"Peter Jennings Reporting: Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health" to air Wed. Night

ABCNEWS | May 28, 2002

[Timesink]

ABCNEWS will air a one-hour special report on America's billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry that asks: "What are we getting for our money?"

"Peter Jennings Reporting — Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health," will air Wednesday, May 29 from 10-11 p.m. ET on the ABC Television Network.

More money is spent on prescription drugs in America than in any other country in the world. Most of the current debate surrounding this billion-dollar industry focuses on questions about their high cost and how to pay for them. But in an hourlong primetime ABCNEWS special, Peter Jennings asks the crucial questions that have been overlooked in the debate so far:

What drugs are we getting for our money? Are the new drugs on the market really better than the old drugs? How are consumers supposed to know which drugs are best?

Watch the broadcast and log on to ABCNEWS.com at 2 p.m. ET on Thursday for a live, online chat.

[buffyt]

And Peter Jennings will not be happy until we have national healthcare, HillaryCare, like in Canada. They THINK it is FREE there, they don't stop and think how HIGH their taxes are!

[oldvike]

I wonder if there will be one mention of the great monitary risk that drug companies assume during R&D. I doubt it.

[iceskater]

Let the buyer beware. I don't feel sorry for people who are tricked into demanding expensive and unnecessary drugs from their doctors. I blame them, and their doctors for being patsy's. OTOH, if you don't know what drugs are out there, what protection do YOU have from unscrupulous doctors who prescribe drugs (regardless of their benefit to you) from companies they've invested in?

The practice you describe is illegal under the Stark rules. Even I, as an administrator - not a clinician - am not allowed to invest in medically related companies.

Or, just prescribe what was the norm when they were in medical school umpteen years ago.

This is more of an issue. The explosion of information in the medical field is incredible. It's extremely difficult for a person to keep up with all the changes. This is why you as a healthcare consumer have to take responsibility for your own health. Just as you now have to take more responsibility for your financial life, you should take more responsibility for you health.

[Wright is right!]

It took 10 responses, but you have the correct answer. Since ALL the nets are making good advertising revenues from the sales of spots to pharmaceuticals, THEY won't be the target. Instead, it'll be a big push for socialized medicine - a hit on the GOP, and a subtle campaign-starter for Hillary. Oh, so predictable.

Of course, none of this would affect HIM. The nets all have marvelous contracts for their top players - with generous pension plans, deferred compensation, fully-paid all-you-can-swallow medical and dental - everything befitting the media royalty. You can bet that "certain pipple" would be able to opt-out of contributing to this National Health Enslavement Pogram - those who are, let's say, "friendly" to the government.

How sweet it will be when this elitist gets knocked down a peg or three.

Michael

[Wright is right!]

"Seems to me the networks are making a very large percentage of their ad revenues from pharmaceuticals these days."

You, and at least ONE of them, NBC News, is not even being subtle about it. Here's the plan their Sales and News Departments came up with jointly:

Every weeknight barring extraordinary news emergencies, the NBC Nightly will air a "Lifeline" segment on health. This will be either a new story or one of dozens put "in the can" by Robert Bazell, the net's medical reporter. On either side of "Lifeline" are COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITIES, which are called "adjacencies." An adjacency avail is one that the station or network can sell at a premium price to advertisers who wish to be associated with it.

Thus, NBC Nightly has come up with a nice sales tool - which they use to lock pharmaceutical advertisers into 13-week-or-longer contracts. Every evening barring another 911, Lifeline runs, and on either side of it are pharmaceuticals out the gazotch...the same spots night after night. To cement in your mind the fact that this is a SALES TOOL and not a NEWS PRIORITY, watch what they cover each night for a month. See if ANY of the stories are actually NEWS - and see if any are actually TIMELY. Most will be canned pieces that literally could run ANYTIME. All will be done by Robert Bazell - whom Tom Brokaw calls Robert Bra-zell because of his speech impediment - the same impediment that makes him call attorneys "ROYERS." Notice, also, that all of Bazell's reports fit in exactly the same cookie-cutter format template.

Each one opens with a shot of some disease victim doing some activity that's a part of her/his life. Bazell names the person, and tells us the person's problem as other footage rolls. Then, the victim chimes in with an on-camera sound-byte. Next is a shot of a hostpital/lab doing some kind of work and Bazell's off-cam narration says "new hope is on the way." Then, cut to a shot of a researcher saying something on-camera. Finally, Bazell does a "stand-up" on the street somewhere to close out the report on-camera.

That's the template. He could do a dozen of them in one afternoon with breaks for martinis and canapes and still never break a sweat.

And THAT is the bait for the sale of these Lifeline adjacencies. And it works, too. Every last spot is sold out for entire quarters - in advance.

But the money isn't all the advertisers have to pony up. They also must contribute REFERENCES - patients whose ailments the drug company is trying to cure. If you ever wonder WHERE NBC News finds all these people so easily, wonder no more. The drug companies themselves provide the names and numbers to call. Need a patient with liver problemos? Here, call Sally at this number. They call Sally and do a story on "new miracle research" on liver failures. The story is so undated it could run anytime in the next 6 months.

And they think the Catholic Church has problems. This little charade has been going on at NBC for a couple of years now. Actually, I would have fewer problems with it if NBC would simply tell us HOW they found each "victim" and that pharmaceutical companies are sponsoring the shows "in part." But this disclosure is missing - and likely WILL be for as long as they use this sales tool.

Michael

[Wright is right!]

"Part of the criticism is going to be against Celebrex and Vioxx."

It ought to be. Celebrex was one factor in the development of my duodenal ulcer - almost killed me. And it wasn't all that great an arthritic pain reliever for me, either. It beat Aleve, but not by much.

Michael

[Black Agnes]

I fail to believe that NO MD's own ANY pharma company stocks. Who monitors what stocks MD's own?

[Wright is right!]

"I wonder if there will be one mention of the great monetary risk that drug companies assume during R&D. I doubt it."

(spelling corrected) If there IS a mention of this huge monetary backside, it will no doubt be couched in the terms that GOVERNMENT should guarantee this R&D funding. Government, as the Amurrican Pipple know, "has all the money in the world."

Michael

[Plutarch]

The thing to remember is that price controls cannot be instituted unless the industry being controlled is made out to be villians. Hit pieces are needed. It looks like the campaign has begun.

[laredo44]

More money is spent on prescription drugs in America than in any other country in the world.

What in the world does this mean? America is the world's richest country. I'll bet we lead the world in spending on a variety things. Will Peter bring things down to a per capita basis for comparison? If so, and we still lead, does than mean we spend too much or other countries spend too little?

Peter doesn't have the neural horsepower to answer the last question.

[DaRocksMom]

Good reply :>) I have to admit that this subject might be of some interest. I am curious how it will play out. After all the pharmas own the whole now!

[GulliverSwift]

Where did you get this from? I'd like to see more on this.

[Denver Ditdat]

If I wanted any sh*t out of Peter Jennings...

I would squeeze his head!!

The version I heard:

If I wanted any sh*t from Peter Jennings...

I'd scrape it off Dan Rather's ****!

[Zansman]

The practice you describe is illegal under the Stark rules. Even I, as an administrator - not a clinician - am not allowed to invest in medically related companies.

You are joking about this , right? If you are trying to say it is illegal for a doctor or any medical professional to own stock in medical/pharmaceutical companies, you SERIOUSLY need to do some better research.

Practically every doctor I know (which as a pharma rep is a considerable number) has a significant percentage of their portfolios in these stocks.

If you mean it is UNETHICAL for a physician to prescribe a product simply because he/she owns that company's stock, I agree completely.

[tcostell]

You're right about Jennings, but I'm betting it's another socialized medicine argument.

[Nitro]

Obviously I got to Peter before you got to Dan!!