This column will address two aspects of the same topic. The first is very important to me, as it negatively impacts a product that has likely kept me alive for several years. The second is also related to the same one plus several others that I must use daily. The products are prescription drugs and the topic is the bad name they get from lawyers and activists.
I created my own term for the legal eagles who make their living from class action lawsuits against the developers and makers of lifesaving pharmaceuticals. I call it 'pharma-phishing.'
I'm certain that you have seen or heard the many advertisements on television and radio or in newspapers which ads solicit clients for damages on the side effects of prescription drugs. Whether or not the claims are warranted is debatable, because all prescriptions come with very detailed information on the side effects and what to do if you experience them. Symptomatic reactions are treatable, and even allergic reaction is preventable with screening and monitoring.
One of the prescriptions I take that has gotten a lot of pharma-phishing is Xarelto. I have been using it since it first came out, and I credit Xarelto with keeping me active and alive. Yes, it is one of the more expensive drugs and it does have many life-threatening side effects, but I am fully aware of this and would immediately report any adverse symptoms to my doctor. Common sense would dictate my calling 9-1-1 or getting to an ER if serious reactions occur.
All of the prescriptions I take are similarly accompanied by instructions and warnings, so I feel confident in using them as prescribed. My chances of ever getting involved in a lawsuit against one of the pharmaceutical companies is remote. I read and follow instructions and I expect others to do the same.
Now, as to that second troublesome aspect, I don't have to label it, because someone else has done a good job of creating one and wrote a whole book about it. He is a scientist, and also is the brother of media analyst, John Stossel. His name for the activist rant is 'pharma-phobia'. He defines it as the myth that drug companies artificially inflate the cost of the products.
The reason given by the activists for the difference between unit production costs and retail price is, of course, greed disguised as profit. The truth is that years of development, testing and waiting for government approval makes any new pharmaceutical entry terribly costly to produce. Cost of each dose is the only stage at which production is measured in pennies, but that is the only aspect the activists use to show the disparity in cost versus price.
I haven't read Tom Stossel's book, but I have read the column written by his brother, John, titled, "Dr Capitalism". I've linked it for you rather than writing my own version. Mr. Stossel states it concisely, and I cannot improve on his opinion, based on his own brother's experience as a pharmaceutical consultant.
Many of the newly patented drugs are very expensive during their introductory, non-generic phase, but I can accept that fact and pay the price. But then, if you pay attention to the ads for these drugs, the pharmaceutical companies usually add a statement that those people who are unable to afford the cost may be eligible for assistance from the manufacturer. Not very greedy, is it?
Next time you see one of those ads for some class action lawsuit sponsored by a law firm twenty states away from where you live, think about the cost their litigation adds to any of the prescriptions you take. Oh yes, that also comes into the mix as a cost of production and it has add to the price you pay for your pills and capsules and injections to keep you alive and healthy.
