Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues within the pharmaceutical industry
Ethical dilemmas in pharmaceutical companies
Ethical issues in the pharmacy industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues within the pharmaceutical industry
Pharmaceutical Representatives and Physicians: Defining a New Policy of Regulation The ethics surrounding the Pharmaceutical Industry in the United States and around the world have long been debated by not only healthcare professional, but the general public as well. Due to their high revenues rates and constant legal battles with the government and consumers, new regulations are constantly being developed. For example, in 2009, new voluntary regulations were put out by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in order to establish guidelines regarding the relationship between physicians and drug representatives in an attempt to improve patient care as a whole. As stated in the new code, “Interactions should be focused …show more content…
In order to do this, drug reps simply don’t explain the benefits of the drug, but instead often resort to other means of influencing physicians’ decision. For example, things like food deliveries, free samples, expensive dinners for the whole staff, and tickets to a wealth of sporting events are not uncommon. It is quite plain to see that such gifts and benefits that doctors receive could comprise their ability to make a purely objective decision when deciding which drug to use. For example, “Patients with hypertension that are treated with ‘free’ drug samples are less likely to have their hypertension controlled than are patients whose hypertension is treated by the physicians’ free choice of drugs.” Why is that? The causality here is not clear. Are the drugs less effective? Drug companies believe these gifts and other perks like samples work so well that they devoted $13 billion in the year of 2006 to this practice. Even when pharmaceutical representatives finally do gain access to physicians and are given time to educate them on the benefits of a certain drugs; the information disseminated was often very questionable. “One study found that materials distributed during visits usually made assertions without providing evidence to support them, and sometimes promoted non-approved
Working in the pharmaceutical industry, there are different types of environments you could possibly work in. There are chain pharmacies, like any kind of grocery store or CVS. There are franchise pharmacies, which are also known as apothecaries. Also, there are community pharmacies, which are also known as retail pharmacies. Some of them are independent pharmacies, which is usually owned by a pharmacist or a group of pharmacists.. There are hospital pharmacies, in which are in the hospital. There are many more different types, these are only a few.
Med-Pharmex Incorporated is known nationally and abroad as a pharmaceutical manufacturer of animal-related products. Before gaining fame worldwide, the business began its journey to success as a small lab in 1983, which slowly grew over time. Since then, the company maintains its main goal, and that is to produce drugs that promote the health of companion animals, such as dogs, cats, and horses, as well as food-producing animals, such as pork and chickens. To ensure legal responsibility, the company’s manufacturing process is examined by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Med-Pharmex works closely with veterinary clinics who purchase their life-saving drugs and represent them in the market. Despite manufacturing drugs, the
"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in order to cure their ailments. For instance, they may present symptoms that are perfectly harmless, and lead potential citizens to believe that, because of these symptoms, they are "sick" and in need of medication. In some instances, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States misleads both the public and medical professionals by participating in acts of both deceptive marketing practices and bribery, and therefore does not act within the best interests of the consumers.
DTC advertisements aim to persuade that their possibly less effective drugs work better than other drugs rather than to inform consumers of correct information about drugs. The reason that pharmaceutical companies abuse the power of DTC advertising is because the pharmaceutical industry does not have a strong ethical code for advertising; their sales are so obsessed with profits. To solve this problem, policy makers should prohibit indiscreet DTC advertisements on air and fund more informative services about new drugs so that patients could make clever
The percentages of the two surveys prove that a greater percentage of doctors believe that prescription drug ads misinform patients. These ads misinform patients, encourage over-medication, and pressure doctors and medical providers. The counter side states that prescription drug ads educate patients, encourage the correct usage of drugs, and cause patients to ask their doctors about possible treatments. Both sides have examples and evidence, but the cons of prescription drug ads are stronger.
Background: Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. In 1971 the United States approved the use of an MMR vaccine made by Merck, containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine. In 1978 Merck introduced the MMR II, using a different strain of the rubella vaccine. In 1997 the FDA required Merck to conduct effectiveness testing of MMRII. Initially it was over 95%; to continue the license; Merck had to convince the FDA that the effectiveness stayed at a similar rate over the years.
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.
Pharmaceuticals are arguably one of the most contentious of all goods and services traded in the market. While medicines are as much a necessity as foods and water, they require more technical expertise and official approbation in the manufacture. Above all, they carry a moral weight that most market products do not (The Economist, 2014). This idea of moral can be linked to the recurring debate over whether a good health (which is represented by medicines, in this case) should be considered a basic human right, or just a normal commodity. A large portion of such controversy actually lies in an existence of drug patents: should we promote for longer-lasting patents or should we have their duration shortened?
Being presented with the problems in the implementation of the SAP ERP system, it is evident that Novartis Pharmaceuticals requires a comprehensive action plan that resolves key issues and the underlying problem. Refer to Exhibit A for a graphical representation of the action plan.
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...
Threat of new entrants is relatively high. Companies forming alliances are potential rivals. Even if earlier such company was not considered to be a threat, after merging with some research and development company or forming alliance with another pharmaceutical company it would become a rival to Eli Lilly. The threat is however weakened by significant research and development costs necessary to successfully enter the business. Eli Lilly’s focus on a relatively narrow market of sedatives and antidepressants weakens the threat of new entrants, but other products that form lesser part of company’s sales such as insulin and others are exposed to high threat of new entrants. The need of obtaining certificates and licenses also weakens the threat of new entrants. Discussed above leads to the conclusion that threat of new entrants is medium.
The first social problem surrounding the health care system in the United States is the growing problem with pharmaceutical companies. The industry averages a 17% profit margin and it has been booming for decades, but the industry is being heavily led by a core group of companies (Dr. Pratt). “In 1992 the top 10 companies accounted for roughly one-third of global pharmaceutical revenue, after a period of consolidation, by 2001 the top 10 accounted for nearly half.”( Leon-Guerrero, Zentgraf, 172). These companies hold a large majority of the market share and make most of their money off patented drugs. This growing core of companies that are dominating the market are causing more problems rather than solving them. These companies are all about making as much money as they can and it shows through the salaries of the executives of these companies (Dr. Pratt). The pharmaceutical industry should have their number one priority be to the users of their products rather than profit gains.
In recent years’ health reform has been a driving force in the United States political system. If you watch the news, you will understand how citizens, the government, or the economy are or might be affected 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 believe it opens consumers up to being exploited by large pharmaceutical companies.
With the increased cost of manufacturing, pharmaceutical companies have been divesting in their smaller or less profit making operations and focus on large segments. Many Pharmaceutical companies sold their manufacturing sites to contract manufacturing organizations. The dynamics of interfacing with contract manufacturing organization added intricacy in pharmaceutical supply chain network of pharmaceutical companies.
The case under analysis, Eli Lilly & Company, will be covering the positives and negatives with regards to the business situation and strategy of Eli Lilly. One of the major pharmaceutical and health care companies in its industry, Lilly focused its efforts on the areas of "drug research, development, and marketed to the following areas: neuroscience, endocrinology, oncology, cardiovascular disease, and women's health." Having made a strong comeback in the 1990's due to its remarkably successful antidepressant Prozac, was now facing a potential loss in profits with its patent soon to expire. The problem was not only the soon to expire patent on Prozac, but the fact that Prozac accounted for as much as 30% of total revenue was the reality Eli Lilly now faced. (Pearce & Robinson, 34-1)