This coverage is summarized in "Companies under Watch," page 34.
This year's media coverage put emphasis where it needed to be: squarely on drug safety. More than half (79 of 147) of the
articles addressed that topic. While some offered residual coverage about Vioxx, the majority drew attention to newly emerging
safety issues, such as those related to the heparin supply. Furthermore, most of the 43 articles about FDA concerned the agency's
ability to safeguard drugs. This means a full 83 percent (112 of 147) of press coverage in 2008 was directed to safety concerns.
Restoring confidence in the safety of drugs is paramount for industry. Under the leadership of Acting Commissioner Frank Torti,
FDA seems poised to continue Andrew Von Eschenbach's emphasis on drug safety. A key question is whether FDA will get a budget
that enables a greater separation from industry's funding of approval evaluations under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA). The recent expansion of PDUFA introduces goals to prevent look-alike and sound-alike proprietary names, as well as
unclear label abbreviations and acronyms. Given FDA's limited resources, this has the potential to dilute their attention
in areas crucial to drug safety, such as companies' production processes and ingredient suppliers.
This year's audit offers a perspective on the way different newspapers cover the industry. As mentioned earlier, The New York Times is clearly the most negative toward pharma, followed by USA Today. That being said, the negativity is often warranted, such as the coverage of overpromoted cholesterol drugs (New York Times, April 2, 2008). Furthermore, our data indicate the media at least mentioned the industry's position in every negative article
of the last two years.
Given the changing times, no analysis would be complete without discussing the impact of healthcare reform on the pharmaceutical
industry. In parallel with President Obama's work on the economy and foreign policy, proposed reforms for US healthcare are
clearly topping the agenda. First, take Medicare Part D. Here, two options have important implications for pharma. One is
closing the infamous doughnut hole. While such a measure would be popular with enrollees and a potential source of increased
drug sales, its projected cost is about $300 billion over 10 years—suggesting that the hole may be made smaller but not necessarily
close altogether. Second, Medicare may need the latitude to negotiate drug prices directly with pharma companies instead of
allowing insurers to negotiate separately with pharma companies. Wal-Mart charges $4 for about 500 different drugs, and is
making money on their pharmacy sales. Adjusting Medicare to conduct direct negotiations with pharmaceutical manufacturers
would be more complex than Wal-Mart's negotiations with its pharma suppliers, but it could be done.
In both situations, Big Pharma would bear a substantial portion of the cost of these changes through lower negotiated drug
prices. This means, as an industry, pharma would have to learn to operate on lower profits—a behavior not inconsistent with
indicators in this business environment. While this may be challenging for the development of innovative new medicines, it
may also help to reduce negative media attention, especially about drug pricing, and to avoid further governmental regulation
such as price controls.
Along that line, the life sciences industry continues to make significant efforts to police itself, such as the introduction
of more stringent PhRMA guidelines in January 2009. However, Eli Lilly's recent $1.4 billion fine for off-label promotion
of Zyprexa isn't the way to convince the stakeholders concerned about healthcare in the United States. More about this in
next year's pharmaceutical media audit.
Stephen J. Porth is an associate dean and a fellow and professor for the Arrupe Center for Business Ethics at Saint Joseph's University. He
can be reached at email@example.com
. George P. Sillup is an Arrupe Fellow and an assistant professor at Saint Joseph's University. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
. Cynthia Slater, Molly Porth, Leanna Baselice, and Courtney Scardellette also contributed to this research.