That is all true but we don't have to buy from shady producers. Canadian and European producers supply their own very safe and mature markets. Buy the stuff that the UK NHS buys and at the same prices - their scale gets them good deals (with notable exceptions). This can't be worse than the current deal.
This whole thread is about a horrible abuse present in the current system. The potential for abuse in an alternate system does not disqualify it. There is no perfect system and bad actors are everywhere. However, I don't see terrible endemic problems in the UK, Canada or the Eurozone from importing drugs. I'm sure they exist sometimes. But in the entire rest of the G7 drug costs are less and their outcomes no worse than the US.
The counter argument is that most new drugs are developed in the US (due to the large profit margins here) and that the UK, Canada & the EU are essentially free riding off the US in this area.
Not sure I completely buy this argument, but there it is.
- Importing drugs from countries with reliable drug regulatory infrastructure would have substantial benefits, including a check on cost (sorely needed), and improved availability of less profitable drugs
- Other similar countries are doing this without seeing measurable negative health outcomes
then getting hung up on this 'major concern' that seems to have been rendered moot elsewhere makes most people worse off. Mentioning the existence of potential (and unlikely?[1]) downsides is not an adequate cost-benefit analysis.
[1] not that it's unlikely that there will be people who try to take advantage of the system, but it seems unlikely that given appropriate regulatory care, the downsides will be unmanageable to the extent that they cause the change to allow drug imports to have an overall negative impact.
[edited for clarity, including the addition of the footnote]
