Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

New Health Legislation Could Limit Your Doctor's Ability to Write Prescriptions

By Linda Franklin, AlterNet. Posted May 17, 2007.


Ted Kennedy's proposed Safe Drug Compounding Act would encourage one-size-fits-all medicine, putting profits before people.
Advertisement

I was 49 when the effects of menopause hit. At the time I was running an arbitrage department at a Wall Street Investment firm enjoying a dream career. And then it all changed. Menopause, with all its ensuing hormonal shifts, not only impacted me physically -- the hot flashes, the sleepless nights -- but emotionally as well. My mood swings were so difficult and all of a sudden I started to question my own abilities.

My initial interactions with doctors weren't helpful. I heard anything from take a Prempro (a synthetic hormone) and you'll be fine, to this is what happens at your age: Live with it. But I'm a woman who likes to do her own research and no matter what doctors said, I knew there had to be a better way to navigate the changes. I began to find out everything I could about hormone replacement therapy. That led me to bioidentical hormones.

Bioidentical hormones are manufactured to have the same molecular structure as the hormones made by your own body. By contrast, synthetic hormones are intentionally different. Drug companies can't patent a bioidentical structure, so they invent synthetic hormones that are patentable (Premarin, Prempro and Provera being the most widely used examples). Once I started to take them, my life felt familiar. I felt like me again. Now Sen. Ted Kennedy is proposing legislation that, if successful, could very well disrupt the balance I and so many others have worked so hard to create.

While it hasn't yet come to the floor of the Senate, Kennedy has proposed the Safe Drug Compounding Act of 2007. The bill would allow the FDA to monitor your doctor and pharmacist, and decide when -- or if -- they can provide their patients with medications that they both know determine quality of life.

What's at issue are compounded pharmaceuticals like bioidentical hormones. Simply put, compounded pharmaceuticals means that rather than be given a one-size-fits-all medication that I have to cross my fingers and hope works, my doctor prescribes medications to the exact dosage my body requires. Without that precision, I know that the quality of my life would not be nearly as good.

And the same is true for all the AIDS patients, autistic patients and others who depend on a doctor prescribing medications that fit a body's unique chemical makeup. Of all the problems with our healthcare system, why Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., wants to tinker with this literally life-saving provision is mind-boggling.

Proponents of the bill would argue that what they're doing is protecting patients by allowing the FDA to be the watchdog that determines the benchmarks of safety. They are saying because there are so many compounding pharmacies, patients can't be sure they are getting exactly the right dosages. They are also concerned about the sterility of facilities.

But the real reason this bill is being pushed is that big pharmaceutical companies lose profit when they can't mass produce a drug. Like the difference between a dress that's made to order and a dress that's off the rack, it's easier to mass produce a drug -- guesstimating that most people will need about this dosage -- rather than tailoring each prescription to the patient. But unlike a poorly fitting dress that you need to have taken in or up, improperly offered meds can cost a person the quality of their her or his life, or worse.

Why does this matter so much? In my case, I am one of over 40 million women between the ages of 40 and 60 in the United States. About 25 million women worldwide enter menopause annually. It is estimated that by the year 2030, that number will increase to 47 million women per year. Hormone depletion leads to diseases of aging -- type I diabetes, heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and reduction in brain function. This needs to be addressed so that boomers can age healthfully. And bio-identical hormones -- compounded pharmaceuticals -- is the best and most current weapon we have available to us.

If we added all the people who are living with HIV/AIDS, the hospice patients, infants and young children with conditions like gastroesophageal reflex disease (GERD) and people who are extremely allergic or sensitive to fillers, dyes and additives in medicines, the numbers of people who stand to be hurt by this bill is staggering. All because it reduces profit margins.

Time and again, we've seen where pharmaceuticals have chosen profits over people. Time and again, we've seen medications rushed to market -- medications, which by the way, were FDA approved -- only to have them called back when people died. It seems to me that both entities need to focus their energy on shoring up their own internal processes so that they do a better job of reducing morbidity, rather than potentially adding to, which is what passage of this bill could do.

We don't have to stand idly or quietly by. At very least, we can email and fax each of our senators and Congress members and ask them to oppose the Kennedy Drug Compounding Bill. (Go to www.projectfans.org to find your local representative's contact information).

If we all do all part we can protect our right to choose.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health, hormones, compounding pharmacies, bioidenticals

Linda Franklin is the founder and director of High Yield Living, a company that provides baby boomers the information and inspiration that helps them change how they're aging.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Senate and Big Pharma
Posted by: aussidawg on May 17, 2007 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, leave it up to our good senators to watch out for us. The senate already sold out to the big pharmaceutical corporations by forbiding the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries where even American made pharmeceuticals sell for up to 50% less. They also felt that big pharma is capable to police its own safety by allowing them a place in the FDA review process.

The senate has become a pharmeceutical company ho, and now, it appears that Ted Kennedy is expanding on that. It's time to let these folks know that they represent us, not the super deep pocket pharmaceutical industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Try Again... Posted by: aussidawg
» Third Strike... Posted by: aussidawg
There's a much more serious issue that is overlooked
Posted by: Ruby on May 17, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just the drugs to treat diseases which are made one size fits all. What about vaccines--the biggest scam of all? Talk about one size fits all. Children and others are slammed with dozens of these huge profit-makers and people are brainwashed into believing they're injecting these poisons and other disgusting ingredients (formaldehyde, aluminum, aborted-fetal tissues, mercury, antibiotics, etc.) in the name of good health.

It's great in theory to prevent disease by being exposed to a little of the virus but in practice, it's a huge killer and maimer of many, especially children. Don't believe it? Think vaccines are so great? Look at the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) site: http://www.medalerts.org/

Sickening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hormone therapy
Posted by: somegirl on May 17, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linda - you say:

"Hormone depletion leads to diseases of aging -- type I diabetes, heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and reduction in brain function. This needs to be addressed so that boomers can age healthfully. And bio-identical hormones -- compounded pharmaceuticals -- is the best and most current weapon we have available to us."

there are plenty of things wrong with this statement you slip in here - the jury is way out on this, and you state it as fact. glad they work for you, but you have no way of knowing what the long range will bring. it might be the most current weapon, but you're really going out on a limb claiming it's the best. and y'know, menopause isn't a disease, any more than pregnancy or menstruation are. jesus christ, aging leads to symptoms of aging!

hae you tried chinese patent medicines for your symptoms? they're cheap, easy to obtain, lacking in side effects, and millions of women find they eradicate most or all of their symptoms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Menopause by culture
Posted by: Gravitas on May 17, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that in cultures that don't expect severe symptoms of menopause, they don't occur as frequently. This author MAY have a point about this bill, but I distrust her because she seems to be towing BigPhama's line about the need for hormone replacement. Interesting how breast cancer rates went down after more women stopped taking hrt. In Asia, where they eat more soy, there are less problems associated with this natural change in life. She is very much in the menopause as a disease paradigm. Well, maybe one's risk of disease increases because death is rather the point of life. Biologist tell us that if we wiped out cancer and heart disease, something else would come along in their place. As for me, I am 46 and it hasn't happened yet. When it does, I won't go near hormone replacement therapy. Not only do I have veggie preferences which means more soy, Mother Nature has blessed me with a time honored protection that has worked for centuries - fat!!!!!! (Which also means less risk of brittle bones). And if I get a heart attack (even though pear shaped women are at LOWER risk) OH Well! Not really such a bad way to go. It will save me from the heart break of watching the final death blows to American democracy and the environmental destruction of the planet. I am not sure I want to be a poor old woman on a very hot and chaotic planet anyway!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eat Your Spinach
Posted by: edith on May 17, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand and sympathize with thiis woman's plight but I don't know whether or not drug companies couldn't make money off boutique drugs with specific dosages. It seems to me they could set up subsidiaries with very nice profit margins based on the "custom" nature of the product.

What may be missed is that the FDA may have too much power even now when it chooses one approved medication over another medication that it may feel is not effective but doctors and patients nevertheless would wish to try. I realize an argument for freedom for the individual to decide whether to live or die is not popular among the health care bureaucracies that Kennedy, the President, the drug companies and the AARP all pay homage to. But if people desire to eat carrots to beat cancer, why not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MONITOR WHAT ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 17, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people can't keep track of canned tuna fish much less medication, a subject they know nothing about. The more monitors we have the more people we have who will 'know nothing' and 'forget everything' when something comes in to question. The author of the article worked on Wall St. The S.E.C. is not perfect but they sure gets everyone's attention.
That's what the entire health and medical care systems need. The S.E.C. not for sale. It works. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Big Pharma and its FDA shills have their way...
Posted by: Habaro on May 17, 2007 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...you'll need a prescription for carrots. Learn just how endangered your right to choose what you put into your own body is:

http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/nocodexgenocide.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Daddy Knows Best Posted by: edith
Kennedy's Safe Drug Compounding Act of 2007
Posted by: jjdoggie on May 17, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that it's a bad bill, and I have been emailing and calling my representatives since before 1082 (FDA and Big Pharma) was passed (only Bernie Sanders against it). ARE YOU? It's one thing to spit out your ire against these travesties, but also, be a citizen and speak out to the people voting on these things. Our combined voices make a difference. And, no, I'm not some wide-eyed pie-in-the-sky optimist, who doesn't understand how hard it is to get things done -- but if you don't try to change the system, it won't be changed by those in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There was a time.....
Posted by: gellero on May 17, 2007 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bills before Congress had a number, rather than a propagandistic title. Why do Progressives accept this propaganda when it suits their purposes??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HRT and Breast Cancer
Posted by: brusskie on May 18, 2007 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Linda stated:

" But I'm a woman who likes to do her own research and no matter what doctors said, I knew there had to be a better way to navigate the changes. I began to find out everything I could about hormone replacement therapy. That led me to bioidentical hormones.

Bioidentical hormones are manufactured to have the same molecular structure as the hormones made by your own body. By contrast, synthetic hormones are intentionally different. Drug companies can't patent a bioidentical structure, so they invent synthetic hormones that are patentable (Premarin, Prempro and Provera being the most widely used examples). Once I started to take them, my life felt familiar. I felt like me again. Now Sen. Ted Kennedy is proposing legislation that, if successful, could very well disrupt the balance I and so many others have worked so hard to create. "

Linda, at the age of 48 I started taking HRT. Before doing so I conducted extensive research and thought bio-identical hormones would be the best thing for me. 4 1/2 years later I was diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. This form of breast cancer is linked to HRT and there has been a 30% increase in this type of breast cancer since HRT presciptions dramatically increased with the aging of baby boomers. Lobular breast cancer prior to that time was considered a rarer form of breast cancer accounting for only 10 % of cases.

Even after I was diagnosed, the GYN who prescribed me the HRT insisted that these drugs posed no risk of breast cancer. She informed me that now that I could no longer take HRT I would be at risk for Alzheimers, heart disease, aging skin, etc.
I never went back to that fool of a doctor!

Two years after I was dx'd the Harvard Nurses Study came to an abrupt halt because of the increase in breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. This study was using Prempro but it has since come to be known that all types of HRT carry the same risk as Prempro.

If you have been following the news recently you should know that the 2004/2005 breast cancer diagnoses declined considerably in the two years following the release of the Harvard Nurses Study. The statistics for 2006 are not available yet.

Today I live in fear of a recurrence. I have lymphedema and severe atrophy of my chest and flank muscles due to radiation treatment.

Linda please consider what you are doing! I wouldn't wish what I have gone through on anyone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There should be no laws prohibiting ANY drug
Posted by: drblack on May 19, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans got along fine when they could access any medicine they wanted.
It has only been in the last 100 years that this changed.
Laws that prevent fraud are important but whatever someone wants to put in their body is their natural right.
The Founding fathers would be against drug prohibition.
People should educate themselves about their bodies and research anything they put in them.
Doctors can advise those who do not have the brain power to read and interpret information.
Passing laws prohibiting what people wants does not stop people from obtaining these things but it causes all sorts of other problems by creatingf blackmarkets.
For A safer Saner world Repeal drug prohibition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]