The American Public Health Associtaion,
Recognizing that advances in medicine have made the use of pharmaceuticals an increasingly important and effective component of the treatment of illness; and
Recognizing that, partly as a result of this, spending on prescription drugs is an increasing portion of all spending on medical care1,2; and
Recognizing that millions of Americans, including those who rely on Medicare, lack adequate insurance coverage for prescription drugs and cannot afford medicines they need3,4; and
Realizing that the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs is a growing burden on low- and moderate-income Americans5-7; and
Recognizing that American drug companies sell their products in foreign countries at considerably lower prices than the prices they charge in the United States and still earn profits that are higher than those of any other major industry8-11; and
Recognizing that a number of state governments are considering steps, and, in some cases, have taken initial steps, to contain the price of drugs and reduce the burden on their citizens12,13; and
Recognizing that the State of Maine has adopted legislation that will seek negotiated discounts and, if this fails within three years to match cost reductions given to federal agencies in the State, will impose price controls on pharmaceutical products14,15; and
Observing that a federal appeals court in ruling that implementation of the Maine law can proceed, has rejected a lower court's preliminary injunction that challenged the law's constitutionality16–18; and
Noting that, in an effort to undercut Maine’s legislation and intimidate other states that might be considering similar actions, at least three pharmaceutical companies, SmithKline Beecham(now GlaxoSmithKline) , Astra-Zeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have stopped shipping their products to wholesale drug distributors in Maine19-22; therefore,
- Welcomes efforts by the State of Maine to seek lower drug prices for its residents;
- Condemns any effort by pharmaceutical companies to retaliate against its distributors, a State, another area, or the residents of a State, area, or tribe on the basis of that State’s, area’s, or tribe’s policies;
- Encourages public health and health organizations not to accept contributions or advertising from any company that boycotts any area or individual in making necessary pharmaceuticals, including psychotropic medications available.
- Encourages public health and health organizations to develop pro-active policies and guidelines about accepting contributions or advertising funds from pharmaceutical companies.
- Encourages public health agencies and health organizations in conjunction with other appropriate groups to work towards a coalition for negotiation of reduced pharmaceutical costs for indigent, elderly, uninsured, and vulnerable populations.
References
- Smith S, Heffler S, et al. The next decade of health spending: A new outlook. Health Affairs. 1999;18(4): 86-95.
- Heffler S, Levit K, et al. Health spending growth up in 1999; faster growth expected in the future. Health Affairs. 2001;20(2):193-203.
- Sager A, Socolar D. A Prescription Drug Peace Treaty: Cutting Drug Prices to Make Prescription Drugs Affordable for All and to Protect Research—with State-by-State Savings Estimates, Boston: Boston University School of Public Health, 5 October 2000.
- Blustein, J. Drug coverage and drug purchases by Medicare beneficiaries with hypertension. Health Affairs. 2000;19(2):219-30.
- Rasell ME. Cost sharing in health insurance: A reexamination. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(17)
- Donelan K, Blendon RJ, et al. The cost of health system change: Public discontent in five nations. Health Affairs. 1999;18(3):206-216.
- AARP Public Policy Institute. FYI: the cost of prescription drugs—who needs help?” October 2000, http://www.research.aarp.org/health/fyi_cost.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Minority Staff Report, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives. Prescription Drug Pricing in the 1st Congressional District in Maine: An International Price Comparison, prepared for U.S. Representative Tom Allen, October 24, 1998.
- Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (Canada), Trends in Patented Drug Prices, S-9811, September 1998, http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/PDF/rm-pat-e.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Fortune 500. Fortune. April 2001.
- Public Citizen, Drug Industry Most Profitable Again: New Fortune 500 Report Confirms “Druggernaut” Tops Other Industries In Profitability Last Year, April 11, 2001.
- http://www.citizen.org/congress/drugs/factshts/ mostprofitable.htm. Access June 11, 2001.
- National Conference of State Legislatures, 2001 Prescription Drug Discount, Bulk Purchasing, and Price-Related Legislation, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ health/drugdisc01. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Rebecca Thomas. No Shortage of Prescriptions. Smart Money, May 23, 2001.
- Carey Goldberg. Maine Passes Law to Set Drug Prices. New York Times, April 12, 2000, http://www. nytimes.com/library/politics/041200maine-drugs. html. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- An Act to Establish Fairer Pricing for Prescription Drugs, Chapter 786, enacted May 2000, http://janus. state.me.us/legis/statutes/22/title22ch6030sec0.html. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Ceci Connolly. Court Backs Maine Drug Price Curbs. Washington Post, May 18, 2001, http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42207-2001May17.html. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Associated Press. Appeals Court Lifts Injunction on Maine’s RX Drug Law. May 16, 2001.
- For up-to-date information, see http://www.rxmaine. com/home/index.cfm. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Maine claims SmithKline dodging drug discount law. Reuters, August 4, 2000. Accessed October 25, 2000.
- Carey Goldberg, “Drug Maker Fires Back at Maine Over Law,” The New York Times, August 4, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/080400maine-drugs.html. Accessed June 11, 2001.
- Silverman E. Drug makers on attack in Maine: Pricing law draws apparent retribution. Newark Star-Ledger. September 24, 2000.
- Two more drug companies halt shipments to Maine. September 27, 2000.
Back to Top
