Blogs and Stories
Why the Dems Will Target Big Pharma
Justifying blockbuster pharma revenues on the grounds that companies need big money for research and development, while largely true, is a non-starter in a culture that is oblivious to basic economics and equates big money with thievery—particularly if the same product is cheaper in Canada.
The collision of these weather patterns is perhaps best exemplified by the 1994 film, The Fugitive, where the shadowy one-armed man who kills Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife does so at the behest of a huge pharmaceutical company seeking to cover up fabricated data. Similarly, John Le Carre’s 2001 novel, The Constant Gardner, which was made into a 2005 film, featured as its villain a big drug company that used the African continent a lethal test laboratory.
As you read this, nastygrams from Members of Congress are landing on the desks of drug company executives demanding their confidential files and emails. Some of these documents will find their way to the trial bar, the New York Times, ABC’s 20/20 and “public interest” groups. Internal memos will soon surface that contain purportedly telltale excerpts where a researcher red flags a potential side-effect of some wonder drug.
Never mind that even the best drugs have flaws: When the Big Pharma CEO is being grilled by a furious senator, the subtext shall be willful malfeasance.
Despite the well-meaning, but mostly insipid, calls for “meaningful dialogue” and “post-partisanship,” the political system doesn’t work that way. The harsh truth is that any injury to a drug company will likely be deemed a “solution.”
Drug—and other healthcare—companies must do a far better job than they have so far of bringing prospective solutions to the table, as opposed to just mobilizing political muscle to spike hostile legislation. They need to put forth the “carrot” of compromise – indeed some drug companies have been known to make their products available at deep discounts (or for free) in developing countries—and the “stick” of pushback.
Presently, the very same political operatives who a few years ago were making furtive references to their relationship with Karl Rove are frantically calling prospective drug company clients to sing the Hymn of Obama. At the moment, the voices of strategists preaching the drug-companies-are-your-friend line are being heard most loudly, but a more muscular approach is flexing beneath the surface.
That approach will entail painting a vivid public picture of what might happen if healthcare companies are savaged too extremely: less choice, fewer treatments, lousy access to good doctors, delays for important surgical procedures and treatments, and the abandonment of American innovation and healthcare preeminence. Blaming Democrats would be a foolish abstraction; rather, specific legislators will need to feel political risk. A reincarnation of the legendary “Harry and Louise” advertising campaign in opposition to Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan may be in the offing.
No matter what reforms are proposed for the healthcare system, there will surely be an undercurrent of wealth redistribution—from Big Pharma to the little guy. Years ago, after a client lost a health-related product liability court case, the jury was polled, and one juror offered this chilling explanation for her pro-plaintiff vote: “I don’t know if that product caused that woman’s health problems, but think about how much that award will do for her family.”
Eric Dezenhall co-founded the high-stakes communications firm Dezenhall Resources, Ltd., and serves as its CEO. Eric's first book, Nail 'em!: Confronting High-Profile Attacks on Celebrities and Business, pioneered techniques for understanding and defusing crises.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
The Inescapable President
Eric Dezenhall co-founded the communications firm Dezenhall Resources, Ltd., and serves as its CEO. His first book, Nail 'em!: Confronting High-Profile Attacks on Celebrities and Business, pioneered techniques for understanding and defusing crises.
The Witch Hunt Backlash Is Coming
Eric Dezenhall co-founded the communications firm Dezenhall Resources, Ltd., and serves as its CEO. His first book, Nail 'em!: Confronting High-Profile Attacks on Celebrities and Business, pioneered techniques for understanding and defusing crises.
How A-Rod Can Save His Image
Eric Dezenhall co-founded the communications firm Dezenhall Resources, Ltd., and serves as its CEO. His first book, Nail 'em!: Confronting High-Profile Attacks on Celebrities and Business, pioneered techniques for understanding and defusing crises.
"less choice, fewer treatments, lousy access to good doctors, delays for important surgical procedures and treatments, and the abandonment of American Innovation and healthcare preeminence"
I've never heard of you, but I assumed credibility up until that sentence. This statement alone shows the misunderstanding of what's going on. About 1/8 of our country has none of these "choices"...they can't get surgery, don't have access to any doctor, quality isn't a concern when quantity is non-existent, and choosing a doctor doesn't matter when you can't have any....I myself, a law student, son of a cop and teacher, don't have health insurance because I can't afford it.
And as far as our healthcare "preeminence"...that's a joke right?
I hardly feel sad for these companies if that was the intention of your article.
I used to work for one of these companies and they are careless, heartless people. They are less interested in the good of all then they are in making deep deep profits.
There were many studies that were questionable at best and still they pushed to get things to market faster and faster to make bigger and bigger profits.
I couldn't work for them anymore as I could truely feel my soul slipping away every day.
I say hang 'em high and strip them of their political power.
Not to worry...40 million people are going to get $1000 checks from President Obama who is going to put gas in their car and pay their mortgages. (I can't believe we have to fight the same battle over and over and over...)
tob1303 where do you get your credibility from? We are the preeminent nation for healthcare. Quality-wise you can't really argue that or why do so many people come here from around the world for major, life-saving treatments and procedures? And the author's statements about less choice and less quality echoes a common complaint that I have hear from Canadian expats in the US. My father works for a Canadian company and I played hockey for 15 years, so I know a rather large sample of Canadians. And while they are grateful for their universal healthcare system, they nearly unanimously claim to receive higher quality care and better diversity of coverage here in the States.
To clarify: I don't know a large sample of Canadians, I know a relatively large number compared to the average US citizen/resident.
Our healthcare system costs 16% of GDP; the average for OECD nations is 8% of GDP. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't cover everyone. The Swiss have more choice than we do and pay half as much.
That extra 8% difference goes somewhere--to insurance firms and pharmaceutical companies; and to wasted paperwork. Big Pharma has turned itself into quarry.
You can't blame the next administration and the next round of punditry for targeting them when they painted the bullseye on themselves.
The rather heated back-and-forth here misses the author's point, no? Dezenhall suggests that for reasons of political convenience and a sort of psychic need, the Pharma industry is headed for the Democrats' dock. Why don't we discuss that?
Rather than detail this or that anonymous view ("I know these people and don't like their focus on making profit") we need to confront the political reality that certain private industries are being targeted by certain public officials for reasons that seem awfully ideological. I would suggest that's a lot more serious than whether Amgen made a lot of money seven years ago.
Strangely missing from this article is Pharma's involvement in the Medicare Drug deal wherein they gained huge profits allowing no negotiation of drug costs.
This article strikes me as the first public scare tatic to get the public on their side. Sorry, not buying your BS.
The FDA under the current adminstration has speeded up getting drugs onto the market and how many recalls have we had? I don't buy a pill these days unless I can get it over the counter. If I need an antibiotic, I want one that's been on the market for years...no new stuff thank you very much. In Mexico you can buy ampicillin over the counter for $9/48.
There are scores of things that can be done to make health care more effective, cost less, and provide health care for all and still have reasonable profits. And no one has suggested that you won't be able to choose your own provider.
But, to do that State Health Care Regulatory Agencies would have to start by cleaning house of really bad providers, including those that steal from the system. Three reasons stop that from being done now - the good ole boy system, lousy laws and resources.
Estimates are that between $30-80 billion per year is stolen from Medicare alone. Imagine what it is in private health care?That would go a long, long way in reducing premiums so people really could afford health care.
Who the hell is Eric Denzenhall? What a pig this guy is.
This is the most repulsive and flagrantly dishonest bit of business I've read in months.....Really surprised its posted on the Beast.
"Justifying blockbuster pharma revenues on the grounds that companies need big money for research and development, while largely true..." This is not largely true. The American drug industry spends huge amount of money on marketing. Read "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Dr. Angell, a former editor of the respected New England Journal of Medicine. Big pharm is now primarily a marketing machine. It uses its wealth and power to influence Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, as well as the medical profession. Most innovation comes from federally funding science, while big pharm concentrates on "me too" drug. Small tweaks (Prilosec to the purple pill) are done to gain or keep market share, without any real innovation.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.