Prescriptions: What do you pay?

[Rachmaninoff]

"[I]The U.S. pays some of the steepest prices in the world for prescription drugs, as many other countries have some type of price regulation. Drugmakers say that, in part because of cost controls elsewhere, they need higher prices here to recoup profits for research and development.[/I]"

Or so I understand from several articles I've run into recently as well as personal experience since the few medications I take have increased by more than thirty percent in just a few months.

Now here's the thing, so many other countries, like Canada for example, to the best of my knowledge don't pay the high prices we do for prescriptions. And yet the Drug companies would have us believe that there really is a need for the prices to be so high.

It's a touchy topic for people, my parents being some of them since being retired means they are hit hard by how Medicare doesn't cover things as well as their insurance did before they retired. Another thing I read is that:

"[I]Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress, mostly Democrats, are pushing to give the Medicare agency the power to negotiate drug prices, although the Bush Administration opposes it.[/I]"

To be blunt I've never liked the Bush Administration, and this is just one of the reasons why. In my opinion, their main objective is profit and supporting big businesses instead of the little guy so to speak.

And if that wasn't enough I also read this in an article:

"[I]Prices for oral contraceptives, or birth control pills, are doubling and tripling at student health centers, the result of a complex change in the Medicaid rebate law that essentially ends an incentive for drug companies to provide deep discounts to colleges.[/I]"

And here I thought I had it bad with a ten to thirty percent increase, but to deal with double and triple the price? That's just absurd in my opinion.

In the end, I think it's rather sick how much these powerful drug companies are taking advantage of the public and I think it's something that needs to be stopped. I'm sure I'm not the only one facing price gouging this year or who thinks the current system in the US is sick. What's your take on it? Or rather gloat as to how much better your system is?

[Sandy]

It's a very sad situation, because those who need the most amount of medicine are often the poorest of people (like senior citizens, disabled people, those with terminal illnesses such as AIDS or cancer etc.). Just shows one of the worst sides of capitalistic economy.

In Finland there is a law on substitute medicines, which allows the pharmacists to change the prescripted mecidine to a cheaper equivalent, if the customer so asks. That creates some healthy competition between the medical companies.

[Dodeca]

[SIZE=1]If we're lucky, we can get the NHS to pay for ours.

Free drugs for the win!

Of course in some cases, they aren't willing to fork out the money for one, so the individual has to pay for it themselves. Like with that potential treatment for breast cancer a while back, people complained a fair bit about having to pay several thousand pounds for it just because the NHS hadn't agreed to cover costs for it yet. Though seeing as other people overseas have to pay full price for most everything, we still have it incredibly easy.[/SIZE]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Sandy']In Finland there is a law on substitute medicines, which allows the pharmacists to change the prescripted mecidine to a cheaper equivalent, if the customer so asks. That creates some healthy competition between the medical companies.[/quote]The same exists here, in fact some health insurances won?t even cover a name brand drug if there is a generic available unless the doctor specifically writes that using a generic is not allowed when the drug is filled.

However there?s a dark side to that as well. The companies when they issue a new drug will have a patent on it meaning that no generic can be made for a certain amount of time. A time frame that varies depending on the drug. For example one of the allergy medications I take has been out for ten years and it?s only just now going to be available in a generic form.

And the price increase Rachmaninoff mentioned has been a lot steeper in just the past few years. I use to pay about $60 for a months supply and that went up in just the past two years to $90 a month. That's $360 more a year for just one medication. If I include the increase in some of the other allergy medications I need it's closer to a thousand more a year that I have to pay, and that's with insurance no less. :animesigh

Anyway, I tend to agree with the sentiment that there is a lot of price gouging going on. I know my parents have had to deal with rising costs of medications, costs that for a retired senior citizen can be a real problem.

I personally think it?s sick that the Bush administration is against allowing the Medicare agency, one that covers senior citizens, to negotiate drug prices since senior citizens often need it the most. Because most of them can not afford the constant price increase.[/COLOR]

[kalon]

My mom recently had to pay $250 for some medicine that was for one half of the prescription she need to fix an infection in her thumb. On the second half, after many, [i]many[/i] hours of talking to both her insurance and the pharmacist, she got them to cover the second half where she had only a ten dollar co-pay. She's still working on getting something back on the $250 she already paid before they decided that yes, an infection that made it difficult and extremely painful for her to use her thumb, so much that she cloud barely open her car door, was worth being covered by insurance.

Is a thumb [i]worth[/i] paying five hundred dollars? Yes. But it seems not all of us have the money to buy working thumbs.

[vegeta rocker]

When i got a terrible ear infection i had to pay 200 dollars for the ear drops and 75 for the antibiotic pills.

There was no generic option over here, so we had to go to mexico. lol

I hate to say it but it seems like prices are just too much for medicine these days, i really wish i knew why the Bush Admin is against negotiating lower prices for consumers.

As for birth control tripling thats because Bush lets the Catholic church have too much power.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][quote name='vegeta rocker']As for birth control tripling thats because Bush lets the Catholic church have too much power.[/quote]Or just about any church for that matter. Never mind that there might actually be a real medical use for the medicine. :animeangr That's one my pet peeves since it has other uses, but some insurances won't even pay for it. But that's another discussion as it entails them denying medical coverage over a 'perceived attempt to control the morals of their employees' If your company is owned by the LDS church that is.

Anyway, I've run into the same problem. Simply doing without except on the required medications since anything else gets real expensive real fast. In addition to prescriptions going up in price, copays and other aspects have risen as well. While salary and actual pay has barely budged.

All I can say is it's a good thing that there are charity hospitals, well at least there are where I live, otherwise, people who need medication to even live would end up dead. I've known plenty of people who've relied on that to get insulin for diabetes since they can't afford it.

Personally I think the problem in this area is part of why the American people are sick and tired of the Bush Administration. I know I am. I certainly hope one of the issues that gets addressed once Bush's butt is out the door is an attempt to slow down the unrealistic increase in prescription prices, gas prices, etc. [/COLOR]

[Maully]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Really, I don't understand why there hasn't been a revolution in this country. I understand that we are in a capitalist economy, but most of the other first world countries in the world, even the capitalist ones, have Socialized medicine. The bare bones fact is that, with a fear of sounding ethnocentric, drug development costs a lot of money, and many drug companies are counting on the prices paid by Americans to pay for the bulk of their costs due to the price regulation in other countries. I am not on their side, mind you, but there is an excuse for a SMALL amount of price differences. As for generics, that research has already been done, it just needs to be produced... A lot of companies that make the generics do not do new drug research, they just manufacture.

I totally agree that the cost of medical care is running out of control, and it's incredible what we, as consumers, get charged to sit in a room for 45 minutes before we see anyone and then a 10 minute visit, probably with a Nurse or PA. Not to mention the fact that you are not often told the cost up front, you only find them out [B]AFTER [/B] the services are rendered, therefore not allowing you to shop around. What other industry can that happen in? Answer me that.

EDIT: As for Birth Control prices and BUSH and the Catholic Church, I think that line is a little disjointed. Neither the President or the Church have direct control over those prices unless they are directly legislated. I can agree that Bush has done NOTHING to help the basic American, but the price of The Pill is not his fault, neither directly the result of Pope Beneict either. I know you were making a point, and I don't mean to be picky, but Bush is not Catholic, nor is he in the Vatican's pocket.[/COLOR]

[BlueMoon]

I'm not entirely sure. I know that usually the co-pay is pretty small, like $10. I'm in Michigan and my dad works for the state, so we get our health care through that. It's not the best, honestly, as the company keep trying to find ways to kick me off the insurance. I'm be leaving for Canada in the fall though (hopefully) so we'll see what changes.

As far as my take on it, I wish we were more of a socialist society. The more I study capitalism, the more frustrated I get with it. If what I've read is correct, then Scandinavian countries are more socialist leaning and they're doing much better with these things. And of course, I really hate the Bush Administration so there's that. Although it's not just because of the way medical things are handled but still.

[jen_sa]

Ive been payin for prescriptions for almost 12 years now and Im still a young girl. I have a disability and a medical condition and i have to get prescriptions all the time for my health. It gets worse every now and then.

=>Jen

[Drix D'Zanth]

It?s interesting to hear the reactions to this topic. Controversy breeds sensationalism, I suppose. But, I can?t help chuckling when I read Molleta suggesting ?revolution? (within appropriate context, of course). I also can?t help but notice a few trends that are being encouraged in this thread, please correct me if I?m wrong:
1. The Bush Administration isn?t effectively negotiating drug prices to support citizens that are on Medicaid and Medicare, etc.
2. Drug Companies are charging too much for their product.
3. Socialized medicine may solve our problem and is a better system than the current healthcare system.
4. Capitalism bad, Socialism good.

It?s perfectly fine to prefer socialism over capitalism. I?m going to try and avoid the big economic debate. I am also going to try to avoid the broad ethical conclusions that are drawn when endorsing one economic system over the other. Hell, I am going to even leave Bush (for the most part) alone. My involvement in this thread will be to try to bring some perspective, and hopefully share in a little mutual education. So, I?ll start with a little devil?s advocate.

I have a few issues with your arguments so far. First is the sense of entitlement most people have when it comes to drugs. I don?t think anyone here would argue that they ?deserve high quality computers and high speed internet? or accuse Bill Gates of price-gouging. No, he?s established a product and marketed it successfully to become the richest man in the world, he?s earned his money relatively legitimately (except for the whole Steve Jobs, OS scandal back in MicroSoft?s founding, let?s not digress). Let?s face it, computers have improved our quality of life in many ways and have facilitated a huge economic boom because of their vast networking and organizational abilities.

Don?t you think it?s fair that drug companies who develop sometimes life-saving medications deserve the profits they earn?

Drug companies don?t ?stumble? upon their products. Antibiotics, anti-retrovirals, and other high-quality drugs simply don?t exist for drug companies to happen upon like a gold vein. Instead, Drug companies have to invest millions of dollars in R&D, marketing, and testing. They provide the material for scientists and a tentative time scale developing drugs that always incorporate a large investment risk. Then the drug needs to undergo a rigorous testing by our government (the FDA, and sometimes the EPA or USDA depending on the application of the drug)- which guarantees that it will take longer-than-necessary and be bogged down by our endless (useless) government policy.

I know what you our thinking, ?it?s all important! We don?t want another ?Thalidomide?, right?? Sure, that would be terrible. Nevertheless, the reality is that double-blind testing doesn?t always work. Couple that with the fact that even if the government is responsible for the mistake, the Drug Company is held solely accountable. Take Vioxx, for example. Our litigation-happy nation may put Merck into bankruptcy because of research indicating a likelihood that Vioxx increases a risk of heart-attack. That?s right, ?Risk?. So, even if Uncle Joe lived a sedentary life, was as overweight as much of our nation, smoked, drank regularly, and ate a high-calorie diet; the Vioxx caused that massive coronary. So, let?s sue Merck, get away with it because we have a relatively science-ignorant judiciary, make millions (because everyone deserves a million dollars to replace our loved ones) and screw over the other millions of people that depend on drugs [i]made by Merck[/i].

You want reduced drug prices? That?s great, invest between 250-800 million of your own dollars and a solid decade of research in developing a drug that may or may not work. If you cure something, great! Give it out for free!

As far as Medicare and Medicaid are concerned, they are simply broken systems. Why should we try to force drug companies to negotiate with an institution that regularly pays $0.20 on the dollar for procedures and calls it even with hospitals?

Listen, I?m not here to tout a pro-Drug Co. agenda only. I?m aware that they aren?t perfect, and sometimes they over price redundant drugs. I also am in favor of a system of healthcare to assist those who don?t have the means to help themselves such as Medicare or Medicaid. Our government has demonstrated that it cannot handle the pace of the changing economy and scientific community, nor can it facilitate the best coverage to help these patients. The lack of accountability in our government (because, what can we do, exactly to hold them responsible??) ensures that the system will be ?patched? before we develop something that works.

Here?s the bottom line: If you want to solve the healthcare crisis in America we need to stop smoking and start exercising.

We live in a country with the finest hospitals, staff, and technology in the world. We are privileged to have emergency rooms across the country which treat frequent fliers regularly despite the stacking debt they owe our system. We live in a country that can guarantee quick and effective surgery. The US heads the research and development of drugs, despite the fact the government wasting billions of dollars because of sensible investors willing to risk millions to make a profit. And guess what? The system works! We benefit from it. It?s not perfect, but it?s the best we have so far. And until I hear people honestly trying to do their part to improve our heath, I really don?t care to hear the complaints.

I know our health-care system intimately. I?ve been working as an in-department paramedic for the last five years at a large emergency department. I?m enrolling at the University of Michigan Medical School this fall, and I?m going to be starting my second year of graduate research working on Anti-Cancer agents with the Van Andel institute this May. I?ve seen drug development, and I know the work (and thousands of dollars) it takes to become a doctor in this country. I?m not talking out of my *** when it comes to this topic. Enough with the instant gratification and sense of entitlement, America! We need to own up to our health problems and fix them without ruining a system that works!

Is it any wonder that almost 20% of the patients in Detroit receiving are Canadians willing to pay the extra buck to get the best treatment (and they don?t have the insurance we have)?

[James]

[quote]As far as my take on it, I wish we were more of a socialist society. The more I study capitalism, the more frustrated I get with it. If what I've read is correct, then Scandinavian countries are more socialist leaning and they're doing much better with these things.[/quote]

[font=arial]I don't think socialism is the answer really. It's just about having the right healthcare system.

Australia's Medicare system is pretty much the only one of its kind in the world, as far as I know. Various countries have tried (and failed) to mimmick our system (including Canada). Our system pretty much delivers the best of both worlds - access to low-cost healthcare services/drugs while also being economically sustainable (ie: it isn't a massive drain on our economy, like it is in Canada). It also ties into our private healthcare system in several meaningful (and sustainable) ways.

Basically though I agree with Drix. You can't expect drug companies to just drop new products out of the air through pure goodwill - it costs millions of dollars and can take many years to develop a new drug. Drug companies deserve to make money from these products; afterall, without this kind of competition and economy you wouldn't have such advances in medication in general.

Of course there are exceptions and there are health systems around the world that aren't so great; this is a given.

But there are definitely some inaccurate perceptions about the way drugs are developed and why they are occasionally so expensive.[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]I have a few issues with your arguments so far. First is the sense of entitlement most people have when it comes to drugs. I don?t think anyone here would argue that they ?deserve high quality computers and high speed internet? or accuse Bill Gates of price-gouging. No, he?s established a product and marketed it successfully to become the richest man in the world, he?s earned his money relatively legitimately (except for the whole Steve Jobs, OS scandal back in MicroSoft?s founding, let?s not digress). Let?s face it, computers have improved our quality of life in many ways and have facilitated a huge economic boom because of their vast networking and organizational abilities.

Don?t you think it?s fair that drug companies who develop sometimes life-saving medications deserve the profits they earn? [/QUOTE]I can understand what you are saying here, but on the flip side, don?t you think it?s fair to expect to pay a reasonable price? It?s not so much a sense of entitlement but rather one of expecting the amount of profits to be within reason. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] Drug companies don?t ?stumble? upon their products. Antibiotics, anti-retrovirals, and other high-quality drugs simply don?t exist for drug companies to happen upon like a gold vein. Instead, Drug companies have to invest millions of dollars in R&D, marketing, and testing. They provide the material for scientists and a tentative time scale developing drugs that always incorporate a large investment risk. Then the drug needs to undergo a rigorous testing by our government (the FDA, and sometimes the EPA or USDA depending on the application of the drug)- which guarantees that it will take longer-than-necessary and be bogged down by our endless (useless) government policy. [/quote]No they don?t stumble upon cures, but at the same time studies have shown that as much as 50% of the money spent on a new drug actually goes to marketing and other things such as paying their employees where about 15% of that cost is actual research and the remaining is estimated to be actual profit. Not so much of a cost for R & D as the drug companies would have you believe. [QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]I know what you our thinking, ?it?s all important! We don?t want another ?Thalidomide?, right?? Sure, that would be terrible. Nevertheless, the reality is that double-blind testing doesn?t always work. Couple that with the fact that even if the government is responsible for the mistake, the Drug Company is held solely accountable. Take Vioxx, for example. Our litigation-happy nation may put Merck into bankruptcy because of research indicating a likelihood that Vioxx increases a risk of heart-attack. That?s right, ?Risk?. So, even if Uncle Joe lived a sedentary life, was as overweight as much of our nation, smoked, drank regularly, and ate a high-calorie diet; the Vioxx caused that massive coronary. So, let?s sue Merck, get away with it because we have a relatively science-ignorant judiciary, make millions (because everyone deserves a million dollars to replace our loved ones) and screw over the other millions of people that depend on drugs [i]made by Merck[/i].

You want reduced drug prices? That?s great, invest between 250-800 million of your own dollars and a solid decade of research in developing a drug that may or may not work. If you cure something, great! Give it out for free![/QUOTE]That still doesn?t change the fact that there was a risk with the drug, though that?s true of any drug and I won?t argue that people are sue happy over things that they can control.

You want increased drug prices? That?s great! How about increasing pay, improving health coverage for employees, then you won?t need to give it out for free as people will be able to afford it. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Here?s the bottom line: If you want to solve the healthcare crisis in America we need to stop smoking and start exercising. [/quote]Here?s the bottom line as well, what you are saying here is a fallacy, not everyone is smoking or doesn?t exercise. Doing things like this only reduce the risk of having health issues, it doesn?t guarantee that one won?t. ;)

I can understand what you are saying but the drug companies have not made any form of regulation and price control easy. A great deal of time and money is spent keeping drugs from being more affordable here?s just a few of the things they do which have nothing to do with R & D costs.

- Tweak? original drug formulas to create a ?new? version with a bigger price tag.
- Charge individuals the steepest price, big purchasers the smallest.
- Set prices higher in huge unregulated U.S. market than in nations with price controls.
- Claim new uses for old drugs and extend patents and monopolies to keep inexpensive generic versions off the market.
- Spend the most of any U.S. industry on lobbying to keep government at bay. (In the 1999-2000 election cycle, drug companies spent more money to influence politicians than did insurance companies, telephone companies, electric companies, commercial banks, oil and gas producers, automakers, tobacco companies, food processors and manufacturers. More, in short, than any other industry.)
- Saturate the media with slick ads, create new brands and generate new demands.

I could continue even more along this line since it?s not a simple issue and it?s one that hits close to home for me. There are better medications out there for my own health needs and yet some of them more than doubled in price, forcing me to go back to older medications that though not as effective, are at least affordable.

I won?t argue that we have excellent procedures and hospitals, but I will argue that for the 46 million and increasing number of those who do not have insurance something that the percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years. The high prices for drugs just make it even worse. Imagine seeing the doctor, paying for it only to realize you can't even afford the medicine you need!

I guess I?ll stop here since I?m getting off into other areas of how the medical system in the US is quite the mess.

[BlueMoon]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]I don't think socialism is the answer really. It's just about having the right healthcare system.

Australia's Medicare system is pretty much the only one of its kind in the world, as far as I know. Various countries have tried (and failed) to mimmick our system (including Canada). Our system pretty much delivers the best of both worlds - access to low-cost healthcare services/drugs while also being economically sustainable (ie: it isn't a massive drain on our economy, like it is in Canada). It also ties into our private healthcare system in several meaningful (and sustainable) ways.
[/font][/QUOTE]

Really? That sounds very interesting. It's always interesting how some systems can work so well in some countries and cripple others. I wish I understood this topic better so I could see why it didn't work as well in Canada. Maybe part of the problem is that overhauling programs can be really taxing on a country.

And I do agree. I certainly don't expect drug companies to simply give away medicine. In an ideal world, sure, but not here. And I remember learning somewhere that one reason America has good quaility health care is because it is such a big business. But I just wish there was a way to level the playing field a bit more. Sometimes it feels like a lose-lose situation.

And this is a bit of a side note but Aaryanna_Mom mentioned a lot of money goes into ads. It certainly does feel like every other commercial is for some new pill. I do wonder, in some ways, if at least a bit of that money could be better spent.

This really is one of those topics where I wished I understood economics better.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Aaryanna_Mom, thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion even though we disagree (and I don?t think we disagree on [i]too[/i] much). I?m interested to hear your solutions to the problem our country faces!
[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I can understand what you are saying here, but on the flip side, don?t you think it?s fair to expect to pay a reasonable price? It?s not so much a sense of entitlement but rather one of expecting the amount of profits to be within reason. [/quote]
Fair enough, but who decides what a reasonable price is? I think we both agree that families who are without the means to afford drug payments should receive some sort of help. I don?t necessarily think the government should, nor [i]can[/i] help them as well as the private sector. When Medicare began working with private insurers to cover prescription drugs in the early 70?s, over 80% of the senior patients received proper coverage. Within a decade, the coverage dropped below 50% because of both market changes and the development of new, better drugs. The government, completely inadequate (because they aren?t held accountable for anything) couldn?t keep up with changing insurance rates, new science, and a changing market.
[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
No they don?t stumble upon cures, but at the same time studies have shown that as much as 50% of the money spent on a new drug actually goes to marketing and other things such as paying their employees where about 15% of that cost is actual research and the remaining is estimated to be actual profit. Not so much of a cost for R & D as the drug companies would have you believe. That still doesn?t change the fact that there was a risk with the drug, though that?s true of any drug and I won?t argue that people are sue happy over things that they can control. [/QUOTE]
I had to check my numbers again, so I ran a search of the literature. According to the Journal of Health Economics the most recent study of development costs lists research and development (not marketing or advertising) costs at 802 million dollars with 73% of submitted drugs being terminated sometime within their development or during testing processes. A study headed by Christopher Adams and Van V. Brantner of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics published in the SSRN found that the cost of developing and average anti-retroviral medication (HIV/AIDS drug) is $479 million. The expected cost of developing the average rheumatoid arthritis drug is almost twice that, at $936 million. Another large pharmaceutical had an expected research expense of 2.1 billion to develop an innovative anti-cancer medication. Again, these are only development costs. So, what I said earlier was correct.

As far as the ?remaining? budget being profit- well, that doesn?t really fit the definition of ?profit? now does it?

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
You want increased drug prices? That?s great! How about increasing pay, improving health coverage for employees, then you won?t need to give it out for free as people will be able to afford it. [/QUOTE]
I agree with you. Let?s do that! How can we? I?ll address why we [i]could[/i] by looking at your next comment.

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
Here?s the bottom line as well, what you are saying here is a fallacy, not everyone is smoking or doesn?t exercise. Doing things like this only reduce the risk of having health issues, it doesn?t guarantee that one won?t. ;) [/QUOTE]

The leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), and chronic lower respiratory diseases according to the CDC. I?ll address these one at a time and take a look at the most prescribed drugs in turn.
1. Cardiac Disease: to be fair, there is a spectrum of reasons for heart disease. However, most heart disease could be mitigated and even eliminated with exercise. Buildup of cholesterol plaques in blood and hypertension from excess weight gain are reversible health problems simply if people are willing to live active lifestyles. (there?s a lot to cover here, so I?ll graze over these)
2. Cancer: lifestyle changes could easily mitigate cancer in this country. Thankfully, cancer rates are decreasing for nearly all types; people are wearing sunblock, women are checking for breast cancer, and men are getting prostate exams. However, lots of cancer is caused by the carcinogens inhaled by regular smoking. Hopefully research funded by drug companies and private investors will find new means to treat and eliminate cancers in time (we are getting closer, and survival rates continue to increase).
3. Stroke: age, unfortunately is a huge factor in this, baby boomers are inflating this statistic. However smoking increases the risk of pleural embolism and deep vein thromboses which can easily detach and become ischemic blockages in the small capillaries of our cerebrum. I?ve encountered many middle-aged women and men suffering from strokes, likely due to this phenomena.
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease- Quit Smoking Please!

Looking at these numbers is only to demonstrate the point that if we wish to improve our healthcare system we need to be willing (as a population) to adjust our habits and lead more healthy lives. We cannot continue to expect people to pay for our irresponsible behavior. Let?s take a look at the most prescribed drugs:
-Many of the most prescribed drugs (most of these make up the top fifteen most prescribed drugs) are anti-depressants, including Paxil, Lexapro, Xanax, Lyrica (which is also prescribed for neuropathic pain as well as anxiety, hence the link) Cymbalta, and Zoloft. I can?t comment too much on depression, even though members of my immediate family have dealt with this debilitating neurochemical disease. However, there is evidence to suggest that obesity, especially childhood obesity is correlated to severe depression later in life.
-A large amount of prescriptions are also opioid analgesics such as Hydrocodone, Vicodin, Oxycodone, Tramadol, Percocet, etc. Many of these prescriptions are given for any sort of pain (post-op, post-dental work pain, PT, post outpatient procedures, etc.) and are also widely abused by addicts (that?s another issue).
-Then we come to the ACE inhibitors or Angiotensin inhibitors like Lipitor, lisinopril, etc. And drugs like Glucophage to manage type 2 diabetes. These drugs are prescribed for people who likely could have avoided hyperlipidemia or diabetes with cardiovascular exercise.
Quid pro quo. We must be willing to address our health problems from the bottom up!

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
I can understand what you are saying but the drug companies have not made any form of regulation and price control easy. A great deal of time and money is spent keeping drugs from being more affordable here?s just a few of the things they do which have nothing to do with R & D costs. [/QUOTE]
This is a misleading statement, and I read it twice to be sure. I don?t think it?s fair to characterize drug companies as trying to keep drugs from being ?affordable?. Again, this depends on ?affordable?. What [i]is[/i] ?affordable? anyway? Some citizens think that gas isn?t affordable, but the pack-a-day is. We have affordable food, but don?t invest time in exercise (which happens to be free!). To paint a picture of drug companies as robber barons who wish to keep drugs too expensive is simply sensationalism and totally subjective.

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Tweak? original drug formulas to create a ?new? version with a bigger price tag. [/QUOTE]
This might happen, yes. Before I address this, would you be willing to cite some examples?
[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Charge individuals the steepest price, big purchasers the smallest. [/QUOTE]
Big purchasers? *hmmm* you mean Hospitals, Pharmacies, and Doctors Offices?
[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Set prices higher in huge unregulated U.S. market than in nations with price controls. [/QUOTE]
It is fallacious to claim the U.S. is unregulated. How about the drug companies aren?t subject to government monopoly? I?m not an economics expert, so I?ll re-examine this as I learn more from the research. If you want to provide rebuttal evidence, I?d be more than glad to look over it. According to John Vernon of the University of Pennsylvania and the Manhattan Institute, if price controls were implemented in the united states research and development would fall by 36.1-47.5%. This isn?t so far off from the Canadian model which dropped more than 50% in drug research following the implementation of price controls introduced in the late 60?s. Not only that, as a model for socialized medicine, Canada only makes me happier that politicians like Hilary Clinton (who know nothing of medicine) don?t yet have enough sway to ruin our functioning healthcare system.
[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Claim new uses for old drugs and extend patents and monopolies to keep inexpensive generic versions off the market. [/QUOTE]
New uses for older drugs? Like what? And why shouldn?t that make a drug worth more? Lets say you invent a drug that?s a pain killer, and it works a bit less effectively than aspirin. Scientists find out that this drug actually does something unexpectedly wonderful: if you give the drug during strokes, it is a superb clot-buster. Yes, you got lucky, but the drug that [i]your company[/i] invested time, money, and effort in has succeeded. Why shouldn?t you succeed?

Patents and monopolies? Sure, that may be true to an extent. But I?d prefer a limited drug company monopoly over inefficient, wasteful government monopoly that is permanent! Generic versions succeed remarkably! Companies are built by making and selling generic versions of brand-name drugs. How has Pfizer dealt with the new release of a generic version of Lipitor (which Pfizer can?t stop, if you know how generic drugs are developed)? It is advertising more. No lawsuits, no bullying, just advertising.
[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Spend the most of any U.S. industry on lobbying to keep government at bay. (In the 1999-2000 election cycle, drug companies spent more money to influence politicians than did insurance companies, telephone companies, electric companies, commercial banks, oil and gas producers, automakers, tobacco companies, food processors and manufacturers. More, in short, than any other industry.) [/QUOTE]
I trust that you are saying is true, but I?m not very versed in lobbying either. In my search, I couldn?t find information to back your claim, so would you be willing to let me know where you got this information (I?m not scrutinizing you, I?ll concede the point if you can demonstrate this). However, my quick search on lobbying tells me that most money that goes into Lobbying is done by large firms. That is, companies from Pfizer to Boeing, Estee Lauder to Walt Disney pool resources into a large firm (there?s a lot of these hundreds of millions of dollar firms) which represent their constituents in Washington. I?m guessing I missed something? so I?ll let you respond, I admit ignorance in this topic.

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
- Saturate the media with slick ads, create new brands and generate new demands. [/QUOTE]
Sure, ads aren?t perfect. Hell, there?s research to suggest that some ads reduce product interest. But when you have companies like Gieco moving up from 7th to 3rd in nation-wide insurance companies due to their annoying cave man ads it stands to reason that drug companies want to follow the successful model.

By new brands, do you mean new drugs? And as far as generating demand? how exactly does a drug company do that?

I think I?ll let you and others respond to this before I address your concluding bit about the uninsured.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth]Aaryanna_Mom, thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion even though we disagree (and I don?t think we disagree on [i]too[/i] much). I?m interested to hear your solutions to the problem our country faces![/QUOTE]If I knew the solution to the problems our country faces I assure you, I would have already presented it. Now as to my response, It took me some time since I had to go and figure out where I got my information from. Some of it came from this site here in the heath section: [URL=http://www.aflcio.org/index.cfm ][B]Site[/B][/URL] and the rest most likely from reading various articles in different health magazines while waiting to see the doctor since my health requires regular visits. So if some of my information is off, it is unintentional. ;) [QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]Fair enough, but who decides what a reasonable price is? I think we both agree that families who are without the means to afford drug payments should receive some sort of help. I don?t necessarily think the government should, nor [i]can[/i'] help them as well as the private sector. When Medicare began working with private insurers to cover prescription drugs in the early 70?s, over 80% of the senior patients received proper coverage. Within a decade, the coverage dropped below 50% because of both market changes and the development of new, better drugs. The government, completely inadequate (because they aren?t held accountable for anything) couldn?t keep up with changing insurance rates, new science, and a changing market.[/quote]A reasonable price to me is one that doesn?t increase by thirty percent each year. To give you an idea, say I have a medicine that costs $100 a month. Next year it?s $130 and then the next $169. I?ve come to expect a three to ten percent raise in prices, but for it to have gone as high as thirty percent? That adds up quickly and I see it as unreasonable.

As for your last bit about the government being inadequate, we are in complete agreement. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] The leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), and chronic lower respiratory diseases according to the CDC. I?ll address these one at a time and take a look at the most prescribed drugs in turn.[/quote]I hope you?ll pardon if I skip quoting the information you provided, since you seem to have missed the point of my statement that not everyone smokes or is overweight and doesn?t exercise. In the United States, an estimated 25.1 million men (23.4 percent) and 20.9 million women (18.5 percent) are smokers. That still leaves a huge percentage of Americans who do not smoke. Also: Today, 65 percent of American adults over age 20 are overweight or obese. There is still a good percentage of Americans who are not overweight.

I was trying to point out that even those who do not smoke are not overweight and do exercise and eat healthy end up with health problems. [quote name=' Drix D'Zanth]Looking at these numbers is only to demonstrate the point that if we wish to improve our healthcare system we need to be willing (as a population) to adjust our habits and lead more healthy lives. We cannot continue to expect people to pay for our irresponsible behavior.[/quote] Please don?t keep coming back to the same argument of blaming it on people when in spite of actually taking care of themselves people still have heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of health issues. No amount of exercise or not smoking will keep your body from getting old. Also, I won?t argue that a huge percentage of people do neglect their health and do smoke. But it?s annoying to those of us who do take care of ourselves don?t smoke and still ended up with serious health problems anyway. So how is it irresponsible behavior when one doesn't smoke, exercises, eats healthy and actually tries to take care of themselves? [QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]This is a misleading statement, and I read it twice to be sure. I don?t think it?s fair to characterize drug companies as trying to keep drugs from being ?affordable?. Again, this depends on ?affordable?. What [i]is[/i'] ?affordable? anyway? Some citizens think that gas isn?t affordable, but the pack-a-day is. We have affordable food, but don?t invest time in exercise (which happens to be free!). To paint a picture of drug companies as robber barons who wish to keep drugs too expensive is simply sensationalism and totally subjective.[/quote]It was not my intent to be misleading. And I?m going to have to call you on the carpet for the gas comment. It?s not a complaint about affordability when it?s true. ;) Just last year in Utah the gas prices stayed high while the rest of the nation?s prices dropped. It wasn?t until the state investigated and found out that the stations simply chose to keep the higher prices instead of charging less when the price of oil went down. Then and only then did they finally dropped the prices to reflect the change in what it cost them to get the oil.

I paint them as ?robber barons? because I have been around long enough to remember hearing cases of finding out later that we were indeed overcharged for a product, whether it was gas, drugs or something else. Do I think all companies are like that? Of course not. But like I mentioned earlier, when the yearly price increase changes from about three to ten percent to thirty, one starts to wonder why such a huge difference.

Now I apologize that I am not going to address the remainder of your response, for the simple reason it must have been in an article I read, but I do not remember where as I have looked through the stuff I have read online. I was quoting what I remembered from memory. And I do not wish to continue it if I don?t have it in front of me to make sure I am accurate in what I claimed.

Except for the ads, I just do not see the point in advertising a medication to control high blood pressure or some other use. When I go to see a doctor I do not ask him about some ad on TV. He or she is the one who went to medical school and It seems counter productive to try and tell them what you think would help.

Yes I know ads make money and get attention, but honestly, the sheer amount of advertising these days is rather annoying and that applies to more than drug ads.