Most Americans Say TV Drug Ads Are Okay

Most Americans do not have a medical background and perhaps are not fully aware how they are being mislead by many of these ads.

Link requires pwd???

[...] Pharmalot » Most Americans Say TV Drug Ads Are Okay ♦DiggIt! ♦Add to del.icio.us ♦Add to Technorati Favorites ♦Add to Facebook ♦Add to Stumble Upon [...]

Of course Americans are not stupid. Americans can read between the lines and decipher what is useful information and what is quackery. Why should the state be more involved in protecting people from greedy capitalists?

Dan,

Most Americans don't have mechanical backgrounds and aren't aware how care manufacturers mislead them in automobile ads. The same can be said for real estate, hospitals, insurance, electronics, banking, etc.

Atlex

Atlex,

Thanks for your views on my comment. And that raises an interesting question: Is our health care of such greater complexity than it should be for other industries?

Actually, Americans in general investigate new car's, new homes, and restaurants more than they do their drugs or doctors. There is this blind trust that doctors and pharma have their best interest at heart. All the more reason that when something goes wrong,the law suits start to fly. Unfortunately this is very much like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. The harm has been done.

Altex: Healthcare cannot and should not be measured or compared to consumer goods. That kind of thinking is what is fundamentally wrong with what goes on in Pharma.

I believe that they would be more acceptable if they focused on patient education rather than pitching drugs. This is the only type of ad allowed in Europe and most of the rest of the world. These DTC campaigns are very expensive and designed to sell lots of very expensive drugs. Pharma could better use its' money on more research and providing more poor and elderly people with the medications that they need. besides, the commercials do nothing but create big headaches for practicing physicians and other health care professionals as the patients come in asking for the latest drug they heard about on TV. This for sleep, that fro ED, one for allergies, another for cholesterol, etc., etc., etc. By the time they're done, they want to take home hundreds of dollars worth of drugs and they don't need most of them.

Most Americans are idiots: they eat drugs because they think a drug is going to fix their problems. They also think TV ads for drugs are okay.

BPW,

Do you really believe that "Pharma could better use its’ money on more research and providing more poor and elderly people with the medications that they need"? First, the elderly have a highly subsidized and well accepted drug program called Medicare Part D. The poor have Medicaid and other programs such as SCHIP, PACE, EPIC, etc. Do we have a big problem with a lack of insurance among the near poor--absolutely. However, every major pharma comapny has a series of programs that provide drugs at no cost or low cost. Second, with regards to research, maybe executives in pharma have figured out that the ROI of DTC actually provides greater sales which in turn allows them to ensure that funding for research is at the optimal level.

Altex,

In Theory what you say sounds good, but it is only theory...

Millions of Americans go without access to health care, 42 million actually. That is 1/4 of our population, this is not a benign problem as you are trying to make it sound.

Additionally, the "free" drugs are not "free" we are either paying for them in some tax somewhere or through higher drug costs.

There is something else you are forgetting about. When pharma gets heavy fines for all their bad behavior, the cost of the drug goes up even more. Additionally, these drug programs for patients are an insult to the patients themselves. Patients have to be completely bankrupt and expose every last detail of their dire financial situation to a pharmaceutical company, which in my opinion is already exploiting them, and then beg for assistance. Is this what America has become?

About your comment on ensuring further research. Let's take off the rose colored glasses shall we. The research is monopolized by an industry which is only thinking in terms of profit and money and not in terms of what is best for the patient. So, should we be funding this kind of research that actually helps build a better mousetrap?

I do not think so.

1.) Make COI and full disclosure a priority 2.) remove all incentive programs and other forms of bribery 3.) Have the government audit industry sponsored research 4.) Review and study all NDA and compare with companies track record for innovation and delivering drugs that are effective and cost effective. Determine companies interest into finding cures. 5.) Review companies track record on illegal marketing practices 6.) Truly monitor and enforce all of these actions.

Failure to comply with any of these should seriously impede drug approval for that company

This is how we Americans will improve healthcare for our people.

My views on policy are essentially the same as "Former," so no need to reiterate.

Re: the initial survey, as I read at least the summary, the questions are worded in ways that bias toward more positive responses. If the question was simply:

- Would it be a good thing, or a bad thing, if prescription medications were no longer advertised on television?

I would anticipate a very different response. You could then probe with more particular follow-ups: e.g., "Do you feel differently about TV ads for rx drugs than about other ads?" etc.

I realize I'm stepping on the sacred toes of Harvard here. Having walked among those toes, all will be well.

Former pharma Marketing Exec, Are you really being honest with your screen name? I don't think somebody with intimate knowledge of the pharma industry would propose some of those things you describe. For instance, you propose: "3.) Have the government audit industry sponsored research" What does this mean? You want a government official to go to the lab of professors and check notebooks to see if they are being honest with their research? This is the role of the peer-review system. Before long you'll want government officials checking the lab books at the companies too... Do you propose this for the food and cosmetics industry as well? What about homeopathic and "all natural" pills? Why single out the pharmaceutical industry?

Moving on, you say: "4.) Review and study all NDA and compare with companies track record for innovation and delivering drugs that are effective and cost effective. Determine companies interest into finding cures" Are you out of your mind? You want the government to see if drug companies are using their research money efficiently? Are you proposing an army of "efficiency police" running around that money and time aren't being wasted on ineffective projects? We have smart people that work in this business: why would we purposefully be working on ineffective targets? What makes you think the government would be able to make a better decision about which projects are likely to succeed? This is one of the most absurd proposals I have seen! This is what the free market system is for! If company "A" is designing drugs that are not effective, then sooner or later company "B" (with more effective products) will overtake them in sales and profit -- driving company "A" to either higher standards or to extinction.

Finally, your last statement is just appalling: "Failure to comply with any of these should seriously impede drug approval for that company." Suppose my company develops a very effective treatment for Alzheimer’s. Are you suggesting that the FDA should impede the approval of that drug because of some mistakes that we made previously?? Preposterous! People's lives are stake! I sure hope that it's not your mother who is in need of that new Alzheimer’s drug when the FDA purposefully delays its approval... Drug approvals should ALWAYS AND FOREVER be based solely on the effectiveness and safety of the drug in question – nothing else.

Nathan,

I am being completely honest with my "pen name"...

On my point three, I must say you have a rather interesting mind and it was quite amusing to see how you interpreted what was written. Actually a bit scary, but let me respond to your question.

I was thinking more along the lines of having the companies complete a more thorough questionnaire explaining the rationale for the approach to this research. Yes, one would argue that the theory that is the initiating spark to any research is always stated up front and found in the abstract of the final study, but we would hope to see more detail as to why a particular disease category is selected and more up front analysis (which, as we all know is already available) on the specific benefits for the patients. Yes, I do think there should be a more cohesive system in place for industry to dialog with government on what research is happening and where.

Point number 4 is very critical. If you apply more logic to it and less emotion, you will see that point 4 really holds the companies to their word of proving where the research money is going by the revenues they are generating from the drugs. We say time and time again, we need profitable drugs so that we can put more money into research. We don't really do what we say and we need to be more accountable to this. We need money spent on innovation, not just "new and improved". We humans tend to take the "easy" route, we need to implement tougher guidelines that keeps us all on track. As for your thoughts about food and cosmetics and homeopathic products, since they are not prescribed by doctors, I do not really put them in the same basket. However, we could have a long discussion on the current work on epigenetic's and impact on humans and animals. It is quite possible that the food we eat and the cosmetics we use topically may be more regulated in the future - but let's save that for another time. The government should be very interested in this as prevention is much less expensive than cure and healing...

On your final point: Actually if your company develops a very effective treatment for Alzheimer's, then it would be approved. New drug approval would be delayed if and only if the new drug was more of the same whilst scoring miserably in all the other categories as well.

You need to broaden your vision,step outside of the box and see the opportunity for drastic change in what is being proposed.

We need to stop kidding ourselves. Let's get real, a lot of what we say we are doing, we are just not doing. We need to recognize our own dysfunctionality and fix it. - Kind of like a 12 step program for Pharma....

On your last sentence, I know very well that peoples lives are at stake and that is the entire point of what I have written. Drug approvals should always be based on effectiveness and safety - yes, and we also need to ensure that we really need it or don't need it and if we do need it, it gets to the right patients. It should never be about one particular company buying a monopoly on one disease category and crippling the research and innovation that can come from other sources.

Judge, a few years ago I was one of the industry persons who funded the Harvard study. Although skepticism is called for, Harvard (being Harvard) kept us at arms length.

We were involved in the design of the survey instruments but all decisions were made by them.

Former Marketing Exec, Ok, fine. I'll limit my criticism to just point #4, which you claim is critical.

1) We live in a free-market economy. The consumer is the final authority on what research is valuable and what research is not valuable. I don't think a government agency should step in and say that research in a particular disease area is not valuable when consumers clearly think otherwise. 2) I'll restate what I stated previously: We have smart people that work in this business. Why would we purposefully be working on projects doomed to failure? What makes you think the government would be able to make a better decision about which projects and which therapeutic areas are likely to succeed? 3) The ultimate value (or nonvalue) of a drug is not readily apparent at the time of its approval. In other words, who decides what is "innovative" and what is the basis for that determination? Many of the best selling and most effective drugs in our history were not considered "innovative" at the time of FDA approval. Many drugs that appear to be "me-too" drugs have benefits that weren't apparent until years later.

Now, rather than just criticism, I'll offer a couple suggestions of my own: 1) If the government thinks that the pharma industry is "undervaluing" a particular disease area, then the government should step in and purposely CREATE value for that disease area by offering guaranteed purchases or extended patent lifetime. 2) In turn, if the government wants to DISCOURAGE research in a particular disease area, then the exact opposite approach could be taken: reduce medicare/medicade payouts for those drugs and get rid of the research tax exemption for those research areas.

Note that the timeline for these changes would have to be many years -- as (I hope) you are aware, the research going on in the laboratory right now will not make it to a pharmacy shelf for close to a decade. It's not fair to just suddenly judge a company's research priorities based on its current phase 3 pipeline. The material in the current phase 3 pipeline was developed based on the research priorities of nearly 10 years ago.

Dear Former pharma Marketing Exec

I’m a bit surprised that you don’t seem to know that research departments routinely meet with marketing and key opinion leaders in clinical to come up with research projects in the first place. Basically, we need “buy-in” fairly early that what we are trying to find is something that is needed in the clinic. So if you didn’t like what we came up with, why didn’t you tell us sooner? As time has gone on, we have also added endless safety and tolerability criteria to the scope of our drug’s pharmacological profile but whether the molecule knows this or not has to be verified in humans.

There is no question that we have many similar drugs for many diseases. Let’s take depression as an example. Most of these drugs are from the SSRI’s class but under the surface each has a different pharmacological profile, each get into the brain differently, each is metabolized at its own rate and it is impossible to predict whether one company’s SSRI will perform differently than another’s ahead of time. Meanwhile, there have been many advances in depression that haven’t made it to market because we can’t be sure they would be viewed differently than an SSRI by payers. Many novel mechanisms offer the hope of reduced side effects and targeted efficacy but if they have to compete with generic SSRI’s they won’t be profitable. To improve the knowledge around safety and efficacy, all we need is longer clinical trials and more patients, but who should pick up the tab here?

When one can sell ketchup with the same secret recipe for 100 years or play music on TV and in movies with an endless copyright, why waste your time with pharmaceuticals? Our procedures are open to the public immediately after publication. I assume if we make all your concessions, we can expect some movement with the adversarial government that represents us? I wouldn’t mind some room on patent life if a drug has to be safe in every single individual that takes it.. Why is it illegal for us to “off label market” while doctors are allowed to do so and then we are held liable for any problems that crop up. How about help with the cost of future discovery through a foreign trade agreement with wealthy countries that control our prices? I personally want a lot of money to cure the ills of an increasingly irrational nation..At least as much as you used to make..

A couple of comments:

Altex - Yes, I defintely believe that pharma could make better use its money. There are millions and millions of poor people in this country and in the world who could benefit from truly helpful drug programs. Most of the company programs are woefully inadequate. And anyone who does not have full prescription coverage could benefit form less expensive drugs. Do you have any compassion for the poor or is your heart as black and cold as most Big pharma executives? Why can't fat-cat comapnies worry about others for a change instead of simply being concerned with heavily lining their own pockets?

Nathan - Whereas we do live in a capitalistic society, there are major differences between selling soda and selling pharmaceuticals. The consumer does not need to be the one making the suggestion or the choice because he saw or heard the greatest new DTC commercial or ad. As a healthcare professional, I am licensed to prescribe what I believe is best for the individual patient. I do not want the patient telling me what he needs and I certainly don't want a sales rep with limited education in the sciences pushing his/her product with off-label claims. Let me make the decision according to my medical knowledge. I'm to the point where I won't see reps because I can't trust what they say!

Nathan,

I will go through your points, but lets be clear, we are talking about prescription drugs o.k.?

1.) The consumer is not the final voice in prescription drugs. The consumer/patient must rely on unmitigated information and guidance from doctors dedicated to the disease category. Patients are experts at being patients i.e. sharing their opinion about their experience with the disease, but they are not experts in the disease. Patients want to feel better and be better. But as we all know, the drugs patients think are making them better might actually be making them sicker...

2.) Yup there are smart people in the industry. Industry is focused on profits, that is not a crime, that's their job. Governments are supposed to protect and defend the citizens as are doctors (Hippocratic oath, do no harm you may be somewhat familiar with it...). Who better to guide the process in understanding what is needed? Government needs to be involved in healthcare because the overall health of their citizens is at stake. I have not suggested that people in the industry are working on projects doomed to fail. As a marketer, my job was (still is) to ensure it doesn't fail. And by the way, the health and welfare of the people is the job of the government, not profits... 3.) Oh really? This is critical also, because in fact drugs that are truly innovative show their efficacy very early in phase I and II, these innovative drugs are fast tracked precisely because of the REAL value they bring. There have been a handful of drugs in the past couple of years that have dramatically changed/improved/prolonged patients lives. My thoughts here are messages of hope, I couldn't criticize if I didn't genuinely believe that we can do a lot better.

To your suggestions: 1.) If the government thinks a disease area is being undervalued - well they would only know that by dialogging with pharma and finding out what they are working on and contrasting that with statistical information on the overall health of Americans. Asking ourselves, collectively, what is harming/hurting Americans and how can we address the needs. Much like a joint task force. 2.) Government should never discourage research in a disease area - that would just be devious and harmful. Each disease area gets the attention and benefits of having the needs assessed on what benefits can be delivered to the patient. This would have nothing to do with potential profit, which is mostly the opposite of what we are doing now.

So, in my world scenario these changes can be implemented right now if we want to. Nathan, we the people are the rule makers. If what I am suggesting is the right thing to do because it unifies the nations key researchers in curing and treating more of our citizens, then we can make these changes.

Such pharma DTC ads result in about a third of its viewers to seek the product advertised, and thier doctor is likely to grant thier request, although it may not be the best product for thier health, which is a serious issue. This isn't shampoo or an automobile. Pharmaceuticals come with side effects as well as chemical alterations within the taker, so it's more of a serious concern than other DTC ads for other products that are comparatively benign.

Brian,

i think what I have written to Nathan should answer your questions...

You ask about concessions. You know making concessions and coming up with incentives to do the right thing is what is getting us in trouble in the first place.

Can anyone tell me why it is that we are not content to have a job and do a job, we have to get extra pay for actually doing the job right? It is a bit dubious. I know, sounds silly, I have been the grateful recipient of many incentive rewards for how well my product is doing. But think about this, the higher the incentives the more people push the envelope, stretch the truth, blah, blah It seems the turn around is a lot faster. We get in, we make big bucks and hopefully leave quickly before anyone catches on to what we were doing. Or we see that we cannot exploit this market any further and we go "mining" elsewhere. Maybe if we took a more steady approach we would find some stability - which would make us less jittery and want to roam quicker.

The slash and burn attitude we have towards our jobs and markets destroys our long term vision. We only see our own immediate goals being met. This short term thinking is the result of most if not all of the incentive programs out there.

It always amazes me: Here's your salary, and here is the job description and what is expected of you, and here's a bonus if you actually do what we hired you for. Yeah sure, where do I sign? Crazy!!!

Former pharma Marketing Exec

Sorry your statements don't remind me of anything I've seen. If that's what you were doing on the job, I 'm glad to see you go. The scientists that make the products you abuse are passionate about crafting cures for real patients and it all comes down to what a foreign molecule will do when it enters the human body. It’s still a primitive process and we are far from guaranteeing success for all but we are getting there. For your part, I think it came down to communicating real science and all its flaws to an illiterate public. That was your job and most feel your field failed us all. Your research solutions similarly would be panned by most who toil day to day on difficult projects with little recognition but lots of newly found knowledge. We always welcome government scientists and politicians; just make sure they aren’t crusaders or insincere gadflies looking to conduct a self-promoting hearing on whether vioxx kills more folks than does ibuprofen or how to steal other people's hard fought for inventions.

Brian,

Interesting post. Are you some sort of fantasy writer? You seemed to have built up an entire "situation" of what you think I do or have done. You are way off base. To your claim that I abuse products, go back and read through my posts.

you said: "For your part, I think it came down to communicating real science and all its flaws to an illiterate public." Is this what you really think?

You Said: "We always welcome government scientists and politicians; just make sure they aren’t crusaders or insincere gadflies looking to conduct a self-promoting hearing on whether vioxx kills more folks than does ibuprofen or how to steal other people’s hard fought for inventions." If this is your impression then I am sorry that you have to work in such a place of fear and paranoia.

Since you mentioned Vioxx: Merck knew the potential for cardiotoxicity, had they managed that up front that drug would never have gone off the market. People who needed it were really helped with it. Vioxx could have been a great success story about getting the right drug to the right people.

For the record nothing that I have stated here should be construed as derogatory towards scientists. My issue isn't with them at all. It is with the management. Do not tell me that pharma scientists go to work in a lab every day and work on whatever they please. My issue is how their research is managed and driven by profitability first. What I have suggested in my posts here today are ways to change that.

"There is this blind trust that doctors and pharma have their best interest at heart"

Sums it up quite well i think...

Former Marketing exec says: "My issue is how their research is managed and driven by profitability first. What I have suggested in my posts here today are ways to change that."

Can you name one other industry in the US where RESEARCH is regulated by the federal government? I agree that the pharma industry has a motive for profit while the government has a responsibility for the health of its citizens. But as I stated previously, there are better ways to encourage a shift in research direction that utilize the free-market system that we already have in place. You speak as if we live in a socialist country -- we don't. (at least, not yet)

You say: "in fact drugs that are truly innovative show their efficacy very early in phase I and II, these innovative drugs are fast tracked precisely because of the REAL value they bring. "

Oh really? Are you sure you worked in this industry? I've seen quite a few major marketing FLOPS recently. Moreover, I've never seen a major bump in stock price (at a major company) based on phase I or phase II trial data. I think you a very, very wrong in this assertion. Unfortunately, our buisness is largely a roll of the dice. We have very little idea how a product will perform until it is on the market (or at least well into phase III).

One more thing... You say: “in fact drugs that are truly innovative show their efficacy very early in phase I and II, these innovative drugs are fast tracked precisely because of the REAL value they bring. ”

This statement is rather funny because efficacy generally isn't even looked at until phase II (except maybe in cancer or HIV). In addition, studies have recently pointed out recently that "fast tracked" drugs do little other than give a bump in stock price to the company in question. They don't have a higher approval rate or even a faster time to approval.

The bottom line is.. The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world.. Considering the its huge effect on the health of the public, its ethical obligation should be its main priority. Unfortunately it is ruthlessly profit driven. Drugs are inadequately tested and rushed to market. Negative trial results are suppressed and this leads to damage to patients. It is an industry which simply cannot be trusted. Its track record confirms this.

Truthman says: "The bottom line is..The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world.."

Think again. If you look at profit as a percentage of revinue, we are #2 (behind mining/oil companies). We return 19.6% of our revinue to investors. Oil and gas companies returned 26%. We are CLOSELY followed by commercial banks (16.2%), financial data services (15.2%), and IT companies (14%).

If you look at profit as a percentage of assets, we are much lower down the list. #6 or so. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/performers/industries/return_on_revenues/index.html

What measure are you using to make this assertion?

Nathan,

You need to bring the Scary socialist monster into this conversation is very telling of your basic insecurity with having to think in the broader sense of what is actually god for the people versus your greedy profits before patients attitude.

Let me state clearly we are not talking about consumer goods. The pharma industry has marketed themselves as humanitarian organizations (we give away "free" drugs) to being the one place Americans can count on are working on the ills of the citizens and will take care of it. This is false advertising. I am very glad to not be a part of that particular part of the industry at this time. The pharma industry is the wolf in sheep clothing and we must bring the government in to protect and defend the patients, not consumers, I am talking about patients whose lives depends on the treatments and drugs that are available at this time. I say there needs to be dialog - and I am sticking to it.

YOU ARE VERY wrong when you say our business is a roll of the dice. That is the standard "canned" statement/mantra you have been fed and believe. I cannot believe you and others like you would try to hold us all hostage to that type of thinking and belief. It is a straw man - and if you don't know that and haven't figured that out - then shame on you. The scariest thing is that you actually work in this industry by your own accounts. I am glad you post here, you certainly give us a view of what is wrong with the "mind set" of the pharma industry. It is something quite worrisome.

Ok sorry Nathan.. I stand corrected.. The pharma industry is the second most profitable industry in the world.. Behhnd oil (whose industry is also stinks by the way).. Stop deflecting Nathan..

Former marketing exec, I disagree - we ARE talking about consumer goods! These are goods (medicines) that are being purchased in a free-market economy. If the government wants to pursue drug discovery, it can do so through the NIH. Again, I'll ask very simple questions: 1) Can you name ONE other industry where private investor R&D money is regulated by the government? 2) Is this "government task force" that is investigating research going to reveal it's results publicly? 3) If so, what is to prevent every other company from just copying the products/projects in one another's pipeline? This will lead to an entire new generation of "me-too" drugs that are even more closely related than the current "me-too" drugs! 4) You say that you've worked in this industry. So, what is the success rate of projects you've seen in the industry? Do you still believe that our successes aren't largely simply a "roll of the dice"?

We succeed only because we are willing to accept a 99% failure rate. If you don't believe the failure rate is close to 99%, then you obviously have NO familiarity with research. I'm personally worked on 6 failed projects during my time in industry. This isn't the pharma mantra -- it's the truth. I live it first-hand every day as I work in research labs.

If you are smart enough to tell us which projects will succeed, I will gladly bring you in as a consultant. We have thousands of scientists who fervently believe in projects only to see them crash and burn. That's what we live with. Don't tell me that more government regluation can help solve that issue.

Former Marketing Exec,

You claim to know so much about "our industry". I think that you have virtually no experience in the R&D side of "our industry". Give me your credentials and work background and I might place a little more confidance in what you say. Here's mine: I'm a PhD medicinal chemist at a top-10 pharma company. I've worked in the industry 7 years at two companies. I've seen dozens of projects fail and only one even make it into clinical trials. We live with failure of our compounds EVERY DAY. And you have gall to tell me that Uncle Sam is going to be able to offer some meaningful insight into which of my projects are more likely to succeed?

Again, for reference, I'll quote your statement #4: 4.) Review and study all NDA and compare with companies track record for innovation and delivering drugs that are effective and cost effective. Determine companies interest into finding cures.

I'm glad the government is going to step in and penalize me for not delivering effective drugs. First my stockholders rake me over the coals then the government does the same thing. Don't you think that if we COULD deliver something more effective that we WOULD?

Nathan,

These is a big difference between pharmaceuticals and consumer goods. While I don't believe that governemnt should interfere in research issues, I do believe that they have the right to limit DTC campaigns, payments to physicians, off-label promotion and fraud. I've been in the industry for over 15 years and have been routinely disgusted by the reckless activities of the commercial teams. Btw, the failure rates for good drug candidates is about 90% overall, but many die early - either in pre-clinical or Phase I.

You indicate that you are on the R & D side, so you haven't been exposed to commercial. This "dark side" of the business is very dirty. Greed dominates and money rules. Many of these people don't care at all about patients. It's good to see some comments by a former pharma marketing exec who has a conscience. the vast majority of them don't. Just look at the fines for off-label promotion and fraud. They are in the billions!

Nathan -

I would like to better understand what you seem to imply about private investor R&D money being regulated by the government only in bio-pharma. It seems to me that innovation in all regulated industries - nuclear energy technology, aerospace, aviation, and defense (to name a few) - depend heavily on favorable government regulation. Innovation in these industries would look entirely different in the absence of federal regulation. Please explain further why you think bio-pharma is unique.

Nathan,

You're comments represent a naively "rationalized" view that Big Pharma is good. While there are many individuals on the R & D side of these companies that are indeed good, the commercial side is evil as hell. For veterans in the industry, they are commonly referred to as the "dark side." They will do anything for a buck. Let the patient beware! The repetitive minimalization of the safety issues around "toxic" drugs just to make more money is virtually criminal. The mantra needs to be closer to "first do no harm" than "money is king."

BPW, Your words are music to my ears..

To BPW (and Lisa),

How much would you propose the industry give away? $1B, $5B, 10B? I know of 1 company that gives away more than $1B in product every year. Is that enough? What is enough. I'm not trying to be heartless at all. There are absolutely social obligations that all companies, particularly health care companies, should meet.

You say that we have an obligation to provide cheaper drugs to the poor and uninsured. Shouldn't insurers then have the obligation to provide coverage for the uninsured? Then, shouldn't all physicians be required to treat a certain number of the uninsured?

I'll ask similar questions regarding price. How much lower of a price would meet with your approval--5%, 10%, 25%, 50%? I'm fairly confident that no matter what it was, it wouldn't be enough.

Another fallacy built into your and other's arguements is that pharma says we need high prices to support research and development. However, that is not only reason. The way capital markets work in the US and other capitalistic countries is that ROIs are expected to be related to risk. High risk industries are expected to have much higher rates of return for investors in order to make up for the high risk and long investment cycles (the years it takes to bring a drug to market). If pharma doesn't have high returns, investors will take their money elsewhere. Then, there is a signficant impact on innovation. The impact may not be felt today, but in the LT it would be felt.

Nathan,

My credentials are very appropriate for what I do for a living. I can tell you that I have over 18 years experience in the business. In top companies and had a very successful and proadly ethical career. But I fought hard to make that happen for me.

I can tell you that I have witnessed some good drugs come out of research. I can tell you I have seem bad things come out and that this didn't seem to stop us in marketing... I can tell you I have seen some really good drugs come out and actually have a dramatic positive impact on peoples lives. Unfortunately I have also witnessed the greed of the folks higher up the food chain allow marketing practices for some fantastic products that backfired and caused irreprable harm to the brand and product identity.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONSUMER GOODS! Patients do not Choose to take drugs, they are mandated to do so by their doctor who they are supposed to trust. I am not going to re-state this.

To your point number 3 - if you were really paying attention to what I have stated you would realize the fallacy in what you are saying.

I agree with the others who have chimed in on this thread.

Yeah, I have experienced an awakening and I am speaking out. I have no "sacred cows" to protect anymore.

Now I am dating myself, but lets think back to the man on the moon mission. When we really want to do something - we can. It was a great time to be a scientist back then. We had a clear goal/objective and we collectively worked on the solution together and we really achieved something great for humanity. The government had really deep pockets and made sure that we were funded. We can do this with diseases like cancer, like AIDS, like diabetes. I see only hope and the potential for our future.

Yes, there are many failures. I could have a lot to say about that, but some other time...

"Some men see things that were and ask - Why? I dream things that may never be and say Why not?" - RFK

C'mon Nathan step outside the box...

Atlex,

You have me stumped!!

Lisa,

I included you because you said that BPW's words were music to your ears. If I misinterpreted your comment, my apologies.

Atlex

Atlex,

Apology accepted, Thank You.

Altex,

I think that the Big Pharma companies should take all of the money that they spend on their misguided DTC campaigns and pump it into charity programs to provide much-needed medications to the poor of this country and the rest of the world. Perhaps the poorest of the US are covered by medicaid, but there are very many working poor and elderly people that simply cannot afford medications that they need. I've practiced medicine and been in pharma. I've seen people suffer needlessly and I've seen the Big Pharma hogs slopping at the trough. I simply don't believe that any corporation should benefit exorbidantly off of other people's illness. In my mind, this applies to physicians, hospitals, HMOs, PBOs and Big Pharma. Big Pharma is the 2nd most profitable industry in the world. I think that the government should treat them like utility companies as they sell neccesary goods. BTW, the physicians and hospitals have already been squeezed in the name of healthcare, so why not Big Pharma? i think that prices should be set by the US government like they are in most of the rest of the civilized world. The operating word is "reasonable" - prices and profit. Do you know that prescription drug prices are up 7-8% in the past year? paying for the same drugs, not new ones.

As for the expectations of the "Street", utilities do fine in the market - not outrageously, but well. If investors came to expect it of all pharma companies, then they get used to it. After all, it is for the common good.

As for pharma marketing, you can throw most of those fast-talking crooks out the window and they wouldn't be missed. Let them use their tactics on soda or beer sales -something that people don't really need for their health! They're mucking up pharma!

Former marketing exec,

From your (very brief) description of your career, it seems evident that you clearly have well-qualified opinions about revamping marketing. However, you have had no experience in R&D. When you have a few years of R&D management experience under your belt, then we'll talk about revamping R&D efforts. Till then you are just blowing smoke about an area you obviously know very little about.

By the way, you keep restating that medicine is not a consumer good. People HAVE to take drugs -- they have no choice. Well, Ok fine. Then it's not a consumer good. Niether is electricty, water, sewar, oil or food. Lets make all necessities of life controled by government agencies. Oh wait... the Soviets already tried that and failed...

Nathan,

Don't forget that the prices charged by many utilities are indeed regulated. As for oil, we know that the heartless oil companies have been gouging Americans since the 1970s when they put on their fake "oil crisis." As for food, many people receive food stamps or other assistance. For God's sake, with pharmaceuticals we're dealing with people's health and lives!

By the way, if you're in R & D, you have no idea about how dirty the commercial side can be. Read the papers! Check the fines! They're corporate gluttons whose beastly hunger for money can never be satisfied. They'd sell their own mothers if they thought they could make a profit. They're heartless bastards!

Nathan,

I agree with David. Open your eyes and see the disgusting truth! Big Pharma will sink its' own ship. The Democrats are coming and change will sweep into Washington. Read it and weep!