The American Spectator

The Public Policy

(Page 2 of 2)

br> /p>

...as [Merrill] Goozner and other industry critics have shown, the most important basic medical and scientific research that leads to major medical breakthroughs usually takes place under government auspices -- typically, through grants from the National Institutes of Health. In other words, taxpayers -- not drug companies -- are the ones financing the most important drug research today. So, even if the pharmaceutical industry did reduce its research and development investment because of declining revenues, what we'd lose probably wouldn't be the next cure for cancer -- it would be the next treatment for seasonal allergies, and likely no better than the ones we have already.

br> Goozner's book, The $800 Million Pill , is not a systematic study of the interaction of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and pharmaceutical companies, but rather a string of anecdotes. Some of those anecdotes downplay the importance of pharmaceutical companies. Consider his account of a drug compound known as STI-571, which later became Gleevec -- a revolutionary treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. Groozner focuses almost entirely on the efforts of university researcher Brian Druker, who pushed the maker of STI-571, Novartis, to test the drug on chronic myeloid leukemia. Indeed, without Druker's indefatigable efforts, Novartis may never have tested STI-571 on leukemia. Omitted, however, is the fact that Novartis spent years developing STI-571, albeit in an effort to treat other kinds of cancers. What are the chances that Novartis wouldn't have bothered to invest in STI-571 if it had had a small R&D budget? Thankfully, we'll never know.

Furthermore, a systematic study conducted by the NIH suggests that the NIH's role is not as large as Cohn suggests it is. The NIH funds a lot of "basic research," and the study noted that "technologies developed in basic research laboratories are nascent, requiring extensive further development." It is the pharmaceutical companies that fund that further development. The study also examined pharmaceuticals that had at least $500 million in sales in the U.S. Of the 47 drugs that met that standard, the NIH determined that it had involvement in only four of them. The other 43 included drugs for bacterial infections, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol and Hepatitis C -- hardly mere "treatments for seasonal allergies."

There is an arrogance, albeit a subtle one, in articles like Cohn's. It's the belief that government bureaucrats and medical experts are well suited to decide which drugs are best for millions of patients. Decisions on medical treatment, however, are best left to a patient and his or her doctor. The evidence shows that the last thing we need is the heavy hand of government getting involved in those decisions. Letting Medicare set drug prices is a big step in that direction.

David Hogberg is a senior analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. He also hosts his own website, Hog Haven.

topics:
Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Medicaid, Law, Medicare