[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3789-H3790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about an issue that 
is of great concern to all Americans, but is of particular concern to 
the 53

[[Page H3790]]

million Americans that have no health insurance and to the 14 million 
American seniors that do not have prescription drug coverage under 
their Medicare benefit. What I am talking about is the high cost of 
prescription drugs.
  I want to show a chart for the benefit of the Members that begins to 
illustrate just how serious this problem is.
  The first chart I want to show my colleagues begins to talk about the 
differentials or the difference between what we pay in the United 
States and what they pay in Europe for some of the most commonly 
prescribed drugs.
  We have heard a lot over the last several years about how much 
difference there is between Canada and the United States and how much 
difference there is between Mexico and the United States. But many 
Americans do not realize there are enormous differences between what we 
pay for exactly the same drugs made in the same plants here in the 
United States compared to what they pay in Europe.
  For example, the first drug on this list is a drug called Allegra, 
120 milligrams. It is triple in the United States what they pay in 
Europe for the same drug. Some people will say, well, they have price 
controls in Europe. In some countries in Europe, that is true. But in 
Germany and Switzerland, it is not true.
  Take a look at the drug Coumadin, which is a drug that my father 
takes. In the United States, it is quadruple the $8.22, which they 
charge for the average price in Europe.
  Glucophage, which is a very commonly prescribed drug for people who 
have diabetes. In the United States, it sells for $30.12 on average for 
a 1-month supply. In Europe, it is only $4.11. That is seven times more 
than Americans are required to pay.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues need to understand that, once a person is 
diagnosed, it is likely that they will stay on that drug for the rest 
of their lives. So we are talking about an enormous difference over the 
life-span of a patient who needs that.
  Take a look at a drug Zithromax down here at the bottom. It is a new 
wonder drug in terms of being an antibiotic. It is a marvelous drug. 
But I wonder whether Americans should really have to pay triple what 
consumers in Europe have to pay.
  As my colleagues can see, it is $486 for a month's supply here in the 
United States on average. In Europe, it is only $176.19.

                              {time}  1830

  The next chart I want to show is really one of the most troubling 
charts of all. Last year the average senior got in their cost of living 
adjustment in the United States a 3.5 percent increase in their Social 
Security. At the same time, prescription drugs went up 19 percent. My 
colleagues, this is unsustainable.
  Now, I intend to offer an amendment to the ag appropriations bill 
that will at least clarify that law-abiding citizens have a right, if 
they have a legal prescription, to buy drugs in Europe. And we are 
trying to work out the language right now. That is all I want to do.
  Some say that the FDA lacks the resources to inspect mail orders. The 
truth is the FDA is focusing its inspections in the wrong places. 
Instead of stopping illegal drugs reported by illicit traffickers, the 
FDA concentrates on approved drugs being brought in by law-abiding 
citizens. So far this year the FDA has detained 18 times more packages 
from Canada than they have from Mexico. This is outrageous. They are 
spending all of their resources chasing law-abiding citizens.
  One of the biggest arguments of the people who oppose my amendment is 
that they say, well, we are going to ultimately have a Medicare 
benefit, a prescription drug benefit, that will eliminate the need to 
open the markets so that we get competition in prescription drugs. 
Well, the truth is simply shifting the burden from those people who 
currently do not have insurance to the taxpayers will not solve this 
problem. The problem is there is no real competition.
  But the biggest concern that a lot of people raise is what will this 
do in terms of public safety. Let me say this. More people have been 
killed in the United States from unsafe tires being brought into the 
United States from other countries than by bringing legal drugs into 
the United States by law-abiding citizens. As a matter of fact, there 
is no known scientific study that demonstrates that there is a threat 
of injury to patients importing medications, legal medications, with a 
prescription, from an industrialized country.
  What is more, millions of Americans have no prescription drug 
coverage. Stopping importation of FDA-approved drugs only threatens 
their safety. Remember, Members, a drug that an individual cannot 
afford is neither safe nor effective, and too many Americans are put in 
the position where they simply cannot afford the drugs that they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for the world. The amendment I intend to 
offer is very narrowly focused. It simply says that the FDA cannot 
stand between law-abiding citizens who have legal prescriptions and 
allowing them to bring into the country drugs which are otherwise 
approved by the FDA. In fact, we even go further. We say it cannot be a 
controlled substance. It cannot even be codeine. The drugs we are 
talking about are drugs that are commonly prescribed. I will appreciate 
my colleagues' support on that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record a few fact sheets 
regarding the Medicare drug benefit argument.
       Some say a Medicare drug benefit will eliminate the need 
     for importation. The truth is--Simply shifting high drug 
     prices to the government only transfers the burden to 
     American taxpayers. Moreover, Medicare coverage won't help 
     the millions of Americans without health insurance.
       Some say importation is merely an indirect way of enacting 
     price controls. The truth is--``Importing prescription drugs 
     to the United States will lower prices here and, in the long 
     run, force Europe to pay more drug research and development 
     costs. The best way to break down price controls is to open 
     up markets.''--Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, Pharm.D., Ph.D., 
     Professor and Director, PRIME Institute, Head, Dept. of 
     Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems, College of Pharmacy, 
     University of Minnesota.
       Some say the FDA lacks the resources to inspect mail 
     orders. The truth is--The FDA is focusing its inspection 
     resources in the wrong places. Instead of stopping illegal 
     drugs imported by illicit traffickers, the FDA concentrates 
     on approved drugs imported by law-abiding citizens. So far 
     this year, the FDA detained 18 times more packages coming 
     from Canada than from Mexico. Last year, the FDA detained 90 
     times more packages from Canada than Mexico. Worse, last year 
     Congress appropriated $23 million for border enforcement, but 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services refused to use the 
     funds.
       Some say importation jeopardizes consumer safety. The truth 
     is--No known scientific study demonstrates a threat of injury 
     to patients importing medications with a prescription from 
     industrial countries. What's more, millions of Americans have 
     NO prescription drug coverage. Stopping importation of FDA-
     approved drug threatens their safety. A drug you can't afford 
     is neither safe nor effective.

                          ____________________