Drug Dilemmas in the United States - Essay Example

1. What explains the high price of prescription medicines in the United s What if anything should be done about it Do you believe that U.S. drugprices reflect the operation of a fair and competitive market The high price of prescription medicines in the United States may be explained by the marketing and administration costs of pharmaceutical companies, aside from the cost of drug research and development of new medicines. Administration costs include expenses for applying for approval to market a new drug, setting up business offices and training the sales force, setting up a distribution system, training doctors to administer the drug, and monitoring patients who take them. Unfortunately, in a free market economy such as the United States, nothing can be done about it, except by government intervention through price regulation. Considering what Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said about how pharmaceutical companies spend enormous resources in developing "me-too" drugs simply to get a share of the market of a top-selling drug, there is reason to believe that U.S. drug prices do not reflect the operation of a fair and competitive market, rather, the pharmaceutical companies have somewhat cartelized themselves resulting in a monopoly of the drug pricing. 2. Given the nature of their product, do pharmaceutical companies have ethical responsibilities that other corporations don't have In your view, are the large U.S. drug companies good corporate citizens According to the Case Resource, many drug companies enjoy larger profit margins than other U.S. corporations. At the very least, and considering the nature of their product, this writer believes that pharmaceutical companies should take on the ethical responsibility of reasonably pricing their products, at least at the level of most corporations. It would be more ethical of course, for pharmaceutical companies to reduce their profit margins in order to make their drugs more available to a greater number of people. After all, the mission and vision of most drug companies is to "lead the way to a healthier world by providing products that improve lives" (Wyeth, 2008), or "we are here for the people we serve in their pursuit of healthy lives" (Abbott, 2008). However, in terms of corporate citizenship, drug companies would be thought of as good corporate citizens especially if they pay the government the correct taxes from all the revenues and profits they make. 3. Are the large drug companies guilty of price gouging or charging an unfair or exploitative price for their products In general, what factors should determine the price of drugs Should Americans be permitted to import drugs from Canada or other countries Whether or not large drug companies are guilty of price gouging or charging an unfair or exploitative price for their products is highly debatable. On the one hand, if the drug company sets its price at a profit level well beyond regular profitability standards for U.S. corporations, then the company would be guilty of price gouging. However, to determine such profit level, various factors would need to be taken into account and some of these factors may not be existent in other corporations, such as costs of compliance with government regulations considering that such regulations may be stricter in the health industry than in other industries. In general, factors that determine the price of drugs would be production costs, distribution costs, marketing costs, administration costs and other overhead costs such as R&D. This writer believes that Americans should be permitted to import drugs from Canada or other countries for that matter. If the cost of imported drugs is less expensive than U.S.-manufactured drugs, this would be very beneficial to Americans. Moreover, it would provide a natural check and balance for the pricing practices of the U.S. drug companies. 4. Do drug companies have an obligation to make new drugs available to patients who were involved in their development, either here or overseas Does the size of the company make a difference What would you do if you were Dr. Lange What obligations, ideals, and consequences should he take into account There is a very strong ethical argument to support the view that drug companies should have an obligation to make new drugs available to patients who were involved in their development either here or overseas. These patients put their lives and health at risk with the testing of the new drugs. It is but fair to have them benefit from the success of the tests. The size of the drug company doing the testing should not make a difference. However, especially if a foreign country was involved, early on, agreements should have also been made with the foreign government to provide privileges to the drug company in terms of reducing administration costs in the foreign country. Considering that Dr. Lange's company is small and can ill-afford distribution and administration costs, there must be a way for the foreign government to assist in the effort in order to make the new drug more easily available to its citizens. Dr. Lange should take into account his moral obligation to make the drug available to the people he used in developing his drug, his ideal of inventing a drug, such as ranolazine, which although non-life saving, reduces the number of angina attacks in half, making a chronic sufferer's life less miserable. The consequence of making the drug available to the people used during its development, is of course the huge expenses it will entail, which is why assistance from external sources such as both the American and foreign government would be necessary. 5. Is it ethical for companies to decline to sell a useful drug like ranolazine in a poor country because they can make more money marketing it elsewhere In this writer's opinion, it is not ethical for a company to decline to sell a useful drug like ranolazine in a poor country simply because more money can be made by marketing it elsewhere. At the very least, the company should be agreeable to selling the drug in the poor country and should solicit the assistance of external groups to make this possible. 6. When it comes to life-saving drugs, do pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make them available in poor countries at little or no cost Explain why or why not What about effective but non-life saving drugs like ranolazine There have already been many efforts in the past related to how pharmaceutical companies make available life-saving drugs at little or no cost. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the World Trade Organization had organized a workshop of experts to explore questions about ensuring access to essential drugs at prices affordable in poor countries and adequate financing for this purpose, while providing adequate incentives for R&D into new drugs (WTO, 2001). The summary report says that there was common thinking that indeed, access to essential drugs must be ensured and that funding may have to be sourced from the international community. The non-life saving drug, ranolazine should be included in the list of essential drugs because the objective of providing access is not limited to saving lives but to improved health care systems as well. References Abbott. (2008). Our promise. Retrieved 4 December, 2008 from http://www.abbott.com/global/url/content/en_US/10.10:10/general_content/General_Content_00003.htm Case Resource. (n.d.). Drug dilemmas. Part 4 - Business and Society, Chapter 10 - Consumers, Case 10.4. World Trade Organization. (2001). WHO/WTO workshop on differential pricing and financing of essential drugs, HSBJR 2001. Retrieved 4 December, 2008 from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/hosbjor_execsum_e.htm Wyeth. (2008). Mission, vision and values. Retrieved 4 December, 2008 from http://www.wyeth.com/aboutwyeth/whoweare/mission Read More