I've been thinking more and more about our medical system and the prescription drug program whether it's part of the government or it's provided by a local insurance and how they relate to big-pharna.

I believe there is little insentive for Big-Pharma to find a cure for such diseases as Parkinson's, MS, and Muscular Dystrophy to name a few. You see we are feeding tons of money back into the insurance companies, the medical system, and of course into the bigger pockets of big pharma.

The big pharma companies claim they're looking for a cure, but in reality they're just playing their cards right so they can make a lot of money on research grants and continue to collect what they can off of existing drugs. In other words, why would they want to kill the cash cow quickly? How can anyone justify to me that Sinemet 25/100 is $108.54 for 180 pills! I nearly had to pay this because my insurance company didn't want to cover an early refill. I was off by a couple of days because I had to refill early due to travelling last month. My pharmacy (CVS) helped me in this situation by talking with the insurance company and my doctor. What if I couldn't afford the medication then and there was no way to get around the 2 day penalty? I hate to think what might happen.

What irks me about this is Sinemet has been around for a very long time, and this is definitely the generic that I take. My insurance company will not cover namebrands unless there's no alternative, and they I pay through the nose with a 50% co-pay on the medication.

I had this discussion with a coworker today day. Her son has Muscular Dystrophy and is on all kinds of expensive medication. She belongs to MD forums and there is all kinds of research being done, but nothing has come to fruition. Yet big-pharma claims that Viagra will help the young teenage boys with MD due to the way it affects the heart!

To me this is finding another use for an old medication because they ran out of a market just like they did with Mirapex and Parkinson's patients so they've pushed that on to people with RLS. And on top of that, they even created special marketing to try to persuade people that they really have RLS and reall need to talk to their doctor. In all of this, there's nothing being done to really find a cure and the cause; only to cover of the symptoms.

So here we are forced more or less into taking a regimen of medication with each prescription costing quite a bit of money. I can not imagine going through something like this without insurance coverage. In the mean time there are promises of something around the corner, but nothing ever shows up. When there is something promising, it's taken away in some fashion or another like the GDNF trials and the FDA. None of these organizations really want a cure for something that keeps the coffers topped off with a constant revenue stream.

Anyway anyone else have some thoughts on this? My thoughts here might be a little scrambled because I was jotting this down before I forgot what I was thinking about.

John

Hi John,

i think there was a lack of response to your thread because it is very similar to some others on the board. But, again, it was interesting to watch your common sense and logic coming to the conclusion that they need to do much better at finding treatments and a cure.

They could if they really wanted to . We have a space craft on Mars.

paula

Don't just blame the drug companies.The blame also has to fall on our sue crazy society.Developing a new drug costs millions of dollars and a chance of bankruptcy should anything go wrong.We shouldn't wonder why new drugs are slow to come on lineI'm thankfull that we have the drugs we have now.I sure wouldn't be typing without sinemet.I also would like to add that in a failed mars mission NASA doesnt get sued,and understanding our brain is far more complex then using gravity to get to mars.It is our Brain that figured out how to get to mars,and it will at some point figure out how to control this nasty disease.10+ yrs ,and hoping for a cure for all.No criticism meant or intended.Scotch

None taken. You are right, it isn't just pharma's fault and our society is out of control with lawsuits. It just doesn't seem to be working the way it is.


paula

But given everything that keeps coming out about BigPharm - i.e. the Merck revelations about Vioxx that they KNEW that it caused fatal heart attacks and didn't choose to share that little piece of info - doesn't it kind of seem that some lawsuits might be warranted?

and once again, as Harold Brody notes in his book "Hooked. Ethics, the Medical Profession, and the Pharmaceutical Industry (London, Boulder: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007)
the pharmaceutical Industry represents 2 percent (2%) of all the companies listed in the Fortune 500 (there are 10 pharma cos in the top 500 of these companies) but accounts for 52 percent (52%)of the profits reported by all these companies... (p.57)

Just came across this article--note the partial list of lobbyists and their former positions in government.....could there not be better societal use of this $$$? remember we are responsible for their enormous profits. and to add to further incredulity --this is lobbying for an end of patent drug--Lipitor goes off patent in <2 yrs....maybe with continuing lobbying that will change also.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/...ap5091408.html

Associated Press
Pfizer spent $2.8M lobbying government in 1Q
Associated Press 06.06.08, 6:01 PM ET


WASHINGTON - Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug maker, spent $2.8 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter, according to a recent disclosure form.

The company lobbied on the importance of protecting pharmaceutical patents internationally, and on free-trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. Congress approved the agreement with Peru late last year; the others are still under consideration.

Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ), which makes the world's best-selling drug Lipitor, also lobbied on a bill that would require drug manufacturers to disclose gifts given to physicians by their salespeople, according to the form posted online April 21 by the House clerk's office.

The pharmaceutical industry's chief trade group endorsed the legislation last month after its sponsors, Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Herb Kohl, D-Wis., made adjustments to the bill, including raising the dollar amount of gifts that companies would have to disclose.

Additionally, Pfizer lobbied on bills to allow generic drug companies to sell cheaper copies of biotech drugs. Unlike traditional chemical-based drugs, biotech drugs have never faced generic competition because the FDA lacks authority to approve cheaper copies of them. An effort to give FDA that power stalled last year when lawmakers couldn't agree on how many years of patent protection to give biotech firms.

Among those lobbying on New York-based Pfizer's behalf in the first three months of the year were: Anthony Principi, former U.S. Secretary for Veterans Affairs; Lisa Coen, a former director for the National Security Council; John Halliwell, former chief of staff to Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky.; Stephanie Henning, formerly of the House Ways and Means Committee; and Kimberly Pinter, former tax counsel with the U.S. Senate.


Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed