6 replies to this topic

[justbreathe]

I haven't posted on this board before, but I have been benefitting so much from everyone else's stories, it is time to give back.

I just found out that Gleevec is now generic in Canada. I had always hesitated about buying Gleevec outside the U.S. but I feel a lot better buying from Canada than elsewhere and now that it is generic the cost-savings is too much to pass up.

I looked into a bunch of pharmacies and after the advice of a friend's dad (who is also a pharmacist) went with a small family run pharmacy. They do everything by phone (not online) so I felt a lot better about them handling my G. I checked and the generic version of Gleevec they sell is made in Canada by the largest generic manufacturer (apotex) which made me feel better.

Anyways, thanks to everyone for always sharing your advice, hope this helps!

Oh yes, the pharmacy is called Clayman pharmacy and their phone number is 1877-CLAYMAN.

[Badger]

While this is technically illegal, the FDA won't prosecute instances where the prescription is limited to small quantities (three month supply or less). If you cross the border, make sure and keep a copy of your prescription for customs when reentering the US. Also, be careful when buying online, as there are scam sites out there.

[LivingWellWithCML]

I was very curious about this, so I spoke to both the pharmacy (Clayman) and to my insurance carrier (Blue Cross Blue Shield of GA [BCBS]) at length this morning.  I don't know what's right or wrong, or what's legal or what's not -- just relaying what I heard on the phone from both of these companies:

• The pharmacy didn't explicitly state whether it was legal or not (see clarification further down on this thread), but they claimed that a USA patient can do this by having a prescription sent to them from the patient's USA physician.  The patient fills out some forms that then allow a Canadian doctor to countersign the prescription, which opens the door for you to order the TKI directly through them.
• They offer both generic Imatinib (manufactured by Apotex) as well as Novartis-brand Gleevec.  I compared their prices for a 30-day 400mg supply with Curascript's latest invoice to BCBS -- Gleevec is 28% savings, and Imatinib is 45% savings.
• The patient must pay all costs to the pharmacy directly (they accept all major credit cards), then the patient is responsible for obtaining reimbursement from their USA insurance carrier.
• Good luck with that though - BCBS told me that I have to order brand name Gleevec from Curascript with my nasty budget-draining co-pay. "But BCBS, I have an option here that saves you ..... a for-profit business, 45%!  You're telling me you won't explore that option?"  I had the call escalated and spoke to someone a little higher up, and he said that BCBS is contractually obligated NOT to cover any prescriptions from Canada.  Why?  Because they can't control the regulations in Canada and don't know if Apotex Imatinib has the same efficacy, so they don't know if it's safe and aren't willing to explore it - this could change in the future, but that's the policy until generic options are available in the USA.

[Badger]

Here's a short article from the NIH that explains a little: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1936287/

I understand that you feel like you're getting screwed by BCBS; however, in their defense, they are assurring that you're getting drugs that have been approved by the FDA. I'm sure that Health Canada is every bit as good in this regard, however, BCBS would be opening themselves to a lot of lawsuits if they approved purchase of drugs untested by the FDA. Canadians hate the idea of the US potentially making the practice legal, as their drug costs would skyrocket.

[LivingWellWithCML]

Ah, this is a very helpful article @Badger - thanks for sharing it.  Everything makes sense, and thanks for clarifying.

I actually don't feel like I'm getting screwed at all - without my BCBS policy, I'd be toast.  I'm just complaining about my co-pay, cause it went from "this is great" to "ouch, this hurts" at the beginning of this year; however, it's still only ~ 3% of the actual retail price.

[ClaymanPharmacy]

Hi all:

My name is Jeff, and my family owns the pharmacy referenced in the OP.   We were just made aware of our pharmacy being mentioned in this thread and are very flattered.  Thank you, JustBreathe and Dan.

On the topic of cross-border pharmacy we wanted to share the most authoritative piece we have found on the topic - This one from the FDA - http://www.fda.gov/A...s/ucm194904.htm

In our 10+ years of service we have helped thousands of patients across 49 states (and DC) with our International Prescription Service license and using ONLY Health Canada approved medication, and NEVER has a single patient experiences a run-in with the authorities regarding the source of their medication.

- Jeff

[CallMeLucky]

Looks like the India company has filed petition to sell generic Gleevec in US.

http://www.rediff.co...rt/20130613.htm

Sun Pharma sues Novartis in US court

June 13, 2013 10:12 IST

In a development that could hasten the entry of the generic version of Gleevec into the US market, Indian drug major Sun Pharma has sued Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp in the District Court of New Jersey, demanding rights to launch a generic version of the cancer drug before the Novartis patent expires.

According to an industry source, the law suit filed by Sun Pharma Global FZE - Sun Pharma's US subsidiary - seeks a declaratory judgement against Novartis, allowing the Mumbai-based drug maker to sell generic imatinib mesylate in the US before one of the patents of the drug expires in the market. Imatinib mesylate is an active ingredient of Gleevec.

Novartis said it has "confidence in the integrity of the Gleevec patent" and will "vigorously defend" its intellectual property rights.

"Patents are vital to the ability of innovative companies like Novartis to invest in high-risk research to advance breakthrough treatments for patients without treatment options or hope. We have confidence in the integrity of the Gleevec patent and will vigorously defend our intellectual property rights," Novartis' New York media office said in response to a Business Standard query.

"The complaint challenges the validity of the crystal form patent for Gleevec, which expires in 2019," Novartis said.

The industry source says Sun Pharma, which has made a Para IV filing for the drug in the US around 2006, claims Novartis missed its 45-day window to file an infringement suit after it was informed of Sun Pharma's application for generic or abbreviated new drug application (Anda) in August 2007.

Sun Pharma declined to comment. "We do not comment on ongoing patent litigation," its spokesperson said.

Industry experts opine that under the Hatch Waxman Act, a generic drug applicant with a Para IV filing is permitted to file a declaratory judgement suit against a innovator company if the Anda applicant is not sued for infringing the patent within the 45 day period.

Gleevec contributed $4.7 billion of revenues in 2012 to Novartis' sales. The drug faced crisis even in India in April this year when it lost a battle against generic drug makers.

The Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement against the Swiss drug major, denying it a patent protection for the drug in India.