Vaccination News Home Page subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7386/413?etoc
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Regulation
Organization
of health care Patients'
views |
Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is facing a growing backlash over its decision to cut supplies to Canadian pharmacies selling cheap drugs into the United States.
In recent years elderly Americans have been making much publicised bus trips across the border and using online pharmacies to buy drugs from Canada, where they cost anything from half to a sixth the price in the United States.
In late January GlaxoSmithKline announced it was suspending sales to Canadian wholesalers and pharmacies that exported drugs to prevent what it described as "illegal, potentially unsafe imports of prescription drugs."
Just three weeks later, in mid-February, a full page advertisement appeared in the New York Times, urging people to boycott GlaxoSmithKline's products, divest themselves of company stock, and lobby politicians in Washington about their concerns.
"This is just the beginning," said Michael Burgess, executive director of State Wide Senior Action Council, a New York based, grassroots organisation that is one of 10 community and pharmacy groups from Canada and the United States sponsoring the advertisements and a wider campaign against the company.
He said that actions were being planned across the United States
including
a protest outside GlaxoSmithKline's offices in Philadelphiaand
that his group would soon meet New York state retirement fund
authorities to urge the divestment of millions of the company's
shares.
In a statement in response to the boycott GlaxoSmithKline said: "We understand patient concerns about access to affordable medicines but do not believe illegal cross border sales of medicines are the way to address the issue." The company is arguing instead for a new national scheme to provide drug coverage for elderly Americans.
GlaxoSmithKline also claims that its own scheme for elderly people already offers eligible Americans discounts equivalent to Canadian prices, though the claim is rejected by boycott organisers. A company spokeswoman, Nancy Pekarek, said that internet purchasing was "undercutting the relationship between patients, physicians, and pharmacists."
Responding to suggestions that the boycott is being run by self interested pharmacy businesses, campaign organiser Mike Pirages said independent community groups were also involved, along with Canadian pharmacy firms.
Burgess said his organisation had explicitly rejected offers of sponsorship from Canadian pharmacy companies, in order to remain independent. "Our members are so upset, they feel like the drug companies have them cornered. Our message to Glaxo is clear: if you want to pursue these policies there is going to be a reaction."
A meeting of regulatory groups from Canada and the United States was due to take place in Ottawa on 21 February, to clarify the legality of the cross border drugs trade.
|
© 2003 BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd
|
||||||||
|
Collections under
which this article appears:Regulation
Organization
of health care Patients'
views |
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
© 2003 BMJ Publishing
Group Ltd
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
