Fix health costs by banning drug ads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's hope that new blood in the office of Health and Human Services leads to progressive thinking to provide the most essential need of our time -- adequate and affordable health care for all Americans.

As the new director of HHS, Michael Leavitt, the former Utah governor, will have a plateful. Some of his most important questions have already been answered by one of the agencies that will soon report to him, the Food and Drug Administration.

In an article published in the FDA Consumer magazine last August, the agency points out that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical spending went from $1.07 billion in 1997 to $2.64 billion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available.

That's just in the advertising you see on television, in magazines, in the newspaper or hear on the radio. Multiply that at least tenfold and you have the annual cost of marketing for the pharmaceutical industry.

There is a quick and sensible solution to eliminating those outrageous costs -- the banning of all prescription drug advertisement.

It's not as radical an idea as you would think. Only the United States and New Zealand allow full-out prescription drug ad campaigns. Other nations either restrict or ban the practice. Forget tort reform. This is, without question, one of the prime reasons why prescription medications are so much cheaper in Canada and Mexico.

The drug companies will argue that their ad programs help with education and awareness.

Well, I've heard enough about Nexium, Cialis, Viagra, Zocor and the rest of the big-name prescription medications. The problem is, I don't think I have the medical training to demand any of these from my doctor. And if I had a problem with erectile dysfunction, arthritis, my cholesterol levels or anything else, I would count on my doctor to diagnose it, prescribe treatment and, hopefully, fix things.

The FDA should also look deeply into the length and breadth of its research requirements. In Europe, medicines are placed, safely, on the market in about half the time it takes here. This extended testing period adds billions more to the cost which, my friend, you, me and our insurance companies -- if we are lucky enough to have coverage -- must pay.

We should be careful, of course, but Vioxx and Celebrex were two of how many drugs that went through an extensive research period and still were found to cause health problems?

The third prong of the HHS attack should deal with the patent issue. Because the monolithic pharmaceutical companies can hold onto their patents for years, competitors spend another pile of money to fill the marketplace with copycat drugs that are similar in nature, but different enough to allow for a new patent.

It would be a bold, gutsy move, but one that must be taken to ensure the health and economic welfare of our country.

Contact Senior Writer Ed Kociela at 865-4522, or e-mail at ekociela@ thespectrum.com.

Email this story

Originally published Saturday, December 18, 2004