Drug Prices vs. Research and Development
Prescription drugs cost Americans about $200 billion dollars a year, and that number is rising faster than any other medical expense. Pharmaceutical companies would have us believe that the rising cost of medication is necessary to fund research and development (R&D) of new, life-saving drugs, but in reality they spend more on marketing than research. America's top 10 pharmaceutical companies spend less than 15% of what they make in sales on R&D. Of that R&D very little goes into developing new medications. Most of the "new" drugs that go on the market every year are just new versions of drugs that have been around for years, often available in many forms and combinations already. Very little R&D funding actually goes into producing medical breakthroughs.
To learn more about pharmaceutical injuries, click here to read our articles on product liability.
Pharmaceuticals: Misleading Results
In order for a drug to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration it must go through clinical trials. This means testing on human subjects to prove that the drug is both safe and effective. People tend to make a lot of assumptions about FDA approval, and many people feel that as long as a drug is FDA approved it is safe and that's all they need to know, but FDA approval can be misleading. Clinical trials are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies, so there is a bias from the very beginning. The FDA only requires results of clinical trials which pertain to the specific purpose for which approval is being sought. Results of any other testing of a medication, including negative results, do not have to be reported to the FDA. The FDA does not disclose any results to the public, whether negative or positive, without the pharmaceutical company's permission. It is not unusual for the FDA to be aware of negative results and potential hazards of a drug, and withhold the information from the public. If you have been injured by a defective drug - regardless of whether or not it was approved by the FDA, please contact one of the following pharmaceutical injury lawyers:
FDA to Reduce Conflict of Interest
The FDA uses medical experts on its advisory committees who make recommendations on whether or not to approve potentially dangerous drugs and medical devices. While it is a great idea to get advice from experts, there is a problem. Many of their experts have a significant financial incentive for recommending either for or against a product, constituting a conflict of interest. On March 21, the FDA announced proposed rules meant to reduce this conflict of interest. Right now, experts who have no more than $100,000 or 15% of their net worth invested in pharmaceutical companies are allowed to participate in the discussions and to vote on whether to recommend what may possibly be a dangerous drug or product. The proposed rules would reduce the amount of money to less than a $50,000 financial interest in pharmaceutical companies, and even those who fall under this limit will only be allowed to participate in the discussions. They will not be allowed to vote on recommendations. This could mean that a significant portion of experts who now sit on these committees will be disqualified. However, there will be exceptions to this rule. Those who have over a $50,000 financial interest may sometimes obtain a special waiver from the FDA commissioner to participate. For more information on the FDA and product recalls, feel free to surf our product liability pages by clicking here.
Brain Injuries May Hold the Key to Stopping Addiction
According to a recent report in the journal Science, researchers have discovered that injury to the insula, a small region of the brain located near the ear, disrupts tobacco addiction. In the past addiction research focused on thinking and decision making regions of the cortex. This new discovery was made while studying stroke victims who had quit smoking. Patients with damage to the insula quit easily and no longer have cravings to smoke, while patients with injuries to other areas of the brain did not have this experience. The insula is associated with conscious urges. Research on this area of the brain is fairly new. The recent findings regarding its impact on smoking seem to back up previous studies which indicated that the insula plays a critical role in anticipating and experiencing both pleasure and pain. Unfortunately, most brain injuries don't have such potential to be beneficial. If you have questions about a serious injury, feel free to contact personal injury attorneys Wooten & Honeywell, specializing in tobacco product liability and other forms of personal injury in Florida.
Bausch & Lomb Recalls
Discoloration and a Shorter Shelf LifeIn March 6, 2007, Bausch & Lomb did a voluntary recall of 12 lots of their lens care solution ReNu MultiPlus because they were expected to have a shorter shelf life than their expiration dates indicated, which would mean a loss of effectiveness. The Bausch & Lomb ReNu solution has a two-year shelf life. The company received three customer reports that their bottle had a discolored solution, although the expiration date had not passed. Upon investigation, Bausch & Lomb found an elevated level of trace iron and found that in combination with other compounds in the solution, this would not only cause discoloration, but also shorten the shelf life. If you have any of this ReNu lens care solution that looks discolored, you should discard it. The expiration date on the label is "2008 - 03". Fusarium keratitisFusarium is an infectious fungus that can cause Fusarium keratitis, an infection of the cornea. In March 8, 2006, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) received a report about three cases in New Jersey of Fusarium keratitis connected to use of Bausch & Lomb's ReNu solution. They also found that other cases of Fusarium keratitus had been seen nationwide, and they issued a warning for contact lens users on April 10, 2006. In February 2006, Bausch & Lomb had already recalled its ReNu multi-purpose solutions in Singapore and Hong Kong for the same reason. Some of those patients had to have a corneal transplantation. The FDA has an ongoing investigation with the CDC, as well as State and local health departments to determine whether Fusarium keratitis infections are increasing, and to pinpoint any specific actions or practices that might increase the risk of sustaining one. For more information on Fusarium keratitis or the risks associated with use of the ReNu lens cleaning solution, contact Burg Simpson, Attorneys & Counselors at Law in Colorado, Wyoming, Ohio and Texas.
Off Label Marketing and Zyprexa
When medications are approved by the FDA, they are normally approved for specific uses. Prescribing a drug for purposes other than what is has been approved for is called "off label" prescribing. Doctors can do that. It's perfectly legal if they believe the drug will help the patient. Off label marketing is another story. When drug companies promote the use of their drugs for anything other than what they were approved for, they are in violation of federal laws. Currently, five states are working together on a civil investigation into the marketing tactics used by Eli Lilly to promote their drug Zyprexa. Zyprexa is approved for use in treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Internal documents indicate that Lilly was pushing the drug for other uses. In addition to off label marketing, it appears that Lilly actively tried to hide the fact that the drug can cause serious weight gain and blood sugar changes, for the last 10 years. The investigation could take months or years to complete.
For more information on Zyprexa and other harmful drugs, feel free to contact someone at The Injury Lawyer Directory by clicking here.
How Tort Reform Can Hurt You
Many Americans believe that tort reform will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, lower insurance rates, and make more room in the courts for "real" lawsuits. They believe that tort reform is a rational measure which will benefit the public. In reality tort reform is a concept backed by large corporations which limits the awards that victims may receive and reduces the chance that wrongdoing will be publicly exposed. Setting a cap on damages allows the defendant to offer a settlement amount equal to highest possible award, removing the risk of trial for the plaintiff, but allowing the defendant to set the terms. Settlements often include confidentiality provisions, meaning that while the plaintiff receives payment, the defendant's wrongdoing cannot be revealed to the public. It is true that awards and settlements are often covered by the defendant's insurance, however, insurance companies have stated publicly that they will not lower premiums even if tort reform places a cap on potential pay outs. For more information about tort reform, please read the following: To contact a lawyer who is a known expert in tort reform, click here to contact Houston attorney David W. Hodges.
Car Rental Companies Can Be Held Liable for Uninsured Drivers
In 2005 a federal law was passed which contained a provision commonly called the Graves Amendment. This amendment protects car rental companies from being held liable for damages and injuries caused by people who rent and drive their vehicles. For those involve  d in accidents caused by uninsured rental car drivers this has meant that compensation, if awarded, can never actually be collected. Rental car companies have been using the Graves Amendment to protect themselves in court, but this may have come to an end. There is an exception in the amendment that holds the companies liable in states which have laws requiring drivers to carry liability insurance. In a recent lawsuit a Florida court ruled against Enterprise based on this exception. More cases like this are being brought in other states. For more information on automobile accidents or wrongful death litigation, contact Tennessee injury attorney Herbert Thornbury by clicking here. Image property of www.thornburylaw.com.
|
