It's not all puppy dogs and lollipops

In 2007, for the first time in 46 years, the rate of pharmaceutical sales growth has declined. What has caused this decline? (Which by the way is not a decrease in the sales of pharmaceuticals, but a decrease in the growth of sales. It just means the sales are not growing at such a speed as in previous years. Sales are still increasing.). Are people taking less drugs? No. Are the costs of drugs decreasing? No, well sort of. Actually yes and no. According to the AP, the decline was partly due to "branded pharmaceuticals" losing "exclusivity". Because of this a whole wealth of generics were released bringing down the costs of the drugs and taking consumers from the higher priced brand drugs. So, in this respect costs have decreased.

But, it's not all puppy dogs and lollipops. Brand name drugs, especially for rare diseases, are continuing to be a devastating expense. Could you imagine paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for a drug necessary to your health? Imagine paying that much money for a drug at dosage higher than needed. Taking more of a drug than is optimal for your health. This stems in part from direct marketing to MD's. Yet another need for advocacy here.

Good thing another book has been written to shed light to even more misgivings of pharmaceutical companies. I'm sure it will fit nicely on bookshelves like mine, ignored by much of the public. From reading the review in the New York Times, it looks like many of the author's allegations are not new (see Marcia Angell's groundbreaking "The Truth About Drug Companies"), but I'm hoping that she reaaserts the problems brought to light by others with more examples and statistics. As far as I am concerned, the more problems are brought to light, the less we can ignore them (as hard as we may try).

There is the rigging of studies, so that to be deemed “effective” a drug need only perform better than a sugar pill. There are the promotional strategies that evade the need for F.D.A. warnings by, say, planting logos for the sexual enhancement drug Viagra and the antidepressant Wellbutrin on Nascar vehicles. There is the co-option of doctors and university researchers by aggressive, payola-dispensing drug company representatives. (from NY Times review of the book)

Although the rate of drugs sales has decreased, the AP reports that the number of drugs covered by Medicare Part D has increased. Indicating an increase in the amount of people enrolling in drug plans. One would hope that insurance companies would help to influence the decrease in drug costs, so they do not have to pay so much. But in reality, a drug that is too expensive for insurance companies is generally not covered by the plan, leaving the individual to bare the entire cost of the drug.

It sounds like Peterson's book does touch on the effects to older Americans. Something to think about when considering the large amounts of drugs that seniors take.

And when the side effects of sleeping pills or antidepressants
mean more elderly people fall down, the solution is not likely to be the
scaling back of such prescriptions. “Instead,” she writes, “the companies have used the statistics on falls to create a new blockbuster pharmaceutical market for drugs they claim will reduce the chances of breaking a bone.” The market for just two of these drugs, Fosamax and Actonel, is expected to be worth $10 billion by 2011.

Hmmm, interesting perspective.