All the recent hand wringing over drug shortages comes down to one simple factor

Cutting it short

It’s like a seductive siren song.

You and I know better than to be suckered by a TV commercial for a blockbuster drug. But when you’re not on guard, that inevitable warm-n-cozy tone can pull you in for a moment and almost make you want to believe that a drug company cares deeply about your health.

But then reality snaps us back.

Yes, we’ve seen it all before, many times, and we know that drug company “caring” applies to popular name-brand drugs designed to be taken every day for the rest of your days.

And that’s the simple truth that lies at the core of the recent hand-wringing about drug shortages.

Shortages? In the land of Lilly, Merck and Pfizer? No.

The reality is that when it comes to drugs you only need for a short time — such as antibiotics or anesthesia or cancer drugs — all that feel-good, drug company “caring” drops off sharply.

This shortage of drugs we’re hearing about is actually a shortage of motivation.

No shortage of double talk

Blockbuster profits drive the drug industry, and if profits — measured in billions — aren’t there, the industry doesn’t budge. Most of the drugs that really are scarce could be produced in abundance tomorrow, but supplies dwindle when obscene profits aren’t in the picture.

Of course, our economy is built on laissez-faire capitalism. And I wouldn’t trade that for anything.

But it does mean that no one can MAKE a drug company’s executives produce what they don’t want to. Not surprisingly, that’s not stopping government from trying and from meeting with industry officials to talk and talk and talk.

Late last year, representatives from several professional health organizations, drug companies, the FDA, and the CDC met for a Drug Shortages Summit.

Here’s how the journal Oncology Times described the recommendations that came out of the summit: “…key among them were continued collaboration to explore strategies to improve communication among those in the pharmaceutical supply chain and health care providers.”

What does that even mean!?

They’re going to collaborate to explore strategies to improve communications? That sounds like a plan to set up a meeting to lay the groundwork for a planning meeting that will formalize the meeting parameters for a preliminarily meeting.

They might as well just come right out and say it: “We got nothing.”

Although Oncology Times adds that they’re also considering an idea to “remove barriers faced by FDA and drug manufacturers to minimize the impact of the shortages.”

You’ll never guess what the primary “barrier” is. It’s the ban on buying drugs from foreign countries. And if you’re sputtering in disbelief, I don’t blame you. Aren’t the drug manufacturers the ones that were erecting those very barriers when it was Lipitor and Viagra people wanted to buy from foreign lands? Suddenly, when the profits aren’t enough to bother protecting, it’s safe enough for us to buy from Canada or other countries?

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth (when you’re talking about what we need to talk about…)

Sources: 
“Drug Shortages Affect More Than Half A Million Cancer Patients” Scott Hensley, NPR, 11/15/11, npr.org

“Drug shortages on the rise” Rob Stein, Washington Post, 5/2/11, washingtonpost.com

“Critical Drug Shortages: Who’s Minding the Store?” Eric T. Rosenthal, Oncology Times, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2/25/11, journals.lww.com