Prescription Drug Advertisements: How Many are Too Many?

The two blogs I focused on this week were pertaining to misperceptions of pharmaceutical products by the consumer. The first blog discusses the finding of a recent UCLA study illustrating advertising techniques for prescription drugs. The blog analyzes the finding of the study, and highlights some key evidence that demonstrates the subtle nuances of marketing strategies for pharmaceuticals on television. The second blog reflects on an article published by the Washington Post highlighting “low health literacy.” The blog relates the finding of the Washington Post to an article discussed in the authors Health Law Class citing the importance of a lucid understanding of health products and their accompanying literature.

Comment on Blog I

I believe that this is an important blog because it highlights those points of the UCLA study that make a case against the dishonest advertising techniques of many pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, I feel that the blog may be lacking in its consideration of alternative causes for the high degree of pharmaceutical ads, such as a lack of government regulation, and the relative ignorance of the consumers. Also, I believe that the blog could have made a stronger case against the pharmaceutical companies if it argued that the advertisements exploited consumer’s ignorance of health literature.

Comment on Blog II

I feel that this blog brings up an important issue in the U.S. health industry, and that the lack of understanding may cause confusion for the average consumer. However, I feel that this blog suffers because it does not have certain elements that Blog I did, mainly an attempt to illustrate false marketing techniques by the major drug manufactures. This blog could have been stronger if it gave some possible explanations for why Americans have such low health literacy other than their overall literacy skills, which are approximately at the 8^th grade level.

American's Appetite: Demanding the Worst and Hoping for the Best

The centers for Medicare and Medicade Services realeased a report predicting future health care costs up to the year 2016 demonstrates the possible outcomes of the current national health trends. What is paramount to this issue is the combination of a sedentary lifestyle, as seen in the chart illustrating the increasing cost of healthcare in the U.S., and an increasingly unhealthy diet. When one considers the fact that a staggering 65% of the U.S. population is overweight or obese, it is not surprising that the federal government is forecasting health care costs to rise to approximately $ 4.1 trillion a year, or about 16% of the GDP. Another factor is the increasing age of the overall population, as baby boomers near retirement. The general trend for the elderly is the onset of health problems, generally dealing with the cardiovascular or circulatory systems, such as diabetes of heart disease, along with a wide range of other health problems. In addition to age, unhealthy eating habits also contribute to the ever worsening health condition of the average American.

According to the Forbes article, the effects of the increasing healthcare costs in the U.S. on the pharmaceutical industry will affect both health providers and suppliers of pharmaceuticals and also "U.S. prescription drug spending should reach $497.5 billion by 2016, more than double the expected level for 2006." Federal expenses on prescription drugs are expected to grow at a faster rate (8.6%) than the growth rate of overall healthcare spending (6.9%). The higher rate of pharmaceutical spending is due in large part to the increasing effectiveness of drugs and the change in the role of pharmacists from a position of supplier to that of primary healthcare advisor, almost on par with a physician. Thus, we see that unhealthy eating habits, coupled with age and an inactive lifestyle have necessitated increases in national healthcare spending. Additionally, the expansion of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in providing healthcare to the average America explains the higher rate of spending for pharmaceuticals.

One only needs to travel as far as his local supermarket to see how poorly the average American eats. For example, a recent product released by a major American food producer, Jimmy Dean, illustrates just how severe the disparity is between what Americans are willing to purchase and what foods are actually healthy. The product in question is a sausage wrapped in a chocolate chip pancake, on a stick. Now the nutritional value of the product is beyond question negligible, anything wrapped with a chocolate chip pancake, or “on a stick” is most likely unhealthy, not to mention that sausages are mostly made from animal by-products. The thing to keep in mind is that Jimmy Dean expects this product to sell; they expect consumers to either be completely ignorant of the health risks associate with the product, or to disregard them altogether, either way; the existence of such an unhealthy snack on the market makes a statement about the health standards of the average consumer. And this is the big picture, Americans no longer demand healthy foods from the market, and nor do they expect a healthy lifestyle from themselves.

When one accepts these ideas as the truth it is easy to understand why health care costs will double in less then ten years, and why heart disease kills almost a thousand people a day.

The Nuances of Pharmaceutical Safety: Two New Arguements

For as long as modern medicine has existed, there have been concerns over the validity and effectiveness of drugs. A recent article published in the United Kingdom highlights this issue and what can be done about it. In an ideal world, all drugs would have randomized, double blind, placebo controlled testing done by creditable institutions prior to be released into the market. Unfortunately, this is not possible nor is it heavily pursued. On the contrary, we have two general classifications in the United States regarding the validity of a given drug, FDA Approved, and unapproved. The existence of this system baffles the mind when considering the complete openness and accessibility of none FDA approved drugs to the market. The availability of unapproved drugs is staggering and reflects on the true lack of government regulation of the health care industry. In a nutshell, an individual could turn a pine cone into powder form, bottle it, and sell it on the open market as a weight loss drug, while only having to take on precaution, labeling the so-called medicine as none-FDA approved.

The first blog highlights the underlying problem in faulty pharmaceutical drugs, which is a lack of quality testing. This issue however, is far more complicated, and he blog does an excellent job of addressing these issues. To begin with, there is a inherent disparity between the goals of an pharmaceutical provider and the means by which quality medicine is produced. Large pharmaceutical firms, like Pfizer, are publicly traded companies, and therefore, the CEO’s have a responsibility to the shareholders to produce the maximum profit possible. This constitutes the ability to rapidly respond to the demands of the market, and in my opinion, control the demands of the market. Unfortunately, almost all of what science stands for, and what ethics demand in the production of quality medicine, is the dismissal of all factors except for the validity of evidence. Pharmaceuticals are obviously complicated in their production, and thus conflict with the goals of the corporations that produce them.

The second blog discusses, among other things, the nuances of the FDA’s approval practices, and the inherent dangers of the seemingly open and unregulated pharmaceutical industry. The major classification between FDA approved and none-approved truly reflects on the capitalistic underpinnings of policy federal government regulation. One can argue that citizens have the “freedom” to choose between approved and none-approved drugs, but the reality is the market is cluttered with medicine that has not passed adequate scientific standards. Despite the fact that an ideal, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled testing process is not possible for every drugs, as discussed in the first blog, we should demand that the production of pharmaceuticals be guided by the highest professional and scientific standards.

Prescription Drug Legislation: How Much Can We Change?

As anyone who has a remote interest in politics has noticed, seems to being steering congress into a new direction, one thatthe new democratic leadership has not been seen for over twelve years. Case in point, the new Prescription Drug Bill which requires the Secretary of Health and Humans Services to negotiate with drug suppliers for lower prices. This bill reflects a new policy change in Congress, but according to some interest groups, the system remains flawed and vulnerable to private interests.
Interestingly enough, the bill was passed during the whirlwind of legislative activity known as the Democrats “First 100-Hours.” During this period (first 100 hours of official Democratic leadership) six major pieces of legislation were passed by the House, and now await the Senate’s decision.
This new bill could not have come at a better time for elderly in America. Two factors seem to be pushing the elderly farther into the margins our society. Firstly, the increasing cost of living vs. their fixed and hopelessly inadequate income. As many of us can see today, many senior citizens today rely almost solely on their social security checks, a role for which they were not intended to fill. As a result, many senior citizens live in scarcity, making for the acquisition of necessary medication difficult and uncommon. The second strain on senior citizens is the increasing strain on the system by one, the increasing age of the U.S. population, and despite recent events, the second factor is a trend toward privatization of the medicare industry.