Despite warranted reservations, shortly before Election Day, former President Clinton signed legislation allowing the reimportation of pharmaceuticals into the United States. Clinton admitted the legislation “will do nothing for seniors and others struggling to pay high prescription bills.” Upon closer inspection, one finds that, in this case, there is little difference between doing “something” and doing nothing about prescription drug costs.

Reimportation allows a U.S. manufactured drug, sold in another country at a lower price, to be reimported back to the U.S. and sold for less. For example, in France, manufacturers sell prescription drugs to wholesalers within the country at one price, but then sell the same products to Italian wholesalers for half the price. Reimportation allows French wholesalers and pharmacies to buy drugs at half-price from Italy and undercut the rest of the market in France.

At first glance, reimportation seems like an appealing solution for consumers. However, many factors—most of which are out of Washington’s hands—affect price.

Manufacturers sell drugs at different prices in different countries for several reasons. First, some nations regulate drug costs with government price controls that artificially lower the price of pharmaceuticals. This is the case in France, Canada, and Japan. Second, in countries with lower per-capita income, such as Belize, prices are naturally set lower, making pharmaceuticals cheaper than in other countries, and other countries pay only the cost of manufacturing the drug and receive a smaller profit. As a result, pharmaceutical companies rely on U.S. consumers to foot the bill for much of the research and development costs.

Some companies maintain that allowing the reimportation of drugs from countries with price controls indirectly imposes price controls on the United States. Predictably, this could lead the pharmaceutical industry and foreign wholesalers to raise prices abroad. Alternatively, American firms could decide to limit drug exports to foreign markets or to eliminate exports altogether.

Nevertheless, House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt said that even though Clinton signed the legislation, “reimportation is dead” because of the sunset clause, the labeling language, and the contracting issues. The reimportation legislation sunsets, or automatically expires, five years after the law’s regulations are in place. Additionally, importers and wholesalers might not use U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug labels on reimported products, thereby meaning they could not be legally sold in the U.S. Moreover, manufacturers could use contracts to discourage distributors from reimportation.

But if reimportation is dead, then why does regulation live on in the bill? Lawmakers included $23 million for the FDA to clear the high hurdle of ensuring that reimports are not counterfeits and pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety. Currently, the FDA inspects less than one percent of drug imports. The FDA is expected to take two years writing and implementing the complex regulations to police the way drugs are stored and transported. Afterward, import regulation will cost an estimated $93 million annually for five years.

However, no amount of spending will help U.S. Customs tell the difference between counterfeit and authentic drugs. In a letter to the Senate, Jere E. Goyan, former commissioner of the FDA under President Jimmy Carter, wrote, “Even with my background and training, based on physical inspection alone, I can’t tell the difference between an authentic drug that has been properly stored and handled… and a counterfeit medicine that looks exactly like the ‘real medicine’ that it copies.”

Pharmaceutical free trade is a quick fix measure for a continuing problem. Ratifying reimportation legislation takes less effort than enacting serious Medicare reform, which is the real issue at hand. In the long run, any drug prices that drop will rise to equilibrium and the legislation will do nothing to increase availability or choice.

Reimportation of drugs ignores the real problems at hand. This misguided provision will do nothing to reform an outdated Medicare program that provides a one-size-fits-all approach to health care for our nation’s 38 million elderly and disabled Medicare recipients.

Reimportation will neither reduce drug costs nor expand health care choice and access, and is yet another example of lawmakers making things worse rather than better. Instead of political posturing, Americans need a permanent health care solution that includes comprehensive Medicare reform.

Laura Dykes is a public-policy fellow at the California-based Pacific Research Institute’s Center for Enterprise and Opportunity. She can be reached via email at hayward487@aol.com.