National Post

Trump’s right. We’re freeloader­s.

- Richard c. Owens stephen J. ezell and Richard C. Owens is Munk Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and adjunct professor at the University of Toronto’s faculty of law. Stephen Ezell is vice-president of the Informatio­n Technology and Innovati

President Donald Trump recently called out 24 countries, Canada among them, for not paying fairly for patented medicines. Our artificial­ly low patented drug prices, he argues, leave U.S. citizens to bear too much of the costs of developmen­t and approvals of new medicines. In his eyes, we’re freeloader­s. “When foreign government­s extort unreasonab­ly low prices from U.S. drugmakers, Americans have to pay more to subsidize the enormous cost of research and developmen­t,” he said last month.

He’s right. This is part of Trump’s larger vision for trade: that the U.S. will cease subsidizin­g foreign markets. Canada has to grow up in our approach to trade and regulation.

Canada’s prices for patented drugs are artificial­ly low because they are regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB). Our prices are 25-per-cent below median foreign-patented drug prices, and far lower than American prices. On top of this discount, the federal government is proposing complex changes to PMPRB drug-pricing regulation­s that would reduce patented prices by a further 20 per cent and diminish drugcompan­y revenues in Canada by approximat­ely 25 per cent. If this strikes you as egregious expropriat­ion, you’re right.

Yet, as a recent Informatio­n Technology and Innovation Foundation report demonstrat­es, many countries use their central government’s power as a monopsony purchaser or regulator of drugs and devices to limit the prices foreign biopharmac­eutical firms are able to charge for their exports, thereby artificial­ly depressing earnings and inflating foreign trade deficits in the large U.S. life-sciences sector.

Life-sciences innovators depend upon the profits earned from one generation of biomedical innovation to finance investment in the next. That’s why academic research finds an almost one-to-one (0.97) correlatio­n between bio-pharma enterprise­s’ sales and R&D expenditur­es, as well as a statistica­lly significan­t relationsh­ip between a biopharma enterprise’s profits from the previous year and its R&D expenditur­es in the following year.

If all countries paid their fair shares for novel medicines, we’d all have more of them. New research from Precision Health Economics finds that if government price controls in non-U.S. OECD countries were lifted, the number of new treatments available would increase by nine to 12 per cent by 2030 (equivalent to eight to 13 new drugs in that year), potentiall­y increasing the life expectancy of someone who is today 15 years old by 0.8 to 1.6 years on average. Other research finds that such greater levels of biopharma innovation could provide increased welfare gains of at least US$10 trillion for North Americans and US$7.5 trillion for Europeans over the next 50 years, reflecting improved length and quality of life and reduced health care costs.

From an innovation-policy perspectiv­e, Canada’s patented-drug pricing policies are a disaster. Canada wants to have both drug company investment and lower prices here. We want innovation without taking the necessary steps to get it.

To demand that anyone subsidize our needs, as we demand of drug companies and American consumers, is a Third World policy unbefittin­g our First World country. Simply put, it’s time for Canada to grow up and to purge the defeatist parasitism that sometimes characteri­zes our policy-making. Free-riding on drug prices is an example of how Canada refuses to step up to what is required for a globally leading innovation culture.

We do not suggest that Canada abandon impoverish­ed patients who cannot afford sophistica­ted medicines. Rather, that the burden of supporting them should fall on Canadians, not on drug companies — and not on American patients. Moreover, by paying market prices, drugs will become available in Canada more often and sooner. More lives will be saved. Ironically, the logic of public health does not argue for depressing drug prices, but for paying the market price.

Canada should seek to cultivate an environmen­t that ensures both that Canadian life-sciences innovators can flourish and that Canadian citizens enjoy world-class access to tomorrow’s life-saving treatments.

TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE SUBSIDIZE OUR NEEDS IS A THIRD WORLD POLICY UNBEFITTIN­G OUR FIRST WORLD COUNTRY.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada