Prescription drugs are essential to life — the length of it and the pleasure of it.

On Thursday, German scientists announced a new drug that appears to stop cancer by cutting off its blood supply. For anyone who has suffered through cancer, or fears being diagnosed with some form of this disease, the promise of a drug that could stop cancer is astonishing and welcome.

On Thursday, scientists announced they have developed a vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. If this drug is proven effective, it could be on the market in five years.

And, on Thursday, a study was released suggesting that cardiac patients fare better after they are discharged from the hospital if they receive follow-up care from specialists rather than general practitioners. Although not a pill or vaccine, the study that reached this conclusion is part of thousands of ongoing medical studies, many of which are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Not only have new drugs made life easier on patients, they have saved employers millions in lost wages and enhanced productivity.

What employers may save in wages, though, is being spent on higher insurance premiums for prescription drug coverage.

Business has a stake in controlling prescription costs because it is subsidizing the expense.

Ten years ago, pharmaceutical companies did just fine without advertising directly to consumers. By 2005, the industry is expected to spend $7.5 billion on direct marketing.

That’s a lot of money that would be better used for additional research, or to expand prescription programs drug companies often offer to low-income and elderly patients.

European nations, having witnessed the flurry of advertising in the United States and New Zealand, have so far upheld their ban on direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies.

The Consumers’ Association in London supports this position because it has found that pharmaceutical advertising doesn’t expand information, but limits it.

According to the CA, “75 percent of advertisements do not include information on alternative treatments or how medicines actually work,” and 90 percent “do not mention the likely duration or the success rate of the treatment.”

Advertising does build a customer base, though, and the industry understands the power of the consumer.

But it’s expensive and it draws dollars away from potentially life-saving research.

Thursday was a big day in medicine, with lots of good news about drugs that hold great potential.

But every commercial broadcast on television or displayed in a magazine is less money for research and development of future drugs that may be every bit as helpful.

The Food and Drug Administration must look hard at direct-to-consumer marketing and decide if it’s really good for patients, or just good for the drug industry. And business owners interested in reining in their insurance costs ought to push the issue.


jmeyer@sunjournal.com