This assumption is intrinsically wrong because it assumes
that there is only one price in one country or city for each product that satisfies
(a) and (b) conditions above. For
instance, the price of a can of coca cola 350 ml should be the same for the entire country.
This is terribly wrong. The price of that (a) same Coke
350 ml in can (b) made by the same manufacturer is different when bought in different
retail outlets: a sari-sari store, carinderia, average resto, 7-11, Mini-Stop, SM,
Rustans, Robinsons, Shangrila, Manila Hotel, Mandarin Hotel, and so on. There
is no single price to represent the “national price” of that can of soda, or
any other commodity. This can be said in another country with generally higher
or lower price levels as the Philippines. This point can be represented by
these graphs.
Each equilibrium price or intersection between supply and
demand represents the prevailing price in each outlet. There are sellers and
buyers in each equilibrium point. There is no single price, but different
prices by different sellers for different consumers, for each country.
When the Senate in the 14th Congress
(2007-2010) reported out Committee Report No. 6 made by three Committees -- Trade
and Commerce, Health and Demography, Finance – dated October 01, 2007, before the Cheaper Medicines bill
became a law (RA 9502 in June 2008), among the reasons cited is this table showing
how expensive the prices of (a) same medicines (b) made by the same
manufacturers in the Philippines were compared to those in India and Pakistan.
As in the example of coke above, there can never be one
price of particular medicine in one country. If one will buy say, Ponstan 500
mg by Pfizer in different drugstores and pharmacies – Mercury, Watsons, Rose, The
Generics, Generika, Manson, Dr.
Pharmacy, Botika ng Bayan, Makati Med, St. Lukes, Asian Hospital,
Capitol Medical, etc. – one will get different prices. So what is the “national price” that can
represent the price of that drug in the Philippines? None. And yet the Committee Report has assumed there is such a thing for each country.
If one will highlight the idea that Philippine drug
prices are “among the highest, if not the highest” in SouthEast and East Asia, one
will pick up the highest price, say from Makati Medical Center’s pharmacy or
St. Lukes Hospital pharmacy as the “national price.” If one will highlight the
idea that local drug prices are “comparable if not lower than those in SE and
East Asia”, one will pick up the price of The Generics or smaller, non-chain
drugstores.
Besides, if one will make a meaningful price comparison
of a particular commodity by country, then one must show:
(a) same or comparable retail outlet, say only from Watsons;
(b) same reference period, say December 30, 2012;
(c) exchange rate used for converting different
currencies into a common currency, say PhP or US$, on a particular day, say as
of end-December 30, 2012
(d) taxes and fees, national and local, applied on each
commodity;
(e) subsidies or mandatory discount, if any, applied on
each commodity;
(f) other factors.
These data and numbers should be shown for verification
by third-party players or the public in general. It is possible that the list of drugs mentioned in the Committee Report were those that are price-controlled (hence, priced very low) in India. Otherwise, anyone can produce a table of
comparative prices, make agitating title and spread it around to achieve a
particular political and business agenda.Take this second table for instance.
What are the difference/s and similarity/ies of the two
tables above?
The difference is that the price gap between those in the
Philippines and those in India and Pakistan are not that big.
The similarities are that both tables (a) assume there is one “national price” for
each drug molecule by the same manufacturer, and (b) they do not show how the figures
were arrived at.
The second table of course is hypothetical -- readers should not use it. I posted it simply to illustrate the point that unless the supporting data are shown and verified to be true as basis for comparison, people, policy makers and legislators especially, should be wary of accepting those numbers as basis for making public policies.
Meanwhile, the cat in my previous posting, Drug
Price Control 33: Debate with a Cat has gone ballistic and really
emotional, fuming with personal attacks. Well, low minds can stoop low and
do ad hominems as replacement for producing hard data. Among the cat’s words
are
It would seem that the THINK TANKER has crossed the
LINE... You're into "name-calling", now just so you can DIVERT the
discussions from REAL ISSUES and go into the realm of PERSONALITY ATTACKS...?
Alright, I'll play this game...
My profile picture is a CAT, yes.. A beautiful cat from Siam whilst your FACE looks like that of a WORN OUT "INTELLECTUAL WANNABE..." After all these years trying to make your own mark in the Policy Circles, you have not ACHIEVED anything SUBSTANTIAL you can call your OWN...
My profile picture is a CAT, yes.. A beautiful cat from Siam whilst your FACE looks like that of a WORN OUT "INTELLECTUAL WANNABE..." After all these years trying to make your own mark in the Policy Circles, you have not ACHIEVED anything SUBSTANTIAL you can call your OWN...
Awww! Well, for someone who supports drug price control
or other statist proposals, the simple path would have been to show numbers and
data – Prices of drugs (or other commodities) have not gone down, say from the
time the law was enacted in 2008, to 2012. Show the charts, show the tables.
Like this,
Then the debate is on the issue and not on ad hominem
stupidity.
Pointless to debate with low level minds who cannot focus
on substance, who cannot produce verifiable numbers, only kilometric brickbats.
She made this warning,
-----------She made this warning,
“Mind you, I'm an expert when it comes to NAME-CALLING
and PERSONALITY ATTACKS, you might cry if you ENGAGE ME...”
Ouch. Mark Twain's advice is worth noting.
Visit this blog from time to time, Kinse. I might revisit some of your other comments.
Visit this blog from time to time, Kinse. I might revisit some of your other comments.
See also:
Drug Price Control 30: Reversing the Policy on AC Resolution in 2009, September 14, 2012
Drug Price Control 31: Cancer Drugs and CWF, December 01, 2012
Drug Price Control 32: Policeman of Pharma Companies, June 04, 2013
Drug Price Control 33: Debate with a Cat, June 15, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment