In 2016, the American viewing public was exposed to 663,000 television commercials for pharmaceuticals. That is a significant “ad spend” by Pharma, which we pay for through increased drug pricing. A new study looks at the therapeutic value of the more heavily advertised drugs. The key concept here is “market differentiation.”
Those who run the CDC and DEA have blood on their hands. No reasonable person can deny that the catastrophic crackdown on medical opioids has resulted in far more deaths than it saved. That’s because both patients and addicts are forced to turn to street drugs, and they end up dying from illicit fentanyl. But as ACSH Advisor Dr. Jeffrey Singer writes in Reason Magazine, there’s another harm that’s barely discussed: Suicides by those denied pain medications are becoming increasingly common.
Epic patent gaming, and pay-for-delay agreements to slow-walk introduction of cheaper generics to market, helped bring us to this point. But will a growing behemoth of 750 hospitals actually lower drug prices?
The pharmaceutical industry does not make a move without knowing what is coming down the pike, or without global projections years into the future. This latest maneuver is standard fare.
How often do you hear of someone using their spouse's antibiotic from a prior illness? Or, dispensing an Ambien to a colleague or friend? For those practicing medicine without a license in person, or through social media crowdsourcing, the harms can be considerable.
The gloves are off in a battle to control the sector. Nearly 83% of hospitals are charging over twice the cost for medicines, with a majority of mark-ups between 200 and 400%. Will any fixes in store actually help patients?
In a trend described as shocking, people desperate to obtain narcotics are intentionally injuring their pets to divert and abuse the veterinarian’s painkiller prescriptions. While terribly sad this is no surprise: After all, this is addiction.
More American drivers are dying in drug-related car crashes than they are from collisions involving just alcohol.
Risks change in healthcare when imminent life or death are your alternatives.
Can the FDA's tactics – to impact the current opioid problem – also predict its successor? The goal is to head off escalation before problems are crises, and the move is a departure from the status-quo, reactive nature of prior policies.
If you ask yourself: "What segment of the population is most increasing its drug intake?" then the best-sellers come into better focus. From there, think ... cholesterol ... heart ... thyroid.
Who hasn’t chuckled at a TV prescription drug ad, during its litany of wide-ranging potential side effects? Anal leakage and the oft-repeated erections lasting more than four hours? With direct-to-consumer marketing, product overstatements of health benefits with simultaneous minimization of possible harms have become the norm. Now, the FDA wants to change that.