Posted At Press & Dakotan

By: Michelle Plasari

Ask any American senior how they feel about taking prescription drugs imported from Canada and you'll likely get a positive response. Ask the same senior how they feel about taking drugs from Lithuania, and you better be ready to catch their jaw. Seniors have been conditioned to think of importation as some type of trade agreement restricted to North America. Such a notion couldn't be more dangerous, nor further from the truth.

Two prescription drug bills now spinning for traction on the Senate floor are shamelessly relying on seniors not reading the fine print. Both bills seek to stretch the public's general comfort with Canadian imports all the way to Europe and Asia. The legislation, sponsored by Republican David Vitter of Louisiana and Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, would put countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Malta -- and the aforementioned Lithuania -- on a list of approved U.S. drug suppliers.

It is no surprise, given recent polls revealing tremendous opposition to such legislation, that importation advocates never mention these countries in their townhall meetings. They must know what pollsters know. A majority of seniors approve legalizing importation if the partner is Canada, a trusted ally. But when asked whether they support importation's expansion into Slovakia, Slovania or any of those already mentioned, an astronomical 71 percent say no. No wonder lawmakers write so small.

Beyond just the inclusion of Europe and Asia into the importation mix, seniors have serious concerns about the logistics of the Vitter and Dorgan proposals. An eye-popping 72 percent would oppose the U.S. allowing medicines to be imported without proper country-of-origin labeling. To seniors, it is pure common sense they should know whether their heart medication, for example, originated in South Africa, where the government acknowledges that counterfeits and fakes account for up to 20 percent of all medicines on the market. Who could fathom health-care legislation that would permit drugs from some 25 lesser-regulated countries to commingle with supplies headed for the U.S.? Certainly not American seniors.

Even if the proposed list of countries were acceptable and patients understood that many drugs will come from unknown origins, their ability to opt out of taking such medications might make such a regime more palatable. However, impossible as it seems, neither the Vitter nor Dorgan bills offer any such provision. Patients will have no right to say no to foreign drugs and their doctors will have no option to refuse such supplies. When asked whether they could support this system, 79 percent say no. With such deep opposition, it is odd that these bills haven't been condemned to death.

As is too often the case in the nation's capitol, the fine print is where the real damage is done. Working to make prescription drugs more affordable is admirable. Thinking outside the box is reasonable. But abusing the public's good faith by opening the American marketplace to unregulated and poorly labeled pharmaceuticals is irresponsible.