Thats the same argument the american drugs companies have when it comes to our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The PBS is a list of about 600 types of drugs (2500 brands) which are subsidised by the govt, so the maximum anyone will pay is $30 for a drug on the list (about $4 for pensioners, the elderly, Vets etc) with a safety net of $1050 ($274 concession) which is the maximum you will pay in a year for PBS drugs.
Drugs which make the list are tested for quality as well as for cost effectiveness. The Federal govt. negotiates with Australian drug companies for the cost of the drug on the PBS.
According to the govt:
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Manufacturer prices for Australia's top-selling pharmaceuticals in Australia:
* are at least 162 per cent higher in the US (and 84 per cent higher when discounts are taken into account)
* are at least 48 per cent to 51 per cent higher in the UK, Canada and Sweden
* are similar to pricing in France, Spain, and NZ
Under the Australian - US free trade agreement, American drug companies wanted to abolish the PBS because they didn't like the fact the govt departments negotiate on behalf of consumers for pricing, that "fixed price control" inhibited the recovery of R&D costs, and because the PBS tested for cost-effectiveness and supplanted less effective drugs it was "anti-free trade".
Tronsky
