Michigan Personal Injury Blog - prescription drugs

Pharmaceutical Companies Use Rx Data Mining to Boost Sales Tactics, Patient Advocates Argue

David Mittleman — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:06:36 GMT

When your doctor prescribes you a medication you probably expect that the information stays between you, the doctor, and your insurance company. However, prescription data miners are changing that dynamic in scary ways: by spying on your prescription data they are able to provide pharmaceutical companies with information to entice doctors to prescribe their medications more frequently. In fact, pharmaceutical companies are able to learn how to “fine-tune” their messages so that when a sales-rep calls a doctor, they are able to give a good pitch. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies can entice doctors to prescribe their medications with free samples of drugs. While the individual identities of patients is not disclosed in data mining, government officials are concerned about doctors’ decision-making becoming distorted because of the new sales tactics of pharmaceutical companies with access to prescription information.

The process of prescription data mining begins with medical data firms. Medical data firms have access to billions of prescription records, which they purchase from pharmacies and health insurers who have physician data from the American Medical Association, as well as other sources. They then are able to sell this information to pharmaceutical companies. According to critics, the end result is that drug companies are able to sell their newest and costliest medications, not necessarily the most effective medications.

Patient advocates and government officials are also concerned about the interference in the patient-doctor relationship, as well as increased spending on expensive drugs. However, data miners argue that they are actually helping contain the cost of prescription medications by improving quality and by quickly providing doctors with information on which drugs work best.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

FDA Trying to Reduce Preventable Medical Error from Prescription and Over the Counter Drug Use

David Mittleman — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:39:08 GMT

Over 3 billion prescriptions are written annually in the United States, and tens of millions of people rely on prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs to sustain their health. With such high numbers of drugs being used, the risk of preventable medical error from improper drug combination or the misuse of medication has led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to start the Safe Use Initiative.

As my Virginia-based colleague Greg Webb noted, the initiative calls upon doctors, health care professionals, and even patients to help the FDA identify specific, preventable medication risks and develop interventions to such risks. The initiative has a goal to implement some interventions within the first 12 months of the Initiative's existence.

Among the target groups the Initiative seeks to protect is children. One study cited by the FDA found that over 9,000 children were exposed to prescription opioid drugs from 2003 to 2006. Just as startling was the fact that 60,000 emergency room visits occur annually as a result of unsupervised ingestion of medication by children under the age of 12.

Some of the changes consumers can expect will be better information of the prescription and OTC drugs they take, including the proper dosage to take along with calibrated spoons or cups that are easier to read and correspond with the product's packaging.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Drug Makers Raise Prices Despite Promises of Cost Reform

David Mittleman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:39:28 GMT

Drug makers pledged to help cut down healthcare costs by $8 billion a year, but now it doesn’t look like they are making good on that promise. Instead, in the last year alone, the pharmaceutical industry has raised their wholesale prescription drug prices by 9%. Instead of cutting down on costs, that raises the nation’s drug-related healthcare costs by $10 billion, and represents the highest annual rate of inflation on drug prices since 1992.

Originally, drug makers had touted their agreement with the White House and the Senate Finance Agreement chairman to trim $8 billion a year from the nation’s drug costs, or $80 billion over 10 years, by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. However, the recent increase in prices would essentially cancel out the savings for at least the first year of the plan, if not the entire 10 years.

Nevertheless, drug makers argue that there are valid business reasons for raising prices. Specifically, they argue that they are forced to raise their prices in order to invest in future research and development of new drugs, especially as patents expire on previous drugs. While drug makers claim their “reasons” for raising their prices, many Americans who do have drug insurance will be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the leftover cost of overpriced drugs that insurance won’t entirely cover.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Lawsuit leads to lower prices for prescription drugs

David Mittleman — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:14:52 GMT

Consumers could see some relief from their prescription drug costs—the prices of hundreds of brand name drugs are about to be cut 4% and prescription drug users may soon receive a reimbursement check as compensation for overpayment on their medications.

The price cuts and the reimbursement checks are a result of a federal class action lawsuit against two drug-pricing publishers and a major drug wholesaler who are both being accused of artificially inflating drug prices. An economist, a witness for the plaintiffs, estimates a $1 billion savings the first year if the price cuts are implemented, with a savings of $100 million directly to consumers. These cost savings will have the most impact on the uninsured or underinsured, while the reimbursement checks will also primarily go to this group as well. Under the $350 million settlement, $60 million has been set aside as payouts for the uninsured and underinsured who purchased such drugs as Lipitor and Ambien, and hundreds of other drugs between August 2001 and January 23, 2009.

The settlement already has preliminary court approval. However, pharmacies and pharmacy-benefit managers are trying to stop the price rollbacks, in particular, which could shrink their profit margins. So far they have been unsuccessful in their appeals, as one of their motions was recently rejected by the federal judge overseeing the litigation in a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Change for the Better at the FDA

David Mittleman — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Food and Drug Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, signaled a major shift away from the old ways of business at the FDA. In a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by Deputy FDA Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, Dr. Hamburg stated that she views the FDA as a public health agency that should measure its success by promoting health and preventing illness, not by how successful it is in helping the food and drug industry market their products.

In the past, drug and device makers stalled on important post-market studies designed to protect consumers by identifying dangerous products. This may soon be a habit of the past. Hamburg and Sharfstein emphasized the greater authority given to the FDA by H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, of which they plan to take full advantage. Specifically, their article highlighted the agency’s power to restrict medication at the time of FDA approval and to demand post-market studies. The rewards could be greater for medicine makers who do show they are involved in scientifically valid post-market studies: Hamburg and Sharfstein hinted at quicker approvals of other products that are not yet on the market.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Consumers fight to disclose drug companies' attempts to buy doctor loyalty

David Mittleman — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:28:41 GMT

In Vermont, which actually has some form of public disclosure requirements, the pharmaceutical industry still managed to give $2.9 Million to doctors, hospitals, and universities. Because of a loophole in the disclosure law (which is also implemented in at least 4 other states), the public has no idea who received lavish gifts.

A report released Wednesday showed that at least 25 doctors and nurses received more than $20,000 in cash or benefits from the prescription drug giants, which included Eli Lillly and Co., Pfizer Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Merck & Co., and Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.

An additional 10 doctors and nurses received more than $50,000 and one unnamed psychiatrist received an astounding $112,000.

Because of a "trade secret" loophole, the public does not know who received those lavish gifts. Vermont’s attorney general William Sorrell and consumer advocates argue that consumers and health care patients would be better served by a system that permits people to know which physicians, psychiatrists and nurses are paid handsomely by the pharmaceutical industry to encourage and promote their drugs.

An association for psychiatrists and physicians support changing the Vermont law that would prevent the use of "trade secrets" as a way of keeping the public in the dark as to who gets these gifts. Other states across the country as well as Congress would greatly increase consumer confidence in both physicians and drug companies by having disclosures laws like these on the books in addition with other forms of consumer protection. Michigan, for example, needs to change its prescription drug immunity law to ensure that people who are injured by harmful drugs have a chance to recover in state courts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

It's Time For the Michigan Senate to Roll Back Drug Industry Immunity

David Mittleman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Residents of Michigan who have been injured as a result of taking prescription drugs they were told was safe are championing the fight to end the unprecedented immunity given to drug manufacturers in this state. With the passage of House Bills 4316, 4317, and 4318, the responsibility of giving injured Michiganders a chance to seek justice rests in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Grassroots organizations such as DIIME (Drug Industry Immunity Must End) have courageously fought against powerful corporate interests to give future victims a chance to seek redress from the sale of dangerous drugs.

The House versions of the bills perform three major functions: (1) they eliminate the current immunity against products liability lawsuits that specifically applies to drugs approved by the FDA; (2) they create a three year window in which claims filed for injuries attributable to FDA-approved drugs during the time the immunity was in place; and (3) they allow civil suits under the Consumer Protection Act if a business misrepresented risks associated with a drug, herb, dietary supplement, or botanical supplements.

Taking away immunity based on FDA approval makes perfect sense in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Wyeth v Levine, which held that FDA approval did not pre-empt state law tort claims against drug manufacturers. Moreover, Michigan has a proud and rich tradition of protecting consumer rights and allowing civil suits under the Consumer Protection Act reinforces the ideal that consumers should be protected against deceitful and greedy corporations. Moreover, giving the right to sue is more than just about awarding judgments to injured parties, it creates an actual incentive for corporations to be honest, careful, and cautious while creating new drugs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

"Smart Drugs" (Ritalin & Adderall) not so smart to take

David Mittleman — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:00:00 GMT

It is the human nature of competitive people to always look for an edge - whether it is steroids for an athlete or "smart drugs" for a student. Scientists refer to certain drugs prescribed for attention-deficit disorder, such as Adderall - nicknamed "Addy" - and Ritalin, as "cognitive enhancers". In an alarming trend, high school and college students are increasingly abusing these drugs due to the belief that the drugs help them study more effectively despite the risk of serious physical and legal consequences.

Students seek out these drugs because they believe the drugs allow them to study for longer periods of time with less fatigue than their fellow drug-free classmates. The trouble is that since these drugs are amphetamine-based, they can become habit-forming. Scientists have found that the drugs increase the production of the brain chemical dopamine (much like cocaine), and can have as side effects severe sleep deprivation, heart problems, high blood pressure, exacerbation of mental illness, epilepsy, seizures, and/or tics.

It is illegal to take or possess Schedule II drugs like Adderall or Ritalin without a prescription. Also, you could face harsh fines and time in prison if you are caught selling or distributing the drug - not so smart.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Three Patients Die From Prescription Drug Overdoses

David Mittleman — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:51:00 GMT

A Nevada doctor who has had three patients die from prescription drug overdoses, is still allowed to prescribe narcotics. Investigation by the Nevada State Medical Examiners Board is in the process of being conducted, but during this process the doctor will still be allowed to see patients and write prescriptions.

Four independent medical doctors have reviewed the files of the three patients who have died and have contributed their death to their prescription drugs. The Nevada doctor has also admitted in a sworn deposition that he did not perform a physical examination on one of the patients who overdosed and died. Instead, he admitted to giving her large quantities of drugs because she "asked for them."

Since this investigation, a dozen more complaints have been logged with various agencies. In one such case, a patient and self-described drug addict, was prescribed narcotics with no questions asked and no examinations required. In more than two years the patient has filled prescriptions for 13,760 narcotic pain pills, an average of 510 a month.

The Nevada doctor is not solely to blame, the pharmacy who filled the prescriptions could have been more proactive. Pharmacists are allowed to deny a prescription if they think it’s fraudulent, if they think it’s going to hurt the patient, or if there’s no legitimate medical purpose for the drugs. This puts pharmacists in a tough position to second guess a doctors judgement, but when a patient is filled narcotic prescriptions for 1,020, 1,020, and 1,170 pills in a three month span, something is wrong.

Nevada’s medical regulatory system has to be entirely reformed. The Nevada doctor’s behavior may have never been brought to light if not for a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) drug consumption analysis in July 2008. Nevadans rank No. 1 nationally in per capita consumption of Lortab/Vicodin, and 4^th for consumption of methadone, morphine, and OxyContin. Since the DEA’s report, the Nevada medical community is finally taking action, and trying to put a stop to doctors who prescribe narcotics for the wrong reasons.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Safety Concerns about Diabetes Drug Avandia

David Mittleman — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:52:14 GMT

Avandia is a popular type 2 diabetes drug that was first marketed in 1999. It is one of many oral medications designed to control blood sugar. Avandia lowers the amount of sugar in your blood by making your tissues more sensitive to insulin, a hormone that regulates the absorption of sugar into your cells. Although it has been on the market for more than 9 eight years, serious safety concerns about Avandia first surfaced last year, and has remained a hotly debated topic ever since.

In 2007, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article estimating that users of Avandia faced a 43% higher risk of a heart attack or other cardiovascular events. Last week, the consumer group Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to institute an immediate ban of the diabetes drug Avandia. The group says the drug is dangerous and can cause death from liver failure and many other life-threatening risks that greatly outweigh its benefits. In conjunction with the petition, the American Diabetes Association and a European counterpart jointly released updated treatment guidelines for doctors that pointedly recommended against using Avandia.

In addition to the increased risk of heart attack, new findings reveal that Avandia doubles the risk of heart failure and bone fractures, increases the risk of anemia and vision loss, and more importantly, induces liver failure. Public Citizen said it has identified 14 cases of liver failure associated with Avandia, 12 of which led to death. According to the director of Public Citizen’’s Health Research Group, the scientific evidence against Avandia is overwhelming, and that these findings should give the FDA the momentum it needs to act swiftly to prevent further needless deaths and health damages by banning this drug.

While the safety and effectiveness of Avandia remains to be resolved, the decision about which diabetes medication is best for you depends on many factors including your blood sugar level and the presence of any other health problems, thus it is very important that you consult your doctor for further instructions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman