Drug Industry
The pharmaceutical industry has been under a lot of scrutiny lately, particularly for their exploitative relationship with their consumers. The IMS Health Informatics reported that $100 billion was made annually in drug sales at the beginning of 2015 and was expected to hit $147 billion by 2018 (Herper) and a report carried out by cancer researchers showed that at least $3 billion was wasted every year in the form of unused cancer drugs (Harris). Overproduction of drugs and compelling of patients to buy more than they need to consume, is one of many issues engulfing the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical companies in America operate under a capitalist economy and are required by the nature of business and capitalism to maximize profits. However, being an industry that has obligatory duties in providing health services, the major issue remains on the line being drawn between exploitation and profit maximization.
For anyone well versed in the daily news of the country, the issue of exploitation in the form of overpriced drugs by the pharmaceutical industry has been not only an ongoing one, but a very heated one, but mostly overlooked within the pharmaceutical controversy is the non-disclosure of certain side effects certain drugs have in a bid to maximize profits at the expense of ignorance. The case of a woman tagged Fox (real name withheld for security purposes) explains such occurrence within the industry very well. Fox was diagnosed with ovarian cancer about 9 months before her death. Before undergoing any treatment she was tested to determine the major causes of her ovarian cancer. The doctors in charge of her case found out Johnson and Johnson’s talcum powder was a major contribution to the cancer cells within her ovaries. Johnson and Johnson’s powder had always been marketed as a safe product to be used for reducing odor in the vaginal area. Unknown to Jane, Johnson and Johnson’s talcum powder had been listed and known within the medical world as a contributor to ovarian cancer, information Johnson and Johnson may have known while marketing the drug as a means of reducing perspiration and odor in the vaginal area. Fortunately after Fox died, her family sued Johnson and Johnson Company and won the case, receiving a compensatory amount of $72 million (Torossian).
Another case that shows the exploitation of the consumers within the drug industry is that of the cancer drug companies and the dosages they sell their drugs. A research carried out by Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, estimated that about $3 billion is wasted every year by federal Medicare programs and Health Insurers on drugs that aren’t given to patients. A lot of cancer companies sell their drugs in containers called vials. These containers are usually the standard dosage sold anywhere. The problem, however, with these vials is the size they come in. Cancer drugs sold in these vials are usually sold to accommodate all body sizes (Staton). This means a small petite cancer patient is forced under the standard of the drug size to buy more than he or she is prescribed or is effective for treatment. Due to the safety procedures ensured by hospitals, unused drugs are often times thrown away, on the exception that it may be used within six hours of first use. An example of such drug is Velcade, a drug used to treat multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Velcade is sold in a single vial containing 3.5 milligrams at a cost of $1,034. The drug is packaged at a quantity that is capable of feeding a 6 feet 6 inches tall man weighing 250 pounds (Harris).
A common trend in the drug industry has been the development of new drugs to cure diseases with an already established cure. These new drugs are often times touted to be more potent and possess less side effects. The actual problem with the development of new drugs is the price tag attached to in comparison to other alternatives and little difference in efficiency. A factor central to the development of new drugs is the issue of patents and how it provides a terminal monopoly for the drug manufacturers. A good study into this trend is case of AstraZeneca, a drug company whose patent for the heart disease drug Prilosec was about to expire on April 2001. AstraZeneca staff put together a team for the development of a new drug that was supposed to be based of Prilosec, however, they needed the drug to be different from Prilosec in order to obtain patents for the drug. While patents go a long way in securing a stable market for drug companies, what provides them with market security is the efficiency of the new drug in relation to the other alternatives. AstraZeneca underwent an old trick in the book for most drug companies, reengineering the “base” drug in order to obtain a new and “different” one. The chemical makeup for Prilosec was very conducive for the project as Prilosec contained two isomers, a left and right isomer. As is with a lot of drugs, a removal of one isomer may reduce the side effects of the drug or improve the longevity of the drug (Chhabra, Aseri and Padmanabhan). Luckily for AstraZeneca, a test carried out on patients of esophagitis using both Prilosec and half of Prilosec proved the reduced version of Prilosec to be more effective than Prilosec. This “new” drug was patented and sold as Nexium for a price of $120.00 per month (Gladwell). This case is a model of the issues surrounding the excuse of efficiency for the increase in the price of drugs. It also mirrors the way pharmaceutical companies handle with certain composites of old drugs to establish a “new” drug.