|
 Is
there no end to the lengths that pharmaceutical companies will go to
rapaciously take advantage of good Americans who are dependent upon
prescription drugs? Apparently not. Their latest affront against the
consumer comes in the form of coupons and money-back guarantees. That’s
right. In an effort to further stick it to their customers, the big drug
companies are catering to the people who use their products. Oh, the
humanity!
The situation is bad too. In some cases, these Beelzebubs of pharmacology
are actually offering a one-month’s supply of encapsulated evil (a.k.a.,
their products) free. Their minions are dispersing the coupons via
newspaper advertisements and web sites. Even some damned doctors have
taken to handing over the coupons to their patients.
Fortunately, help is on the way. Congressman Robert E. Andrews of New
Jersey, Saint Andrews to his subjects – Julie Andrews to those who are really
close, has introduced H.R. 1063, the Drug Competition Act of 2001, which
aims to forcefully enhance competition for prescription drugs. Like all
great advancements in consumer welfare, this one too will emanate from the
point of a gun. The bill would “increas[e] the ability of the Department
of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to enforce existing antitrust laws
regarding brand name drugs and generic drugs.” The bill’s purpose is
to “deter pharmaceutical companies from engaging in anticompetitive
actions or actions that tend to unfairly restrain trade.” Eliminating
the monopolistic practices of the giant pharmaceutical companies will
certainly be a boon to consumers, for, as indicated in the “findings”
section of the proposed legislation, limited competition leads to higher
prescription drug costs for all.
There is a curious aspect to the Drug Competition Act of 2001, which I
mention at the risk of blaspheming against Representative Andrews. How is
it that one part of the government can discourage “anticompetitive
actions or actions that tend to unfairly restrain trade” while
another part of the government issues patents that do exactly that? Hemant
Shah, a pharmaceutical industry analyst in Warren, New Jersey claimed in a
June 1, 2001 AP story that the issuance of coupons by the drug makers
stems directly from the fact that many of their top-line drugs will soon
lose patent protection. This, the large drug manufacturers realize, will
rapidly lead to price reducing competition from companies that produce
generic drugs. Perhaps my faith in Uncle Sam is lacking, but this sounds
as if the government has policies that are working towards opposite ends.
Patents, which preclude competition by dictate of the government, seem to
be singularly “anticompetitive.” Supporters justify the continued
existence of patents based on the argument that were it not for the
guarantee of legalized monopoly as a reward for their efforts, fewer
companies would expend resources on research and development. This is
especially true in the drug industry, where research and development costs
are great. Mere mortals cannot hope to fathom the mystical circular
reasoning employed therein because one of the primary reasons for the
exorbitant research and development costs associated with prescription
drugs is the approval process overseen by the Food and Drug
Administration. The brazen disregard of cause-and-effect inspires awe.
At this point, I must beg the reader’s indulgence for my statements
above. To the casual observer I am certain that it would appear as if I
were implying that it is the government and not the evil
pharmaceutical companies that is to blame for prescription drug prices
that are higher than they would be otherwise. I say that that is not true.
Representative Andrews and all of our other government shepherds have
nothing less than our welfare at heart. Were it not for their tireless
efforts we would surely suffer the unspeakable harm of having coupons and
money-back guarantees imposed on us by that wicked cabal known as the
pharmaceutical industry.
June 4,
2001
|
