Do Pharmaceutical Companies Control Americas Entire Drug Culture?

[Pozessed]

I believe that politicians probably have some of their investments in pharmaceutical companies, and therefore will have an interest in that companies growth. I also suspect that pharmaceutical companies will use that influence to persuade these politicians to make laws that unjustifiably allow there company to prohibit certain drugs as well as inhibit certain drugs.

Of course little to no evidence will support these thoughts because one entity controls the legislation which defines what is illegal and the other entity would be protected by that fore-mentioned legislative entity, that does not seem to make the idea any less substantial though.

Do you think pharmaceutical has too great of an influence on our judicial system and if so how can we reapair it?

[Fuzzwood]

Would you kindly provide us with an example of where you think this might have happened?

[CaptainPanic]

Large companies influence politians through lobbying. This is nothing new. We all (at least in the Western world) voted to have capitalist governments. So, obviously, these governments will also promote economic growth. That means that they should listen to what corporations need. And in our goal to achieve economic growth and wealth, we have gone too far.

 

I don't think that pharma has too much influence specifically. I think corporations in general have far too much influence in politics.

[Pozessed]

Would you kindly provide us with an example of where you think this might have happened?

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2014&ind=H04

Large companies influence politians through lobbying. This is nothing new. We all (at least in the Western world) voted to have capitalist governments. So, obviously, these governments will also promote economic growth. That means that they should listen to what corporations need. And in our goal to achieve economic growth and wealth, we have gone too far.

 

I don't think that pharma has too much influence specifically. I think corporations in general have far too much influence in politics.

 

I agree with the boldened text whole heartedly. As far as lobbying goes, it is a lot different than what it used to be, and the people whom get paid to lobby are heard more frequently than the people who aren't paid to lobby. If it were an even kiel on where politicians got their information and who they talked to instead of who has the most money, that influence would be diminished in my opinion.

[CaptainPanic]

Hmm... according to that link (or, better, this one - same website), the pharma spend about twice as much on lobbying than even the oil industry. That is indeed an obscene amount of money (225 million $ in 2013).

[Pozessed]

Hmm... according to that link (or, better, this one - same website), the pharma spend about twice as much on lobbying than even the oil industry. That is indeed an obscene amount of money (225 million $ in 2013).

I didn't make it to that page yet, yes that is a ridiulous amount compared to other industries with political interests.

[CaptainPanic]

Then again, the US government spends more on healthcare than on any other item... so it makes some sense that this is the biggest lobby too.

[Phi for All]

The title makes the question too broad and generalized. The entire drug culture? The answer has to be no.

 

OTOH, as Captain Panic points out, we allow too much influence from corporations who use legislation to unfairly gain an edge over competing interests. If you value a market economy, you hopefully realize how inconsistent with its spirit such influence is.

 

In Colorado, we legalized medical marijuana, and last year made it legal for recreational use as well. The benefits have been obvious, over $2M in taxes raised this last January alone, no more prison time for pot-only offenses, and a surge in economic growth from the MJ and peripheral industries.

 

The bad side is more vague. Right now, it's hard to get numbers on traffic offenses involving MJ, because most of the documented cases also involve alcohol (it's not a large number, but it's an emotional issue being driven by fear and extreme behavior). In the past, the police only needed to find any evidence of marijuana in your system to bust you for it. Now they're struggling with how to feasibly test someone for driving while impaired only on marijuana. To date, all the testing labs I've read about have been cited with unscrupulous results and have been shut down. Half the people think it's because they were bribed by the growers, and the other half thinks they were bribed by pharma or liquor or any of the other industries who hate cannabis.

 

There hasn't been an appreciable rise in crime as many feared. I think we still have a lot of "independent" growers selling their wares illegally to customers eager to avoid the taxes, which run around 25%. We also approved industrial hemp farming last year, and we're getting companies registering with the state to start businesses making everything from paper to cloth to car parts out of hemp. I see no downside to that part of the industry.

 

I'm honestly torn on the whole intoxication issue, though. It's tough to get unbiased data. I've always had the impression that someone who is stoned is much more mellow than someone who has had a few alcoholic drinks, and I've equated that to which would make the more dangerous driver, but I can't trust that judgement. A comedian friend used to joke that while the drunk guy is weaving in and out of traffic, the guy who is stoned will follow a bread truck for 20 miles ("Oh wow, Wonder!"). Of course, we can prefer our drivers completely sober, but we all know that isn't always the case. And with marijuana, how long is someone considered stoned? How long after they've had marijuana are they considered safe to drive? To work?

[swansont]

Pharma is somewhat specialized in that the products that are under patent protection may not have a lot of competitors and the companies can charge what they will until the patent expires, which makes it very different from oil. But R&D is expensive, so you need money to fund all of the failed products as well as the blockbusters.

 

 

Then again, the US government spends more on healthcare than on any other item... so it makes some sense that this is the biggest lobby too.

 

That's a cyclical system. You make more so people spend more, and then you lobby more to defend it.

 

But it also points to another problem: a lot of countries have centralized health care that can pool their purchases and demand a lower price. That doesn't happen in the US, so effectively we are subsidizing the healthcare abroad, which is a factor driving up our costs.

 

Regarding the OP: members of congress are allowed to invest in companies even if they can influence legislation that affects those companies (but their staff may not) so there's an obvious avenue for corruption. It's the same mechanisms as any other kind of business, so pharma isn't special in that regard.

[Pozessed]

Pharma is somewhat specialized in that the products that are under patent protection may not have a lot of competitors and the companies can charge what they will until the patent expires, which makes it very different from oil. But R&D is expensive, so you need money to fund all of the failed products as well as the blockbusters.

 

 

 

That's a cyclical system. You make more so people spend more, and then you lobby more to defend it.

 

But it also points to another problem: a lot of countries have centralized health care that can pool their purchases and demand a lower price. That doesn't happen in the US, so effectively we are subsidizing the healthcare abroad, which is a factor driving up our costs.

 

Regarding the OP: members of congress are allowed to invest in companies even if they can influence legislation that affects those companies (but their staff may not) so there's an obvious avenue for corruption. It's the same mechanisms as any other kind of business, so pharma isn't special in that regard.

 

I agree with all that you say. I'd also like to mention that simply noticing we have an obvious exploit for corruption in our policy making is not going to be as effective as explaining what the mechanics behind the flaw are and how it can possibly be fixed.

[CharonY]

Pharma is somewhat specialized in that the products that are under patent protection may not have a lot of competitors and the companies can charge what they will until the patent expires, which makes it very different from oil. But R&D is expensive, so you need money to fund all of the failed products as well as the blockbusters.

 

 

 

That's a cyclical system. You make more so people spend more, and then you lobby more to defend it.

 

But it also points to another problem: a lot of countries have centralized health care that can pool their purchases and demand a lower price. That doesn't happen in the US, so effectively we are subsidizing the healthcare abroad, which is a factor driving up our costs.

 

Regarding the OP: members of congress are allowed to invest in companies even if they can influence legislation that affects those companies (but their staff may not) so there's an obvious avenue for corruption. It's the same mechanisms as any other kind of business, so pharma isn't special in that regard.

 

Also one should note that development in pharma is a high-risk-high-reward endeavor. Only something like 10% of all drugs that they try to put into the market actually survive the pipeline (including clinical trials). As such I am sure they are heavy lobbying to maximize profits on those that do. But as swansont mentioned, it is hardly unique to the pharma industry.

[swansont]

I think pharma is viewed differently than other industry because peoples' health is at stake, and it's operated within a capitalist economic system. So you are trying to maximize profits and price your drug at a point where it's likely that some will not be able to afford it. It's kinda like how democracy is described - the worst system, except for all the others.

[Pozessed]

I know I'm missing a key link here, but if pharmaceuticals are being tested by an ubias party, why do they need lobbying? Shouldn't the results from the testing be the determining factor for politicians and not anyones bank book?

I think pharma is viewed differently than other industry because peoples' health is at stake, and it's operated within a capitalist economic system. So you are trying to maximize profits and price your drug at a point where it's likely that some will not be able to afford it. It's kinda like how democracy is described - the worst system, except for all the others.

The fact that it's peoples heath that is at stake is probably why people are subjecting themselves to unnecessary "precautions".

Edited March 20, 2014 by Pozessed

[CharonY]

Lobbying will mostly revolve around factors that could affect their overall bottom line. This could be for instance legislature especially in federal programs such as medicare or medicaid that would keep prices high. Other areas could involve intellectual property issues and inhibiting entry of foreign drugs into the market, for example.

 

Meddling with trials and testing would be a bad idea as negative effects would then only manifest after it hit the market. And that is going to be a very costly matter, if something happens.

[swansont]

I know I'm missing a key link here, but if pharmaceuticals are being tested by an ubias party, why do they need lobbying? Shouldn't the results from the testing be the determining factor for politicians and not anyones bank book?

 

They do their own testing and not everyone is diligent about reporting negative/detrimental results. And that's only a matter of approval. There are issues of patent protection and deductibility of R&D expenses which are legislative, and decisions about what and how much government programs will reimburse.

 

Related: the supplements industry in the US doesn't have to go through testing to show their products work, as long as they don't make claims that they treat or cure anything. (They rely on testimonials.) Because of legislation that exempts them from FDA approval.

[CharonY]

Supplements are an excellent example. But I am not so sure about reporting negative results. There are relatively strict audit trails (including e.g. the use of software that does not allow deletion of runs) and the company has an interest in detecting toxicity before mass use is initiated (could be different for specialty drugs, though). There may be attempts at lowering the bars to prove efficacy, however (but I do not know sufficient details to go beyond mere speculation).

[swansont]

Supplements are an excellent example. But I am not so sure about reporting negative results. There are relatively strict audit trails (including e.g. the use of software that does not allow deletion of runs) and the company has an interest in detecting toxicity before mass use is initiated (could be different for specialty drugs, though). There may be attempts at lowering the bars to prove efficacy, however (but I do not know sufficient details to go beyond mere speculation).

 

There is a also a paper trail of fines and lawsuits as a result of failing to report all of the ill effects. Avandia is one that comes to mind

http://www.drugwatch.com/avandia/lawsuit.php

 

Also lots of fines related to misleading advertising.

[CharonY]

Interesting. I am pretty sure that I have read about that before (or another GlaxoSmithKline product). But you are right, these incidents do come to light only after an audit , if someone decides to obfuscate things in reports. I believe something similar also happened with weight-reduction medication. That being said, unless their profits offset all these issues it should have been in their interest to put the label on.

But there is another issue, that comes to my mind. While the company may not benefit from this type of misreporting, the involved managers could. I wonder what the backlash for them is. If they get a golden parachute (or no repercussions at all) there is an incentive to push products out to appear more productive within the company...

[swansont]

Interesting. I am pretty sure that I have read about that before (or another GlaxoSmithKline product). But you are right, these incidents do come to light only after an audit , if someone decides to obfuscate things in reports. I believe something similar also happened with weight-reduction medication. That being said, unless their profits offset all these issues it should have been in their interest to put the label on.

But there is another issue, that comes to my mind. While the company may not benefit from this type of misreporting, the involved managers could. I wonder what the backlash for them is. If they get a golden parachute (or no repercussions at all) there is an incentive to push products out to appear more productive within the company...

 

That's a problem shared by the financial industry. If the amount of the fine or lawsuit is smaller than the illicit profit it's not punishment, it's a business model.

[CharonY]

That is quite correct. Though I would think that the rules are a bit clearer in the pharma area as neglecting to present the assessment data in full does automatically result in punishment of the company (though I am unclear about the scope) whereas in the financial sector the situation appears to be more ambiguous.

[Airbrush]

An implicit conspiracy is where members are aware of the intentions of the other members, but none of them ever get together to plan anything.

 

The implicit conspiracy I'm thinking of is pharma-medical-junkfood industries. The pharmaceutical and medical industries do not really want to SOLVE a health problem, only address the symptoms with an endless series of Band-Aid remedies that you purchase at the local pharmacy. There is more money in developing Band-Aids for people, than solving the problem, because when the problem is solved there is no more money to be made from it. IF, and that is a big IF, people ate correctly and got enough exercise, they would not feel the need for many pharmaceuticals.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Airbrush