As prices for prescription drugs rise, there has not been a commensurate increase in quality. Indeed, if the products produced were actually decent, one might not be so annoyed by the astronomical rise in costs, since the consumer would at least be getting something for his money. Alas, in the real world where the market is not the real governor of big corporate profits, this is not so.
The fact is that drug manufacturers consistently market harmful products, with the collusion of the U.S. government. Back in November 2009, an AP article by Matthew Perrone described detritus found in many of Genzyme's products. Rubber, steel and other garbage, apparently big enough to see floating in vials of the drug, was declared by the Food and Drug Administration as capable of causing "serious adverse health effects". Did they force the removal of these dangerous concoctions from the market? Not on your life; there were too few "alternatives" available. Doctors were encouraged to look closely at the vial before injecting its contents into patients. Nice to know that the FDA is on our side.
In another article by this same author, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2009 criticized the FDA for not disclosing pertinent information about drugs' side effects on labels. Since these labels are written by the industry and only rubber-stamped by the agency, this is no surprise. The labels only report (in part, it seems) results from the company's own studies, not independent trials. The FDA is supposed to weigh positive v. negative outcomes and only deny approval when the latter outweighs the former. When all negatives are not disclosed, though, problems can arise, and obviously do.
Another revenue enhancer for big pharma was discussed in the latest issue of For Your Benefit, a publication of the MA Group Insurance Commission. Direct marketing to consumers by the drug industry has helped push their profit rates to 15.8% of gross revenues compared to only 5.7% for all Fortune 500 companies. These ads promote the prescribing of name brands, rather than generics, which are generally priced much lower. Here's another "side effect" of this marketing strategy: According to a report last fall by the Centers for Disease Control, drug-related deaths now outnumber those from automobile accidents in at least 16 states. The majority of these deaths are from prescribed pain-reducing drugs, not illegal ones. The prime offender? Opiates. According to a researcher from the University of Washington, "There has been a dramatic change in how doctors prescribe opiates" during the past 10 years; today, 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 10 teenagers are taking these prescribed drugs.
Why does our government not step in? It seems apparent that drugs that routinely are involved in untimely deaths should be scrutinized, as well as their delivery mechanism (prescription). Obviously, the war on drugs only pertains to those opiates and other drugs that interfere with the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Health care reform could and should have targeted this problem. Once again, money talks and the needs of the people walks. Oh, well. I think I'll go turn on the TV and watch some prescription drug ads, and relax.
The fact is that drug manufacturers consistently market harmful products, with the collusion of the U.S. government. Back in November 2009, an AP article by Matthew Perrone described detritus found in many of Genzyme's products. Rubber, steel and other garbage, apparently big enough to see floating in vials of the drug, was declared by the Food and Drug Administration as capable of causing "serious adverse health effects". Did they force the removal of these dangerous concoctions from the market? Not on your life; there were too few "alternatives" available. Doctors were encouraged to look closely at the vial before injecting its contents into patients. Nice to know that the FDA is on our side.
In another article by this same author, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2009 criticized the FDA for not disclosing pertinent information about drugs' side effects on labels. Since these labels are written by the industry and only rubber-stamped by the agency, this is no surprise. The labels only report (in part, it seems) results from the company's own studies, not independent trials. The FDA is supposed to weigh positive v. negative outcomes and only deny approval when the latter outweighs the former. When all negatives are not disclosed, though, problems can arise, and obviously do.
Another revenue enhancer for big pharma was discussed in the latest issue of For Your Benefit, a publication of the MA Group Insurance Commission. Direct marketing to consumers by the drug industry has helped push their profit rates to 15.8% of gross revenues compared to only 5.7% for all Fortune 500 companies. These ads promote the prescribing of name brands, rather than generics, which are generally priced much lower. Here's another "side effect" of this marketing strategy: According to a report last fall by the Centers for Disease Control, drug-related deaths now outnumber those from automobile accidents in at least 16 states. The majority of these deaths are from prescribed pain-reducing drugs, not illegal ones. The prime offender? Opiates. According to a researcher from the University of Washington, "There has been a dramatic change in how doctors prescribe opiates" during the past 10 years; today, 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 10 teenagers are taking these prescribed drugs.
Why does our government not step in? It seems apparent that drugs that routinely are involved in untimely deaths should be scrutinized, as well as their delivery mechanism (prescription). Obviously, the war on drugs only pertains to those opiates and other drugs that interfere with the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Health care reform could and should have targeted this problem. Once again, money talks and the needs of the people walks. Oh, well. I think I'll go turn on the TV and watch some prescription drug ads, and relax.
No comments:
Post a Comment