Nosey Online

Anytime I venture over to the National Review Online, I can't help but feel icky. Sally Pipes takes on drug importation legislation. Just for reference, Sally works for the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank. So you know we're going to get a one-sided debate.

In this season of the campaign promises, pandering, and appeals to high principle, let's be candid: The process of wealth redistribution through the institutions of democratic politics combines all three beautifully. The latest manifestation of this art form is the current drive in Congress to facilitate the importation of "cheap" pharmaceuticals into the U.S. from Canada (and a number of other nations). This will purportedly reduce U.S. drug costs sharply, with no adverse effects upon future drug development or safety.

Basically, Sally objects by saying destructive price controls would be imported along with the drugs and that safety is not guaranteed. While I can see the basis for the former, it's with her latter point I have a problem. The safety thing is just a scare-tactic. If I were Canadian, that would tick me off. The drug companies sell the same drugs up north as they do in the States. There are plenty of illegal, phony drugs that come across the border anyway. Sally contends that the influx of drug sales to other countries would make it impossible to guarantee their safety. Maybe, but that still isn't a good enough reason to stop the legislation. A process could be worked out, but the free-marketers just don't want to hear about it. I completely understand their objections about the price controls, but to bring up safety is unnecessary. Because when it comes down to it, they are after all free-market proponents. That is their number one concern. Safety is not.

Another minor detail I have a problem with lies in Sally's assertion that drug companies would be forced to lower their R&D costs, therefore lowering the chances of new drug discoveries.

That may seem a blessing for those afflicted with infinite myopia; but because the cost of bringing a new pharmaceutical to market is about $800 million, it is impossible to obscure the central truth that the bill would adversely affect the research and development processes that create new drugs, that in turn yield longer lives and reduce human suffering. One recent study concludes that the decline in R&D would be between a quarter and a third, so that the political drive to import "cheap" drugs literally steals cures and the alleviation of human suffering from the future so as to buy votes from drug consumers now.

It's journalistic dishonesty to talk about drug company budgets without mentioning marketing. Sally makes it seem that Big Pharma only spends money on R&D. In fact, they spend more on marketing than anything else.

The report, Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, shows that the nine publicly traded U.S. drug companies, which manufacture 50 of the drugs most often prescribed to seniors, spent $45.4 billion on marketing and advertising in 2001 and only $19.1 billion on research and development.

So it's a little shady to talk about how the poor little drug companies would have to cut back on R&D if revenue fell. The bigger chunk of that $800 million it takes to bring a new drug to market goes towards the advertising. And the lunches for doctors. And freebies. And free trips. Maybe if they cut down on the marketing, they wouldn't have to charge so much to make their profits. If a drug is beneficial, then it should be up to doctors to make decisions on what to prescribe. They are, after all, doctors.

Sally, when you finally address the other side of drug costs, come back and then we can have a real debate.