buying drugs on the Internet could be risky, but says it was quite simple for him to check out his Canadian supplier, and challenges the FDA to do the same thing.
“The FDA has become a pawn of the pharmaceutical industry, that they are protecting those high profit margins. If the FDA wanted to put a plan together similar to what we're doing in Springfield, that would be good for all Americans, they can do it in 15 minutes, relative to safety,” says Albano.
“We get all our medications from certified, regulated pharmacies in Canada. It's no different than going to your neighborhood pharmacy. And it's the exact same medication.”
So why can’t the FDA insure the safety of products from Canadian pharmaceutical exporters – and make sure that it’s as safe as any product leaving an American company?
“Under current law, we don't have the authority to insure the safety of foreign produced, foreign distributed drugs,” says McClellan. So what would motivate the FDA, which is not in the business of profiting from drugs, to put out an alarm about Canadian drugs?
“The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on our government is huge. And the FDA is a part of the executive branch of the government. And this is just the propaganda that's put out to do the drug company's bidding, to make sure that Americans don't have access to cheaper drugs,” says Angell.
“Because then they'll come to know what's going on. And what's going on is that these drugs, while they're made by global companies all over the world, are sold in this country for about double what they're sold for everywhere else. And that they wanna keep secret.”
“Our interest is in protecting and promoting the health of the public,” says McClellan.
Of course, the whole controversy over Canadian drugs would be moot if Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana had his way. During the recent debate over the Medicare bill, he co-sponsored a provision that would have legalized bringing in Canadian drugs with safeguards.
But Burton says he ran into two brick walls: the drug industry and the U.S. government: “This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.”
Since 1999, the drug industry has given more than 45 million dollars in political contributions, and it's spent hundreds of millions more on an army of more than 600 lobbyists to work its will on Capitol Hill.
Congressman Burton says the new Medicare act makes it clear the industry got its money's worth. He says billions of dollars are in it for drug companies in this new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
“In the new Medicare Act, the federal government is specifically prohibited from negotiating prices with drug companies,” says Safer.
“That is unconscionable. The government of the United States negotiates prices in the Defense Department, in every area of government,” says Burton. “And here we are, going to spend billions and billions and billions and probably trillions of dollars on pharmaceutical products. And we cannot negotiate the prices with the pharmaceutical industry. That's just not right.” In December, surrounded by members of Congress, President Bush signed the new Medicare act. Since 1999, these legislators have accepted more than a million and a half dollars in campaign contributions from people working in the pharmaceutical industry. President Bush alone has received more than half a million dollars.
But now, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is being billed as a big victory for America’s seniors.
“You gotta be kidding me,” says Burton. “Seniors, when they find out what's in that bill, are gonna be very angry. The problem is, they're not gonna find out about it until after this next election.”
The plan doesn’t start until 2006. Does Burton think that will reduce the attraction of importing drugs from Canada?
“Oh, I don't think so,” says Burton. “Because even when you talk about the discount cards and the other things, you're gonna find that seniors are gonna be paying, in many cases, more than they are paying for Canadian imports right now.”
60 Minutes contacted Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Wyeth, Glaxo SmithKline, and Eli Lilly. None of them would agree to be interviewed. Safer asked Dr. Angell about the case the industry invariably makes to justify drug prices.
“This is a kind of blackmail. What they're saying is, ‘Don't mess with us. Let us charge whatever we want for our drugs. Otherwise, you won't get the miracles,’” says Angell. “And the truth is that they spend less in R&D then they make in profits. And far less then they spend on marketing. And they don't make that many miracles in the first place … The problem is, is that we're no longer getting our money's worth.”
Adds Albano: “The pharmaceutical industry is gouging the American consumer. There's no other conclusion one can draw. And why should we, in this country, have to pay the highest prices in the world? Why isn't the president doing something? Why isn't Congress doing something? Someone has to wage this battle. So we're prepared to do it here.”
Political pressure is building. Congress now plans to reconsider legislation that would legalize Canadian drugs. As for Dr. Mark McClellan, he is leaving the FDA and becoming President Bush's new head of Medicare and Medicaid.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 22, 2004 08:06:55 PM new
When I was searching Canadian Pharmacies about 2 years ago for a drug I was taking it was about 1/3 of the price that I would pay in states. I have recently searched again for the same medicine and I now notice the price is only 1/2 the price so the canadian drugs have gone up. They want a piece of the action also.
Did anyone see the article on drug charges in the states. Walgreens who has probably the most pharmacies charges the most for most precriptions, not all but a lot of them. They gave an example of a drug that walgreens pays $1.50 for a months supply and then turns around and charges the customer $57.00. I wish I would have gotten the name of the drug but I didn't. The drug store I go to is the cheapest in town and charges about $10.00 less on a prescription. It is a drugstore which deals in medical supplies only and owned by two pharmacists. Now if they can make a profit and support two families along with their employees why can't the larger ones like Walgreens, Osco, Target & walmart do the same. Something isn't right.
