Drug Company Influence Under Microscope at Annual AMA Meeting

[CShine]

CHICAGO (AP) - Drug companies' influence on medical research and on doctors themselves will be under the microscope as the nation's largest group of physicians gathers for its annual meeting this week.
Proposals facing the American Medical Association include a measure seeking to make all drug study results public, even unpublished research funded by pharmaceutical companies that might reflect poorly on their products.

The measure stems partly from concern over unpublished data linking some antidepressants with suicidal behavior in children. Government officials are investigating the potential link.

Another measure would strengthen a policy the AMA adopted last year on "shadowing," the practice of drug company representatives sitting in on patients' visits with their doctors.

Critics say the practice is an attempt to influence what medicines are prescribed. Drug companies say the practice is educational, but they sometimes pay hundreds of dollars a day to the doctors for these visiting rights - money the new measure says doctors should refuse.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBFRD1ZDVD.html

[lazarus]

1. I'll say this

I have an extensive collection of pharmaceutical pens I pick up at doctors' offices. Those things are great, best pens out there.

Other than that, I think we should ban advertising for prescription meds.

"Ask your doctor if XXX is right for you." You don't even know what it does. Idiotic stuff.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Any doc who would allow a drug company rep

to sit in on a visit with a patient has a few screws loose; if my own doctor did that I'd never go to him again. Fortunately, I have a good doctor who would never even consider doing that, in fact, he doesn't allow drug company reps in his office at all and is contemptous of his colleagues who do.

[Warpy]

3. Yes, you've hit the nail on the head, there

Television advertising to prospective patients is the main thing driving drug costs.

Most breakthrough drugs are developed at universities through NIH grants, then licensed for a nominal fee to a drug company. Competing companies study the formula, modify it just enough to get a new patent on it, and come up with a "competing" drug. This also drives costs, although to be fair, some second generation "me too" drugs are better than the original.

Another thing driving costs is the pure GREED of wanting to make a massive killing during the 17 year patent period, plus the delaying tactics companies resort to in order to extend this period. This legal wrangling delayed generic Prilosec for YEARS, because it was one of their prime moneymakers. They altered it slightly, and repatented it under the name "Nexium." And so it goes.

Obviously, advertising to patients needs to be eliminated, both for the costs and for the serious ethical problem of sending healthy people clamoring to their doctors for the latest thing. Tightening up the patent laws also needs to be done, either capping prices or reducing the patent period to something a little more reasonable for rapacious companies who want to recoup their costs within the first six months.