Americans' access to personal importation of brand-name prescription medicines from Tier One Countries threatened by proposed legislation

As the debate continues over what is commonly referred to as ‘Obamacare’, one would think that there would be universal support for an effort that has a more than decade long record of lowering health care costs, providing vital, safe—and affordable medicines—that have contributed to the health and well-being of millions of Americans, and done so at no cost to local, state or Federal governmental agencies.

We’re talking about the right of Americans to purchase brand-name prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries outside the U.S. whose standards and oversight of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those in the U.S.

But, instead of support of this recognition of the right—and ability—of Americans to make responsible decisions in the selection of these legitimate pharmacies for the purchase of brand name prescription medicines at savings of as much as 60 percent compared to what they would have to pay for the very same medicines if purchased in the U.S., the U.S. Senate is advancing legislation that could empower the Pharmaceutical Industry (Pharma) to use what many believe are Constitutionally questionable legal maneuvers to deny more than one million Americans the ability to order safe, affordable brand-name medicines from outside the U.S. via the Internet.

The Protect Intellectual Property Act (Protect IP) has been introduced by Senator Frank Leahy (D-VT), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to supposedly protect American Intellectual property such as Copyrights from being used in counterfeit items.

Protect IP was authored by Senator Leahy after there was a vigorous outcry of opposition to an earlier anti-counterfeiting bill advanced by the Senator because fears that its vagueness could be used to tread upon legitimate debate on public issues. The first proposal never came to a vote in the Senate because Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)exercise a personal objection that prevented a vote.

Senator Leahy’s solution to the objection has been to bring forth an even more onerous proposal that contains specific language of the type supported by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in its ongoing campaign against Americans exercising their right to the health and cost benefits of purchase of brand-name medicines from reputable pharmacies with the highest standards of safety and efficacy.

The Protect IP Act would create a situation in which the Obama Administration's Justice Department would abdicate its responsibility to 'enforce' intellectual property rights to the private sector.

This means that Pharma could not only initiate legal action against anyone it believes has 'infringed' upon its intellectual property s, it could extend that action to websites whose advertising support includes pharmacies involved in personal importation. Many believe that the proposal would allow Pharma to initiate action against a website that supports the concept of personal importation, thereby limiting free speech and open debate.

If that is not disturbing enough, Pharma could seek an immediate injunction against anyone it

'believes' has committed infringement in some form or another, all the while doing so

free of any action against it should its suit be found to not have merit.

In the past decade, Congress has repeatedly passed legislation over the supporting the concept of personal importation of these medicines as the only viable option available to lowering the cost of prescription medicines in this country.

Such initiatives have faltered in the face of extensive lobbying by Pharma as it uses its vast resources to deter final passage with such gimmicks as ‘poison pills’ amendments that would place unnecessary restrictions upon personal importation such as ‘certification’ in addition to the rules and laws of the country from which the prescription was dispensed by adding a layer of ‘oversight’ which was really nothing more than the U.S. Congress responding to the intensive lobbying of Pharma lobbyists.

That’s why RxforAmericanHealth.com has launched an on-line petition supporting access for more than one million Americans to personal importation of safe, affordable brand-name prescription medicines. We must let Congress and other policy-makers know that this concerted effort by Pharma to protect its ability to continue to charge Americans the highest prices for prescription medicines in the world is totally unacceptable.

Instead, it is time for Congress and the Obama Administration to remove the ‘Safe Haven’ that Pharma enjoys to continue its predatory pricing practices and make the health and well-being of hard-pressed Americans for whom personal importation can provide not only improved health that access to a regimen of vital medicines provides, as well as offering the best strategy to relief from the high prescription medicine prices that are a major driver of the cost of healthcare in the United States.

Publisher of informational Website for Seniors says Congress must clarify language of anti-counterfeiting bill to deter Pharma moves

The publisher of a leading informational website for America’s Seniors says that Congress must clarify the language of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) which is ostensibly designed to deal with the issue of the theft of U.S. intellectual property rights and counterfeit products sold in the U.S., to deter attempts by the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) to co-opt the legislation for its own limited purposes

Daniel Hines, publisher of www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com and http://RxforAmericanHealth.blogspot.com says that Pharma is attempting to utilize the ambiguous definition of ‘counterfeit’ as it applies to brand-name prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries as a new tactic to prevent Americans from utilizing personal importation of vital prescription medicines.

The Committee is holding a hearing Thursday, February 16, featuring representatives of Visa, Verizon, GoDaddy.com, Authors Guild and Rosetta Stone.

"Pharma has long attempted to deny access to safe, affordable medicines from Tier One Countries through its extensive lobbying among elected officials and with appointed /policy-makers, “ Hines says. “Now, it is attempting to co-opt the intent of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.

“This is unacceptable to those who believe Americans should be able to exercise their right to make personal health care decisions, including the purchase of safe, affordable medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies from Tier One Countries, whose standards of oversight for safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S."

Hines noted that "Pharma has spared no expense to create a series of 'front groups' to create the specter of 'bogus pharmacies' flooding the country with unsafe prescriptions, and to go so far as to attempt to falsely include legitimate pharmacies from Tier One Countries.

"But it has shown no interest in directing its vast resources to establishing the mechanism and framework which could address the best means of distinguishing 'rogue pharmacies' from legitimate, licensed pharmacies in Tier One countries.

“The reason for Pharma's opposition to personal importation-ironically, importation of the very medicines that they produce under FDA oversight-is that the imported medicines are priced at 40 to 80 percent less that the identical medicine in the U.S., Hines says. “These tremendous savings provide access to safe, affordable medicines that enhance the health and well-being of large numbers of Americans.

"We urge the Committee members and other Senators and members of Congress to pay special attention to ensuring that the language in The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act encompasses the real goals of deterring copyright and intellectual property theft, by clarifying the intent of the use of the term ‘counterfeit’, and that there be specific and clearly defined restrictions upon efforts by special interest groups to co-opt the intent of the bill."

"The health interests of large numbers of Americans receive utmost consideration and Pharma interests must be restricted from utilizing the legislation to attain its long-standing goal of limiting the access of Americans to vital medicines,” he concluded.

Dorgan-Snowe needs changes

Sometime ago, we published a blog suggesting that problems that we perceived with the proposed prescription medicine importation bill, based on our understanding of input from key staff and communications with other supporters of the concept of the prescription medicine importation led us to fear that key elements of the concept that have long been supported by groups and advocates might somehow not be included in the new legislation.

It was that concern that prompted us to call for increased public participation in the development of the language. Irrespective of what the outcome might have been for our appeal, we believe that such involvement is not only a right given to U.S. citizens, but an obligation for those whom we elect to serve and govern--not rule.

Our specific concerns were that we and others have long believed that it is the right of U.S. citizens to make purchases from Tier One countries, where the regulations, oversight and supervision of pharmacies meet or exceed those of the United States.

We were challenged on this by a visitor to the article who wanted our source to validate the statement. She speculated that it was likely a political reference and tht the FDA had not reached such a conclusion. Of course, she was right on the latter aspect, since the FDA would never face the wrath of pharma by stating the obvious. In the former instance, though, she was just wrong. The fact is that each of the Tier One countries have outstanding regulatory oversight, and it is well-recogized by healthcare professionals and authorities around the world that not only do those countries have standards that meet those of the U.S. and the FDA, but that we as a country are unforunately far behind the standards of those countries.

Which leads to our former concerns about the proposed importation legislation that was was introduced on March 4. We feared that the ability of U.S. citizens to purchase physician-prescribed medicines from Tier One countries was to be limited, and would allow the purchase of medicines from those countries only if they were first purchased by a U.S. importer (a pharmacy, group of pharmacies, or a wholesaler) for resale to Americans.

This seemed to be an unnecessary restriction that would only add to the costs, while doing nothing for safety or efficacy of the medicines.

Unfortunately, the latest 'wrap' explanation of the bill seems to reinforce this view.

After much discussion, and readings of the bill regarding the limitation on individual purchases we came to the mistaken conclusion that the Secretary of HHS would be able to 'designate' particular countries as having standards of oversight and regulation that met or exceeded those of the U.S. and that individuals would be allowed to make purchases from those countries.

The latest explanation of the proposed language has disabused us of our mistake. To the contrary of what we believed, it reinforces our earlier fears and limits direct purchase to mail-order or Internet pharmacies located only in Canada.

This would take effect 90 days after the passage and signing of any importation bill. At the same time, it would be a year before the 'commercial' setup that would allow American citizens to purchase those same medicines from designated countries, and then only from a wholesaler or a U.S. pharmacy.

As one who has supported the concept of importation of medicines from legal, authorized, licensed pharmacies for nearly six years, it is difficult to express my dismay at this short-sighted approach to increasing the access of Americans to safe, affordable prescription medicines--especially at a time when growing numbers of elderly are either reducing or doing without vital medicines because of the problems associated with the Doughnut Hole. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Millions of Americans irrespective of their age simply cannot afford their medicines, so they too do without. Ironically, this occurs at a time when there is a solution--expand the ability of Americans to have increased access to safe, affordable medicines, exercising their own good judgment by utilizing the many sources that identify legitimate, safe pharmacies in Tier One countries.

As a writer from the American Enterprise Institute (no friend of importation) noted recently, "Only an idiot would purchase 'medicine' from a bogus pharmacy" because there are many sources than can identify legitimate pharmacies.

The legislation has been referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and to the House Energy and Commerce committee. Hopefully, there will be hearings at which public testimony will be solicited--and listened to--as part of the democratic process.

I have been told that I am covering old ground. Perhaps that is true. But the facts are evident: importation from licensed, registered pharmacies is a fact and even with (or perhaps because of Part D), it offers a reasoned solution to allowing Americans to have access to vital medicines; to the best of my knowledge, there have been no deaths from any medicines from these pharmacies; no controlled substances have been shipped to this country from these pharmacies.

And,whereas there was no track record when the push for importation first began, and it would have been necessary to establish safeguards to protect and reassure the American public, there is no guarantee that even with passage of the legislation in its current form that it will end or even curtail bogus pharmacies, sales of controlled substances or sales of counterfeit drugs.

The concept of importation, free choice and equitable pricing, with the goal of improved health that can be attained through a regimen of access to safe, affordable medicines remains valid. The challenge now: to establish the framework that will make it happen.

Patients buying fewer Prescription Drugs

Posted by Daniel Hines,
Publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

Proof of the failure of Medicare Part D and the growing number of all Americans not having access to the health benefits of prescription medicines has come forth in a Wall Street Journal story describing how more and more U.S. citizens are unable to afford prescription medicines.

While it is still too early to measure what the harmful effects of this upon Americans' health might be, it is only logical that many people will suffer poorer health. This should end once and for all the approach by many groups and organizations who attempt to divide debate and discussion about comprehensive health care reform into segments based upon the "pet issue" or that particular groups, organizations or policy-makers.

Such an approach virtually guarantees that without including defining how to make safe, affordable prescription medicines more widely available into discussions about healthcare, we are risking the health and well-being of a growing number of Americans. The growth in costs, the decline in consumption and the potential health effects make it imperative that true competition be introduced into the U.S. pharmaceutical market by allowing U.S citizens to exercise their freedom of choice and purchase safe, affordable medicines from identifiable legitimate pharmacies outside the U.S.

Consider: The growth in prescriptions filled by U.S. pharmacies is at its slowest in at least ten years, as increasing health care costs and a slowing economy are making medication harder to afford.

According to the Wall Street Journal article, the drug industry usually remains stable in economic downturns, because patients still require medicine.
However, the number of prescriptions filled in the second quarter of 2008 may have actually decreased, due to higher numbers of Americans without health insurance and “skyrocketing out-of-pocket drug costs” putting the cost of some medications out of reach.

Patients are facing additional burdens as the health care industry has forced consumers to shoulder larger percentages of many costs.
A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that for a “preferred drug” through a tiered insurance plan, average co-payments rose 67 percent from $15 in 2000 to $25 in 2007.

In fact, 23 percent of respondents to a Kaiser foundation poll failed to fill a prescription in the last year for cost reasons, up from 20 percent in 2005.
Additionally, 19 percent either skipped doses or split pills, an increase from 16 percent in 2005.

Prescription Meds from outside U.S. offer lifeline to Part D

Posted by Daniel Hines
Publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

(Part One of how and why safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered phamacies from outside the U.S. can benefit not only American's health, but can relieve the strained budgets of governmental services at the local, state and Federal levels. Part Two will deal with how local governments can generate vast savings for employee benefits, savings that can then be applied to other local services.)

As the U.S. economy continues to reel, the increasing cost of Medicare Part D threatens the very essence of a program that was claimed to be designed to address the prescription medicine needs of the country's aging population.

Increasingly, abuses of the system are apparent. Most recently, the Center for Medicare Services says that private plans that are woven in the fiber of Part D, have 'misinterpreted' the intent of CMS when the Part D was launched by developing a practice of 'locking in' a price structure in which PBMs charge a higher rate to insurers with whom they have contracted to administer their drug benefit than what they pay pharmacies to dispense the drugs to beneficiaries. The PBMs then keep the difference, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Ironically, a CMS administrator says that the agency thought it had a "clear policy"
prohibiting lock-in pricing when Part D launched. "We learned that there are different ways of interpreting a policy statement," she adds in a classic understatment.

Actually, since its inception, Medicare Part D has been flawed. It did not allow price negotiation to guarantee the lowest prices thereby generating savings for the Federal government and the intended beneficaries. The abomination of the 'Doughnut Hole' virtually eliminated hundreds of thousands of seniors who would receive little or no benefit unless they had staggering out-of-pocket costs which increase each year. And, the pharmaceutical industry continues to raise prices on brand name drugs, which makes Part D increasingly costly, although a "PR Spin" has been attempted to make it look as though savings have occured since the amount expended is lower than earlier estimates. The fact is that a large part of this claimed savings is due to lower than anticipated enrollment in plans.

In what can only be described as an American Tragedy, many policy-makers attack the claimed original intent of Part D, to help seniors enjoy the health benefits provided by prescription medicines, by labeling Part D (and Social Security and Medicare generally) as 'entitlement' programs that are burdensome to the country. One author even suggests that there is no alternative other than to cut Part D to 'save Medicare':
"In sum, Part D costs are soaring, and they could harm Medicare's core mission and the elderly. Because a tax increase is out of the question, one obvious solution is to amend the law and limit the drug benefit to save Medicare..." Quote from Spyros Andreopoulos is director emeritus of the Office of Communication and Public Affairs at Stanford University Medical Center.

Another approach comes from The Medicare Rights Center, on whose Citizens' Advisory Board I serve (Midwest Region). MRC advocates support of the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, introduced by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) along with U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) and Marion Berry (AR-01). The bill creates a Medicare administered prescription drug plan to provide seniors an alternative to the privately administered prescription drug plans currently offered under Part D.

The problem is that both of the above approaches suffer from the blinders that too often are worn by policy-makers and advocacy groups, blinders that prevent them from looking at the totality of the factors that can favorably influence a solution to challenges such as the increasing costs of Medicare plans.

The fact is that access to safe, affordable prescription medicines from outside the U.S. must be included in the discussion to the complete (debate) (discussion)on healthcare reform in this country. Such access not only offers a potential benefit to improved health for all Americans, but can almost instantly create savings that will favorably impact Medicare administration by allowing access to lower-cost, but safe medications.

Unfortunately, a Washington-based staff member of MRC says that she is interested only in the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, on initiatives of the MRC, and has no interest in even exploring the potential contribution of providing savings and choice by allowing access to prescription medicines from outside the U.S.

Also, a highly informative source in Washington has told us that he fears that in the next Congress in 2009, there will be such a rush to enact 'comprehensive health care reform' that it will be nothing more than a 'trading bloc' for a number of individual Senators, Congressmen, pharmaceutical industry and insurance company reps, each with their own particular agenda, be it liberal, conservative, or even anti- or pro-pharmaceutical and insurance industry oriented. He said he fears that pharma particularly will offer its support for some form of 'comprehensive health care reform' in return for the role of providing continued access to safe, affordable medicines from outside this country to U.S. citizens being discarded.

That's like throwing the baby out with the washwater. It is time for Congress to take action to provide such access to all Americans, and to do so in a fashion in which the role of prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries not only can maintain or even enhance the quality of healthcare in the U.S., but can provide fiscal savings that can actually help pay for other initiatives that will finally get this country on the road to an improved national health care policy.

It’s time to set the record straight on what really are 'Bad Meds'...

Posted by Daniel Hines, publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

Ever since increasing numbers of U.S. citizens started turning to legitimate pharmacies from outside the United States to purchase safe, affordable prescriptions via mail order and the Internet nearly seven years ago, the major charges against their use by those who fear such sales will lead to lower prescription medicine prices in this country have been based on trumped-up charges of legitimacy, safety and whether or not the prescriptions being purchased were counterfeit.

These charges have taken a variety of forms over the years, as ‘spokespersons’ for the pharmaceutical industry joined in a chorus of false charges about safety and efficacy. It was—and remains—a clumsy attempt by the pharmaceutical industry, to confuse the American public in an attempt to scare it away from what was its only opportunity to purchase safe, affordable and vital prescription medicines.

Backed by a seemingly unlimited bankroll, the pharmaceutical industry had no trouble in finding persons and ‘groups’ ready to engage in such scare tactics, ranging from college professors who raised the specter of counterfeit medicines being used to fund terrorist tactics ; to ‘Grandma’ Green, who toured the country in a John Madden-type bus talking about the dangers of Canadian pharmacies courtesy of funding from a misnamed ‘senior’ group which, some have charged, lacked any senior membership; to even media that used misstatements and stories lacking any basis in facts under the cover of claimed ‘investigative reporting.’

It did not matter to those making the charges that the prescriptions being purchased by countless numbers of Americans were in fact medicines manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies that were ironically claiming their own medicines were unsafe. It did not matter that the pharmacies supplying the prescriptions were subject to oversight and standards that met or exceeded those of the United States. It did not matter that our country’s Food and Drug Administration itself had stated that individual American citizens could purchase medical devices or prescription medicines from other countries if they were not available in this country. It did not matter that many argued that if a medicine was not affordable, it was not available in this country. It did not matter that the U.S. Congress has three times passed legislation to facilitate access to medicines from outside the U.S, only to watch as the pharmaceutical industry got the payback for its extensive political contributions and lobbying efforts with ‘poison pill’ amendments that effectively negated the will and intent of the U.S. Congress to the detriment of the American public it had been elected to serve.

Now, a new report from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University has clearly identified characteristics of bogus pharmacies. In so doing, it has laid out the differences between bogus pharmacies and legitimate, licensed and registered pharmacies in other countries. These important guidelines can help the public—and hopefully the media and policy-makers—put an end to the attempts at confusion and misdirection.


Here are some of the major points from the report followed by a description of the difference on each point between bogus pharmacies and legitimate ones from outside the U.S.:

• Bad Meds: Of the Web sites advertising or selling controlled prescription drugs, like OxyContin and Valium, Xanax and Vicodin, and Ritalin and Adderall, in the past year, 85 percent of Web sites selling such drugs do not require a prescription

Legitimate Pharmacy: No legitimate mail-order pharmacy from outside the U.S. advertises or sells controlled prescription drugs. No legitimate mail-order pharmacy will sell any medicine without a prescription from a physician.

• Bad Meds: The report found sites selling online "medical consultations" which enable Internet users to get controlled drugs online without a proper prescription.

Legitimate Pharmacy: No legitimate mail-order pharmacy from outside the U.S. will engage in schemes that remove the requirement that all medicines sold must have a prescription from the client’s doctor.

• Bad Meds: Of the few sites that require prescriptions, half permit the
Prescription to be faxed, allowing significant opportunity for fraud.

Legitimate Pharmacy: All legitimate pharmacies and services verify the validity of the prescription.

• Bad Meds: There are no controls blocking access to these sites by children and teens.

Legitimate Pharmacy: There would be virtually no chance of a teen or child to order from a mail-order, Internet-based pharmacy outside the U.S. because in addition to the oversight of authorities in its own country, almost all mail-order pharmacies have instituted rigorous controls of their own. Add to this the requirements that all client orders have a physician-ordered prescription, and the possibility of teens or children ordering medicines of any type from legitimate, professional sources are virtually nil.

The report notes that “last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), held hearings on "’The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008’ to control Internet trafficking of controlled prescription drugs which was introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). The Senate passed the bill in April of 2008. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the topic last month.”

It is important to note that according to highly placed sources of Rx for American Health, the Bill in no way was intended by the sponsors or those who voted for it to be a reflection upon the benefit of legitimate on-line, mail-order pharmacies and related services, such as provided by the Dorgan-Snowe bill.

It is obvious that it is time to end this subterfuge about the safety and efficacy of prescription medicines from such pharmacies and to deal with the facts.

Senator Brown gets to point...drug companies use cheaper foreign, unsafe materials to save money

In what is a delightful piece of irony, United States Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has taken action that has to cause anyone who has followed the campaign of false charges, misdirection and scare tactics by pharma and its allies against access by Americans to safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies outside the United States to recognize that pharma has been caught in a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

For years, proponents of such access have battled to arm the American public with the facts--that pharmacies in other countries must meet rigid standards that meet and often exceed those of the oversight in the U.S. Added to this is the fact that these reputable pharmacies and services exhibit the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.

Still, in an attempt to protect its predatory pricing practices, the pharmaceutical industry has conducted a vicious campaign enlisting allies as diverse as a bus-riding Grandma Green who has toured the country in a John Madden-style bus to spread the pharma gospel of fear and mis-statements by college professors such as Dr. Marv Shepherd, who heads up something called the Pharmacoeconomic Studies Center at the University of Texas, but who resorts to subterfuge when called out about their pharma industry links and support, building a speaking career talking about 'counterfeit' medicines via the Internet.

Added to this is the disregard for traditional journalistic standards of media that misuse standards of free speech, hiding behind their right to make inaccurate charges, and then claim a special privilege of protection from having to report factually and accurately. One of the more recent examples is the totally false charges made by an investigative team of WISH-TV in Indianapolis against CanaRx Services, Inc., a leading international pharmacy benefits manager based in Canada. Even though CanaRx has created additional oversight practices to guarantee the safety and efficacy of prescription medicines purchased through voluntary programs with employees of local governments and has generated millions of dollars in savings for hard-pressed local governments, an 'investigative' reporter made unfounded charges of 'counterfeit drugs' in her report. When faced with demands--even the opportunity--to rectify its mistake and to correct a statement that the reporter had attempted to give CanaRx the opportunity to respond, the station instead chose to hide behind Indiana law designed supposedly to promote free discussion and debate, rather than meeting its resposibility to set the record straight.

And therein lies the basis of what makes Senator Brown's letter to Pfizer so special. It is the first time that anyone has called out the web that pharma has spun. The Senator is calling for an investigation based on earlier Pfizer testimony that it outsources 17 percent of its pharmaceutical manufacturing and acknowledgement by the FDA of the pharma trend of outsourcing to avoid drug safety regulations.

What a spectacle! Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world that has spent untold millions of dollars to prevent Americans from purchasing prescription medicines claiming concerns about safety, is using substandard ingredients to avoid oversight. Remember, we're not talking about just the manufacturing of the majority of prescription medicnes outside the U.S. (Lipitor is from Ireland,, for example), but a conscious decision by Pfizer--and others--to cut corners with no regard for the safety and efficacy of its products.

There's an old saying that when you point a finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself. Pfizer proves that it's still true.

Let's hope Senator Brown's call for an investigation is heeded. As part of that process, it would be appropriate to expand the scope to look at the pattern of abuse of the truth by pharma and its allies against the legitimate operations of a host of legitimate pharmacies and businesses that have dedicated themselves to providing Amerians with access to safe, affordable prescription medicines only to be victimized by reckless and false charges about their adherence to the highest standards of safety, all the while providing vast numbers of individual Americans, groups and local governments relief from the highest drug prices in the world.

To read Senator Brown's letter, click here.
Posted by Daniel Hines, publisher, TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

The reason for Rx for American Health

America is in a healthcare crisis. Ironically, at a time when millions upon millions of Americans lack medical insurance, when children are the targets of budgetary cuts and lack healthcare and medicines, when pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars in profits, while the elderly are once again facing a health maintenance crisis because of the rising costs of medicines, while families lack access to medical care, and our national, state budgets and local budgets are facing the reduction and loss of the basic responsibilities of government, relief is possible with a very simple concept--allowing U.S. citizens access to prescription medicines from licensed, registered, reputable pharmacies outside the U.S.
In a unique example of 'double-speak', this relief has been labeled 'reimportation', giving the mistaken impression that the prescription medicines are somehow being manufactured in this country, exported and sent back to the United States.
Actually, the vast majority of prescription medicines are manufactured outside the United States and sold the consumers in this country at the highest prices for prescription medicines in the world.
Why should this be? Because the pharmaceutical manufacturers who spend more on advertising, marketing and lobbying than on research and development are more concerned with profits than the health of Americans.
It is time for this to change. That is why Rx for American Health will present the facts about the benefits of access to safe, affordable prescriptions, contrasting that with the tremendous cost to the public health, the public well-being, and the burden of the cost of high-priced prescription medicines to budgets at the local, state and Federal levels.
We will do this by 'calling out' the practices of the pharmaceutical industry as it makes moves on a number of fronts--misstatements, predatory business practices, undermining the democratic process with its millions of dollars of expenditures to influence policy-makers to act in its behalf at the expense of the public well-being.
Rx for American Health will reflect opinions from a number of sources, but always its goal will be to create the climate to finally bring prescription medicine price relief to beleaguered Americans who might otherwise be denied the benefits that can be provided by a regimen of access to safe, affordable prescription medicines. We will illustrate the savings as well as the health benefits that are possible--savings that can relieve the burden on strained budgets our local, state and Federal governments.
All of these illustrate the core of our conviction that such access must be considered as a part of the totality of the healthcare crisis facing the United States, and the providing of such access to safe, affordable prescription medicines must be a part of any plans for comprehensive medical reform in the United States.
Daniel Hines, Publisher, TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com and BoomersNewsOnline.com