$95 billion a year spent on medical research in US_JAMA

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:20:47 -0400

$95 billion a year spent on medical research in US_JAMA

 

(Research? Research, that word sounds so noble. It conjures up images

of hardworking people struggling for the better good of health for

all. I think that most of the so called " research " should be called what it

really is, and is called by most other industries. It is called " product

development " . It is to design, market, and make a plan to sell a product for a

profit motive whether it is any real benefit for the consumer or not. Or may

actually be a detriment to one's health. To achieve that Big Pharma is willing

to overlook, hide, subvert science, research, regulatory agencies, government,

etc. But it is very good P.R. to use the word " research " and hides a lot of that

evil intent. Research as opposed to product development. It sounds so much

nobler and nicer, don't you agree?)

 

 

 

 

 

$95 billion a year spent on medical research in US_JAMAALLIANCE FOR

HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability

www.ahrp.org

 

FYI

A special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,

JAMA, focuses on medical research spending and findings.

 

A study that examined US spending for medical research---$95 billion

approaching $100 billion--57% is spent by industry, 28% by NIH.

 

But in an effort to answer whether this money is spent wisely--the

answer is a resounding NO.

 

" The data in this article make it plain that we are spending huge

amounts of money, more than any other country, to develop new drugs

and devices and other treatments, " said Dan Fox, president of the

Milbank Memorial Fund, a philanthropic group that works on health

policy issues. " But we are not spending as much as we could to

disseminate the most effective treatments and practices throughout the

health system. "

 

The findings corroborate critics' analyses that most medical research

funds are spent on marketing non-essential, " me too " drugs and

treatments, while neglecting to develop treatments for intractable

diseases. The findings also confirm the continuing health risk posed

by industry's profit driven drug development.

 

Once a market has been created--even lethal drugs are aggressively

marketed, mostly with false and misleading claims about their safety

and efficacy--e.g., Vioxx and its class of nonsteroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs; Paxil and its class of antidepressants;

Risperdal and Zyprexa and their class of antipsychotics.

 

 

 

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

212-595-8974

veracare

 

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9407342/

 

MSNBC.com

 

$95 billion a year spent on medical research

Report questions whether money is well spent on important diseases

 

The Associated Press

Sept. 20, 2005

 

CHICAGO - Total U.S. spending on medical research has doubled in the

past decade to nearly $95 billion a year, though whether the money is

being well spent needs much better scrutiny, a study has found.

 

The report in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association

comes amid heightened public attention to medical research because of

liability lawsuits over the painkiller Vioxx, political debate over

stem cell research and the untapped potential of curing or preventing

disease through mapping the human genome.

 

" If we're soon going to be spending $100 billion a year, we'd better

have treatments that work over a long period of time against diseases

that are important today and will be more important tomorrow, " said

Dr. Hamilton Moses III, co-author of the study and chairman of the

Alerion Institute, which conducts studies on research policy.

 

" If we don't know those conditions are satisfied, we can't judge

whether we're getting our money's worth, " he said.

 

The study is part of a special issue of JAMA devoted to the state of

U.S. medical research. What emerges from the issue is a picture of an

amorphous, mostly profit-driven system, where industry research

focuses on existing drugs and lets discovery-stage research lag behind.

 

The authors call on the medical industry, government and foundations

to do better at investing in research on diseases with fewer effective

treatments, such as Alzheimer's, and at translating basic research

into new treatments and cures.

 

The authors have ties to the industry, medical schools and health

companies, doing consulting work and sitting on drug company boards,

according to financial disclosures published with the study.

 

Six cents to every dollar

The imbalance between late-stage and early-stage research is growing,

the authors wrote, and is due partly to lengthy clinical trials

required for new drug approval and partly to pure marketing. Companies

often run costly studies to show their drugs work better than

competitors' drugs.

 

In their funding analysis, Moses and his colleagues found that the

industry sponsors 57 percent of medical research and the National

Institutes of Health pays for 28 percent. That proportion has remained

unchanged over the past decade.

 

The analysis also found that the United States spends about six cents

of every health care dollar on medical research. But the nation spends

only one-tenth of a cent of every dollar on longer-term evaluation of

which drugs and treatments work best at the lowest cost.

 

" The data in this article make it plain that we are spending huge

amounts of money, more than any other country, to develop new drugs

and devices and other treatments, " said Dan Fox, president of the

Milbank Memorial Fund, a philanthropic group that works on health

policy issues. " But we are not spending as much as we could to

disseminate the most effective treatments and practices throughout the

health system. "

 

In separate JAMA articles, National Institutes of Health Director

Elias Zerhouni said genetics advancements and stem cell discoveries

require teams of experts who haven't worked together before, such as

biologists and computer programmers, to convert basic science into new

therapies.

 

And Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, said threats such as terrorism and avian flu require more

investment in health protection.

 

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may

not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

© 2005 MSNBC.com

 

 

 

 

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of

which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to

advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral,

ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.