Expert Prescribes Major RX Overhaul

[Guest guest]

> SSRI-Research

> Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:29:34 -0400

> [sSRI-Research] EXPERT PRESCRIBES MAJOR RX

> OVERHAUL

>

> Rocky Mountain News (CO)

> September 3, 2004 Section: Spotlight Edition: Final

> Page Number: 25D

>

> EXPERT PRESCRIBES MAJOR RX OVERHAUL

>

> Verna Noel Jones, Special to the News

>

> It's not your imagination. Prescription-drug prices

> are spiraling out of control. Americans now spend

> $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that

> amount is growing by 12 percent a year.

>

> But it isn't because the drugs cost that much to

> produce or that drug companies need the money for

> huge amounts of research, according to Marcia

> Angell. Angell blames it all on an " industry

> corrupted by easy profits and greed, (which) has

> deceived and exploited the American people. "

>

> Harsh words? Indeed. Yet they are written not just

> by any disgruntled citizen but by the former

> editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of

> Medicine. Angell, a specialist in internal medicine

> and pathology, is senior lecturer in the department

> of social medicine at Harvard Medical School. Any

> presidential candidate who truly cares about the

> state of health care in America would do well to

> pore through the frightening information on

> profit-driven drug companies and an accommodating

> Congress in Angell's in-depth and insightful book,

> The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive

> Us and What to Do About It.

>

> The author's approach to the subject of

> pharmaceutical companies and their products is

> measured, thoughtful and clearly written. She offers

> a wealth of data to back up her claims, and then

> proposes specific reforms for restoring the industry

> to its purpose while making prescription drugs more

> affordable and safer.

>

> The pricing of drugs is a big issue. Angell notes

> that the United States is the only developed nation

> that doesn't regulate drug prices. That is why

> Schering-Plough, for example, was able to raise the

> price of its allergy pill Claritin 13 times over

> five years, for an increase of more than 50 percent,

> before the drug's patent ran out. The money drug

> companies collect isn't supporting huge research, as

> they would like consumers to believe. The author

> shows that expenditures for research and development

> of drugs accounted for just 14 percent of the drug

> companies' revenues in 2000.

>

> Where is the rest of the money going? For profit. A

> lot of it. In 2001, the combined profits of the 10

> drug companies in the Fortune 500 was $35.9 billion,

> which is more than the profit of all the other 490

> Fortune 500 businesses put together (or $33.7

> billion).

>

> Another part of the money is lavished on political

> campaigns. In 1999-2000 alone, drug companies gave

> $20 million in direct contributions and another $65

> million in " soft " money. They also fund the largest

> lobby in Washington.

>

> Not so coincidentally, in the last two decades

> Congress has enacted several laws that practically

> ensure windfall profits to the drug companies at the

> public's expense. It has passed legislation giving

> companies huge tax breaks, extensions of drug

> monopolies (to keep lower-priced generics at bay),

> and a law preventing anyone but the manufacturer

> from importing prescription drugs from another

> country.

>

> Drug company dollars fund extensive advertising

> budgets as well, which promote diseases to fit the

> drugs they market, says the author. While a consumer

> may experience only an occasional " sour " stomach,

> persistent ads are designed to convince him that he

> likely suffers from GERD (gastroesophageal reflux

> disease) and needs a daily pill to keep the symptoms

> at bay.

>

> Angell witnessed firsthand the influence of the drug

> industry on medical research during her two decades

> at the New England Journal of Medicine.

>

> She wasn't happy with what she saw. Drug companies

> now have a lot of control over clinical trials of

> drugs because they support the research done in

> academic medical centers by faculty researchers.

> This allows them to design studies that can

> influence a more favorable result, says the author,

> who is troubled by the possibility that much public

> research is seriously flawed, and could endanger the

> public's health.

>

> In addition, drug companies are spending less and

> less time developing innovative drugs and more on

> creating " me-too " drugs, slight variations of drugs

> already on the market. Of the 78 drugs approved by

> the Food and Drug Administration in 2002, just 17

> contained new active ingredients and only seven of

> those were classified by the FDA as likely

> improvements over existing drugs.

>

> Pfizer's Lipitor, for example, is fourth of six

> cholesterol-lowering drugs of the same type. Drug

> companies aren't required by law to make

> head-to-head comparisons with older drugs to show

> these new drugs are better. They're just compared to

> placebos and only have to be proven relatively safe

> and better than nothing.

>

> Angell says drug companies also sway doctors'

> drug-prescribing choices with " food, flattery and

> friendship. " In a disturbing merger of commercial

> and academic interests, pharmaceutical companies

> have greatly increased their involvement in medical

> conferences. They also send out a virtual tsunami of

> sales representatives to distribute boxloads of free

> samples (as well as meals, junkets and the like) to

> doctors.

>

> Ironically, the pharmaceuticals may have built a

> house of cards, because their profits depend on

> employer-sponsored insurance and state-run Medicaid

> programs, which now are financially strapped and

> have reached the limit on what they can pay. Angell

> believes only a major reform of the drug companies,

> as well as the way Congress and the medical

> profession cater to them, will save both the

> pharmaceutical industry and the desperate needs of

> ill Americans, who can no longer afford to pay such

> high drug costs.

>

> The author clearly points the way, but will anyone

> heed the warning?

>

 

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]