The pharmaceutical industry is known for discovering, developing, producing, and marketing various types of drugs for medications. It is known for bringing in loads of money as shown in 2015 when they made over 86 billion dollars. Looking at that number one surely must ask what their methodology is to be able to have such high values of revenue. That answer lies in a controversy that has been rooted with the pharmaceutical industry since 2002. The year in which the pharmaceutical industry was taking its first steps to facilitate their new marketing practices. This controversy surrounds pharmaceutical marketing and the influence that big pharma imposes on doctors and other health professionals through drug representatives. As Dale Archer, who …show more content…
In the cause of America this practically includes just about everyone on health insurance. There have been many reports on instances in which the diagnosis of the patients would be overly exaggerated so that the doctors could write them prescriptions on the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies incentivize them to do. It’s a practice rife with conflict of interest, leading to over-prescription of medications that may not even be the most appropriate for patients, and it has been the cornerstone of drug marketing for decades” (Archer). Many doctors know how wrong these practices are and some even step up even if it means that they risk being blacklisted by pharmaceutical companies later in the future. As a firsthand witness himself Doctor Archer would describe scenarios in which he along with all the other medical staff know of the wrongdoings. “It was wrong, even when we told ourselves that the freebies would in no way influence our judgment as doctors or dictate what we prescribed. We all took an oath to protect our patients and put their needs first”. One can tell based on the tone and wording of Archer’s dialect that he feels regretful for having to engaged in such practices during his time as a doctor. With insight such as this, Doctor Archer along with other doctors in America know that these marketing practices are not in favor of the …show more content…
Individuals such as John LaMattina who play devil’s advocate. At first glance one would say it is almost impossible to argue in favor of big pharma, however those in favor of them offer factual evidence to support their stance. “The problem is that running a biopharmaceutical company is an expensive and high-risk endeavor. If you cannot generate a very significant profit, you can’t survive” (LaMattina). Having to run a grand business such as a pharmaceutical company is no doubt an easy task and as everyone knows a business’s primary goal is to make money. As pointed out by LaMattina “Clinical trials are typically conducted on drugs developed by labs seeking huge profits. No one stands to make money off aspirin, which has been a generic drug since the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and which costs less than $6 for a year’s supply”. If a business makes no money, then it cannot sustain itself and it will eventually go bankrupted. As unfortunate as it sounds this also applies to pharmaceutical companies. The companies who say their interest is to produce drugs to help patients but unfortunately follows the same business model as any other
Dr. John Abramson’s book Overdosed America debunks the myths about the excellence of American medicine. Abramson backs up this claim by closely examining research about medicine, closely examining the unpublished details submitted by drug manufacturers to the FDA, and discovering that the unpublished data does not coincide with the claims made about the safety and effectiveness of commonly used medicines. Abramsons purpose is to point out the flaws of the pharmaceutical industry in order to warn the readers about the credibility of the drugs they are buying. Given the critical yet technical language of the book, Abramson is writing to an audience that may include academic physicians as well as those who want to learn about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets.
In order to take advantage of this demand, five billion dollars is spent by the pharmaceutical industry on marketing each year. This marketing, usually in the form of advertisements, often distorts facts and makes the necessity for drug treatment seem greater.... ... middle of paper ... ... Washington, D.C.:
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads are dangerous and can have serious effects on the health of the general public. In the article “Pros & Cons Arguments: ‘Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?’”, the pros and cons of the advertising of prescription drugs are compared. The negative aspects of these ads outweigh that of the positives. DTC prescription drug ads misinform patients, promote over-usage, and pressure medical providers. The counter side argues that these ads inform patients, create a positive impact on patient compliance with medication, and cause patients to confront their doctors.
Doctors work under intense pressure, and if a pill could fix a patient’s problems than many saw nothing wrong with that. What exacerbated the problem was that many hospitals also changed their modus operandi with regards to treatment. In some hospitals, “doctors were told they could be sued if they did not treat pain aggressively, which meant with opiates (95). However once the patient became addicted and could no longer get their prescription legally refilled, the drug dealers saw their chance. What is surprising is the fact that pharmaceutical companies acted in the same manner as drug dealers. Both sides did not care about the end user, and the problems they would have to deal with after using what was given to them. Their motive was purely to profit as much as possible, and they did not care about who would get hurt as a result of their
• It is an advantage for patients because, before advertising by pharmaceutical companies, patients used to follow blindly what their doctors asked them to take as medication without really understanding it or knowing all the options available. Now, they are more informed about medications.
Why do consumers purchase specific drugs for various ailments, sicknesses or diseases they might have? Why do physicians prescribe certain drugs over competitive drugs that may be available to the public? Why is it that most of us can easily name specific drugs that fit the many ailments of today’s society? On the surface the answer might be as simple as good TV advertising or radio commercials or even internet adds. The truth of matter is the major pharmaceutical manufacturers own the patents on these drugs and this gives them all of the marketing budget and muscle they need to promote the drug and control the pricing. The incentives for larger pharmaceutical companies are very enticing and as a result, they don’t mind spending the time in clinical trials and patent courts to get their drugs approved. Some will even get patents on the process by which the drug is manufactured, ensuring that no competitor can steal the drug or the process. This protects their large financial investment and nearly guarantees a large return for their investors. Many consumer rights groups claim this is nothing more than legalizing monopolies for the biggest manufacturers.
In America, it has become a battle to earn a high paying job to cope with the expenses of a typical American. It has become even more of a battle for some people to afford medical prescriptions to keep healthy. Health becomes a crucial issue when discussed among people. No matter what, at one point or another, everyone is going to stand as a victim of the pharmaceutical industry. The bottom line is Americans are paying excessive amounts of money for medical prescriptions. Health-Care spending in the U.S. rose a stunning 9.3% in 2002, which is the greatest increase for the past eleven years. (Steele 46) Many pharmaceutical companies are robbing their clients by charging extreme rates for their products.
Government factors into the equation of the argument. Critics of the drug industry say that there is not enough regulation, while supporters of the pharmaceutical companies argue that there is too much regulation and that that is one...
We live in a world where being medicated has become a societal norm. Modern health care practices have set the stage for the proliferation of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Some of these practices include the emergence of managed care organizations (MCOs), the legalization of DTCA of prescription drugs, the emergence of the Internet as an alternative promotional channel, the increased desire by patients to become more involved in their own health care decisions, the disillusionment with traditional medicine, and the rise of ‘alternative’ medicine, to name a few. There is an ongoing debate as to the ultimate harm or benefit of this relatively recent practice of pharmaceutical manufacturers to direct their promotional efforts away from the physician and towards the consumer.
This article deals with the politics and the various debates involved in the field of pharmaceutical industry in reference to the lifesaving medicines and treatments. It is hardly a contested fact that there is something wrong in the way the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry works; keeping in mind that the prime objective of both the institutions is a moral one, one that involves the lives of many, i.e. insuring proper health and access to life saving drugs. Let us now take a glimpse at the story of Ron Woodroof, also shown in the Oscar winning movie, Dallas Buyers’ Club (2013), to have a basic understanding of the topic.
This fact validates the incentive pharmaceutical companies have to get a patent and acquire more power. Pfizer encourages R&D because of the incentives and a desire to obtain patents to receive more profit. Pfizer has to promote itself to be successful, creating a brand image that consumers will trust. If the company can advertise successfully, more consumers will purchase their products. Pfizer must also be generating products efficiently in order to save and use existing resources, while manufacturing their products at low costs to stay competitive....
In recent years’ health reform has been a driving force in the United States political system. If you watch the news you will undoughtabley hear how citizens, the government, or the economy is or might be effected by some sort of change in medical regulation. One of these hot topic issues is the cost of prescription drugs. Every major drug market besides the United States regulates the price of drugs in some way (Abbott and Vernon). By the United states not doing so many believes it opens consumers up to be exploited by large pharmaceuticals companies. Other believe regulating drug prices limits investment, innovation, and competition in the pharmaceutical industry. In many ways both views are correct yet the later may have more long term lasting
10. Collis, David, and Troy Smith. "Strategy in the Twenty-First Century Pharmaceutical Industry:Merck&Co. and Pfizer Inc." Harvard Business School, 2007: 8-12.
In today’s world, pharmaceutical companies are driven by huge profit making instead of making novel drugs that can cure diseases. After the legalization of direct- to direct consumer advertisement in the USA in 1980, Big Pharma took this opportunity to quickly reach out for consumers and products promotion (Jain, 2014). This results into increase dissemination of false information regarding pharmaceutical products such prescription drugs. In 2004, Merck for example was forced to withdraw its blockbuster pain relieve drug Vioxx from the market because of the serious adverse effects such as heart problems and ulcers as compared to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such ibuprofen, aspirin and prescription naproxen (Jain, 2014). According to