A report by a Chicago, USA-based think-tank examines the claim that the introduction of the Medicare Part D program for retired citizens has reduced demand for imported medicines from Canada "up to 30%."

Diana Ernst, writing in the Heartland Institute's journal, finds a series of conflicting interests and hopes about the new prescription drug benefit. On the one hand, Canadian Internet pharmacists insist that it is "definitely not accurate" to claim a fall of 30% in demand, although the claim that any fall since January 1, could be a "seasonal issue," as suggested by Andy Troszok, president of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, seems implausible, given that winter is generally a period of high demand for medication.

Canadian drug exporters have a clear interest in any reports that the Medicare Part D scheme is failing to deliver drugs, or that the savings are less than for importation via the Internet. A particular bone of contention is the American Association for Retired People's claims that enrollees on their Medicare prescription plan can save more than by importation (Marketletter January 16).

Ms. Ernst also reports on the political controversy among free-market orientated think-tanks about the Medicare Part D introduction. John Graham, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, welcomes the reduction of Internet-based imports of drugs, but complains that the US federal government has created a massive long-term problem: a quarter of the country's drugs bill is now financed through taxation, a proportion that can only rise as the population gets older. Already, politicians are demanding price controls, more importation of drugs or direct negotiation over prices between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and drug companies (Marketletters passim).