Bosses Of Big Pharma Companies Unable To Deny Australia Being Ripped Off On Drug Costs

from the and-that's-even-before-TPP-is-in-place dept

Here on Techdirt, we often write about the bad behavior of Big Pharma, particularly in terms of how it is one of the main driving forces behind far-reaching international agreements like TPP. As a recent leak underlines, drug manufacturers hope to use TPP to extend the monopolies that allow them to charge high prices for their products. Confirmation that drug pricing has little to do with actual costs in at least one part of the world comes from a surprising source -- the heads of Big Pharma companies, as this report in the Canberra Times reveals:

Multinational pharmaceutical companies are unable to assure Australians they are not being "ripped off" on the price of medicines as a result of their complex global supply chains.

The Australian heads of nine of the biggest global drug suppliers were forced into the embarrassing admission on Tuesday after backing themselves into a corner by insisting they have no idea what their own sister companies in other countries pay to import the same medicines.
This interesting confession was made during an Australian Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. Apparently, Pfizer paid just AU$21 million (about US$16 million) in company tax in 2014, even though its Australian sales were AU$1.4 billion (about US$1 billion). The company claimed that was because its "cost of sales" in Australia were more than three-and-a-half times higher than those in the US. However, when pressed on those figures:
Pfizer managing director David Gallagher said he didn't know what any other Pfizer subsidiary paid for drugs manufactured by the company in Ireland and declined repeated requests to explain the "arm's length" process that determined intra-company transactions, known as "transfer pricing".
Understandably surprised by this, the Senate Committee chairman asked the heads of Pfizer, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline to confirm what they seemed to be saying:
"As the CEOs of three of Australia's biggest pharmaceutical companies, you have no idea what drugs cost in other jurisdictions? You can't tell us whether we're getting ripped off?"
As the Canberra Times reported:
All three agreed they could not.
It seems unlikely that TPP will do much to improve the situation.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, big pharma, drug costs, pharma


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 12:09am

    "And what are you going to do about it?"

    Really, in their shoes I wouldn't be embarrassed, I'd be smirking. Sure they're ripping people off, but the politicians will still hand them all the money and power they want, due to a combination of bribes and spineless cowards in office who don't have the guts to stand up for the public.

    They may have played at being 'embarrassed' before the crowd, but you can be sure all three were smiling as soon as the cameras were off, confident that the farce of an 'inquiry' or not, none of those pretending to hold their feet to the fire will have the guts to actually do anything about it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 1:50am

      Re: "And what are you going to do about it?"

      Nope they were not smirking.. in fact far from it.. The amount of phone calls made after that questioning sessions with worried looks on all pharmaceutical was a moment of lol's for anyone else in attendance..

      they have sort of stepped on their own cranks with that statement, and the Tax avoidance inquiry is one that both sides of government are pushing for to find ways to actually get the tax and maybe criminally charge directors (breaching the corporate veil) as well.

      These statements were not expected and came quite out of left field because they were so confidant in their responses (HA!) and it has now created a major headache for the govt and Big Pharma, and it's all of there own making!

      Again.. they were not smiling one little bit, nervous with lots of calls to counsel and murmerings of OMG, WTF have we done instead :) (Aust is not same as US in political bribery/donations etc and senate at moment is VERY hostile to International businesses)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 2:04am

        Re: Re: "And what are you going to do about it?"

        Those with power develop a form of brain damage. Example #87987987

        The CEO's were so sure that they would get what they wanted and face little resistance because who would dare question them?
        They are CEO's and investor value, their bonuses, and making more money trumps little things like making sure people in need get the medicine.

        One has to wonder what sort of moral toll it would take on a normal human to know that they put profit over someones survival.

        And because I can, maybe they charge more because they have to print the identifiers on the pills upside down for that market. OHAI G! :D

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 2:29am

        Re: Re: "And what are you going to do about it?"

        Ah, but, is it sufficient to cause enough of an uproar over the relevant parts of the 'trade' agreements, where they stand to gain a whole lot more that they risk losing some real money?

        Who cares if they have to pay some chump change in penalties, if they're handed far more on a golden platter via one of the 'trade' agreements that they helped write?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    andy, 8 Jul 2015 @ 2:29am

    First world ripp off

    pharma is one of the biggest culprits but then you just need to look at pricing in the UK compared to anywhere else.
    How can a company for example like ASUS price a device at £500 when the identical device is being sold for under £250 in America and even cheaper elsewhere. I do not know of any 100% tax on imports into the UK although i am sure there must be some but not on tablet pc's.

    The fact is that big business like ASUS knows they can demand a higher price in the UK as people are prepared to pay to get the product and know no better.


    I am amazed that governments allow pharma to get away with how they overcharge on products, especially when government's are paying the higher prices due to socialized healthcare. Surely the UK government for example should be able to demand cheaper pricing if they know the product is sold cheaper in India or Brazil or Mexico.

    I refuse to accept that governments cannot put pressure on pharma to sell products that save lives at cost plus 10% at most and even then costs should drop dramatically after the initial funding and r&d which is done freely by Universities is paid for...

    1 tablet costing £500 but which can be manufactured for under £5 is not only greed but is i believe enough to make Pharma guilty of third degree murder when people die because they cant afford the medication.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:06am

      Re: First world ripp off

      The NHS currently get good deals on drugs because of their buying power. Obviously this all might change when these pesky 'trade' agreements get decided.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AC, 8 Jul 2015 @ 3:45pm

      Re: First world ripp off

      UK also has VAT, which is somewhat invisible to the end consumer depending on how many hands a product goes through.

      If Asus sells their tablet to a local distributor for £200 in America and £200 in the UK, the distributor will actually pay £240 in the UK (20% VAT).

      Then they mark it up 10% in both tax jurisdictions, selling to the retailer for £220 in the US and £320 in the UK (10% profit, plus another 20% VAT).

      Then the retailer sells the product to the end user. With a 13% profit, that's £250 in the US, but £435 in the UK. Asus did nothing different in either case, but with just two intermediaries in addition to the government, the price is 75% higher in the UK.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nop (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 3:04am

    They should be smiling.

    ...because when the TPP passes - & Abbott will ensure that it will - Australian courts & politicians will no longer have any influence over Big Pharma drug prices in Australia anyway. I imagine that the only reason they were uncomfortable was that they had been counting on the TPP passing before being called on their pricing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 3:16am

      Re: They should be smiling.

      Indeed. Try and force the Pharma companies to follow the law, or do anything that impacts their profits or potential profits? Government gets sued for billions thanks to corporate sovereignty clauses, making it clear who's in charge.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:28am

        Re: Re: They should be smiling.

        Hey, Bayer are no Philip Morris!

        For starters, they have much more money to throw and exempt from tax as "R&D costs".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    big ceo of pharma, 8 Jul 2015 @ 6:01am

    WHO cares its australia

    i will say this WHO cares its australia , ya should visit there biker laws if ya want to see how its gonna get twisted to harm everyone.

    when are all the worlds peeps gonna wake up and ask for our rights back.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    AC (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:32am

    Very common

    Since Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates, lots of multi-nationals run all their profits through their Irish entity (Apple, Google, etc).

    Are Australian citizens being "ripped off" by getting charged more? It's possible. Likely, even. As also discussed often on Techdirt, Australians pay more for just about everything, with little justification beyond 'that's what they'll pay.'

    I think, though, that this particular line of questioning was more focused on the tax situation. It's possible that what's going on here is more like this:

    Pfizer Australia determines what the market price should be for a certain drug (probably this is inflated, but it's largely irrelevant to the tax question), then Pfizer Ireland charges very close to that price to Pfizer Australia. Pfizer Australia's COGS are relatively high compared to the sale price, so profits are low, leading to a lower tax burden in Australia.

    Pfizer Ireland gets all the profits at the lower tax rate, but the CEO of the Australian subsidiary doesn't know the relationships between Ireland and all the other subsidiaries.

    All that meshes well with what was presented here, and doesn't necessarily mean consumer prices are too high. They might well be, but the evidence here is weak. The same tax strategy could be used with a company that charges less than the market could bear, and the conversation above would be identical.

    As for the corporate tax angle, it is the Board of Directors' fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for shareholders. They can be removed and, in extreme cases, be held liable by shareholders for not using every legal trick to maximize returns. This debate has raged for decades, but nobody has come up with a politically feasible solution yet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DB (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:48am

    This isn't about the cost of drugs at all.

    It's about tax evasion.

    The Australian subsidiary is "paying" a much different price for the drugs than other subsidiaries. This goes beyond tax avoidance. It's cooking the books to avoid paying taxes.

    When a drug sells for $3 in India and $200 in Australia, the subsidiary shouldn't be "paying" $198 for the drug.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 12:24pm

    no perjury here your honour, lets just give you some sizeable donations and call it a day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bemrys (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 12:30pm

    Actual Theory

    Ok. A short explanation of the actual tax law theory in play - you can agree or disagree as you choose, but this is the actual legal thinking.

    1. Australian subsidiary does nothing more than distribution (that was the testimony at the hearing)

    2. Completely unrelated distribution companies have a net profit margin of x% of revenue (assume 4% for explanation purposes). See economic studies attached to the tax returns or read the public financials of Australian companies which are solely distribution companies.

    3. Australian subsidiary negotiates the highest price it can from Australian customers (including the government)

    4. The price the Australian subsidiary pays to its supplier get the drugs is adjusted monthly so that the subsidiary gets a 4% profit margin - the same as unrelated distributors would net.

    5. The Australian subsidiary's management knows the monthly price for them but they don't know the monthly price to e.g. the Japanese subsidiary because they don't know the Japanese subsidiary's sales price to Japanese customers.

    From an international tax theory standpoint, there are two questions:

    (i) Is is really true that the Australian subsidiary doesn't do anything more than an unrelated distributor (and if that is true, then why set up the Australian subsidiary)
    (ii) What is the appropriate return that should go to other countries: the country where the drug is developed, the country where the strategic resource decisions are made, etc.?

    If the Australian subsidiary really does not do much more than an unrelated distributor and Australia wants to tax the embedded profit in the drug, then the parent will simply close the Australian operations and sell through unrelated distributors and won't have anything in Australia to tax.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 12:33pm

    Lets not forget the very expensive R&D costs. The clinical trials often being done on unpaid volunteers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bemrys (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:14pm

    Not quite. In your example, the distributor who paid £40 in VAT to buy the tablet from Asus will recover that VAT with it's next monthly VAT return. So net actual cost is really only £200. In your example, it gets marked up to £220 by the distributors in both America and the UK.
    The UK distributor charges 20% VAT (so additional £44 added on to the retailer). So the UK retailer's initial out of pocket is £264. But the retailer also recovers the £44 in VAT that it paid with its next monthly VAT return. After that refund, it has the same £220 cost as the American retailer.
    Now the both retailers mark up the cost by £28.6 in your example to get a 13% profit (220 + 28.6 = 248.6).
    The UK retailer now includes 20% VAT so the total price to the UK customer is £298.32.
    The American retailer now includes applicable sales tax (anywhere from 0% to 12%).
    The UK will always be higher, but not as much as your example. Your example assumes that the UK distributor and retailer are marking up the VAT which they get back. It may well be the case, but that is unconscionable (legal but immoral).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:26pm

    Aussie Needs An NZ-Style Pharmac

    A unified drug-buying agency, like the Kiwi one, would help to rein in medical costs. Which is why Big Pharma hates it so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Nop (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:23pm

      Re: Aussie Needs An NZ-Style Pharmac

      We already have that; it's part of the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) & it keeps drug prices (at least for anything on their big list) affordable. One of the big issues with the TPP here, that most Australians are unaware of, is that it'll likely destroy the PBS.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 3:40am

        Re: Re: Aussie Needs An NZ-Style Pharmac

        'Likely'? If it's a thorn in the side of one of the industries writing the thing, in this case Pharma, you can be sure it will be either eliminated altogether, or at the very least reduced to uselessness should TPP be passed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 9:03pm

    The worse part about it is all the side effects prescription drugs have. Some times the side effects are worse than the treatment. Notice I said 'treatment' not 'cure'. There's no profits in curing someone because then they stop buying your drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alan Burke, 26 Jul 2015 @ 5:44pm

    Drugs pricing

    Ever since "Honest John Howard" sold out Australia,s interests ,with his infamous FTA with America.Remember "OPPORTUNITY OF A LIFETIME!" Odd isn,t it how NO electioneering conservative politician has EVER REFERRED TO IT? So Mr Abbottoir(more cuts than a butcher)having observed this,expects to get away with it too! Please read "HOW TO KILL A COUNTRY!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Archie, 23 Jul 2017 @ 11:34pm

    Drug pricing

    These dudes from "BIG PHARMACEUTICAL"Sound just like their counterparts from "BIG BACCY!"did when they lied about their knowledge of harmful effects of their tobacco products!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.