So the "miss" and I are in the car heading to work when we hear the radio announcer speaking on the White House's plan to cap malpractice suits, a move that is supposedly meant to lower health care costs.
This is following the Vioxx debacle, exposing gaping holes in the FDA's "we trust your research" honor system of drug accreditation. If a company can get by with a nod from the FDA over a drug that potentially multiplies your chances of a heart attack, why the hell would we want to go easy on them?
But, anyhow, my fiancé brings up the point that the recent rash of pharmaceutical advertisements are driving up prescription costs. Hmm. Makes sense. I mean, you see these damn things all the time. There's usually an attractive middle-aged woman, running through a meadow, talking about, "I wasn't always able to do cartwheels with my grandchildren...". Then you see the scientific-yet-comforting drug name, followed by a slew of side effects.
Facts differ from place to place on what drug advertising really costs you. A series presented by WebMd and MSN shows how pharmaceutical research and development dwarfs advertising. However, this article is produced by GlaxoSmithKline, a pharmaceutical company. Kinda' makes them biased... like an anti-smoking ad by Phillip Morris.
Another article states that in 2002, Merck spent more money marketing Vioxx than than the advertising budgets of Pepsi and Budweiser. A third article by the AFL-CIO says the advertising costs are dramatic, soaring prices of prescription drugs. This seems to be pushing it. But, then again, it is the AFL-CIO, and they hate big corporations as much as we do.
(Sidenote: what is it about these days that you have to judge every bit of information you read or see by its source?)
Because third-hand information is for chumps, I checked out the website of GlaxoSmithKline, the company who produced the first article I referenced. As it turns out, according to their 2003
Operating and Financial review report:
16% of their sales are for their 2 antidepressant drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, only 5% of their inventory (2 out of 35 drugs).
Only 18.7% of it's budget went to R&D last year, and 18.6% the year
before.
US sales make up 52% of the British-based company's revenue.
You know those friggin' commercials that make a case of the "blues" seem like a "serious condition?" Or the ones that make heartburn seem like a chronic malady? Well the little pills they're pushing are a hit with American self-medicators. Millions of American have gone to the doctors thanks to these friggin' ads everywhere... for better or worse. We're using more of these drugs than ever, relying on them to keep us "cured" long into old age.
Here's my question(s)...
How did we ever make it this long without these "miracle drugs"? Did Ghengis Khan ever have "social anxiety"? Was Paul Revere ever troubled by "acid reflux"? If I describe the symptoms long enough, would you start to wonder if you yourself had "acid reflux"?
Also, if more people are relying on increasingly expensive prescription drugs to make them better, are these drugs to make them better actually working? If a company that produces 35 different prescription drugs only spends 19% of its budget on research & development, where's the rest of the money going? And if the government can chime in and outlaw "Joe Camel" because he's too effective, what the hell is stopping them from the flood of ads that make you feel like you need a pill to enjoy life?
Just a few thoughts - maybe I'm the crazy one. Hell, maybe there's a pill for that too.
