Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Health & Wellness

Does America Have a Prescription Drug Problem?

By Doug Bremner, Huffington Post. Posted May 9, 2008.


Almost all of the chronic conditions for which pills are prescribed are preventable through changes in lifestyle, diet and exercise.
Advertisement

Half of all Americans take prescription medications. Eighty one percent take some type of pill. 100,000 die every year from a prescription med that they either didn't need or that was not properly prescribed. What is going on here?

While it's true that many drugs help people live longer and better lives, it is also true that they can have unintended side effects. Pharmaceutical and supplement manufacturers have to increase sales and profits, as all businesses must, and they do so in part by developing drugs to treat disease and also by convincing people they need meds to prevent disease or lessen the perceived risk of future illness. Marketing leads to efforts to promote the positive aspects of drugs, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging the negatives. Study results are extracted to different groups, e.g. lipid lowering drugs like Lipitor are promoted for women based on studies in men. This relentless drive means that prescription meds are promoted for more and more people. Do all these people really need to be taking prescription medications?

If you followed the US guidelines, half of all men (based on their LDL cholesterol levels) would be on a statin drug like Lipitor. Half of women over age 72 would be on a bisphosphonate drug like Fosamax or Boniva, for prevention of osteoporotic fracture. And half of women over age 50 would be diagnosed with "osteopenia" and advised to "talk to their doctor" (presumably about taking a pill to prevent osteoporosis). And if you followed the USDA guidelines for minimal intake of vitamins and minerals, all of us would be on a multivitamin. More recommendations... Everyone take an aspirin and fish oil supplement to prevent heart disease, all women should take calcium, etc etc.

Have we gone nuts?

A factor that has expanded use of prescription medications happened in 1997, when the FDA lifted the ban on direct to consumer advertising along with the law that required ads to list every possible side effect. Soon after, Americans were bombarded daily with commercials for prescription drugs. The US is the only country in the world where you can turn on the TV and have an announcer tell you to go 'ask your doctor' for a drug.

Doctors often will give medications to patients even if they don't think they need it. For example, one study showed that 54% of the time doctors will prescribe a specific brand and type of medication if patients ask for it. Drug companies also buy information about the medications that doctors prescribe from major chain drug stores like CVS, and then use this information to reward doctors who prescribe their drugs frequently. Research studies show that this can influence behavior, like how often a doctor will try to have a drug from that particular company put on his hospital's formulary.

Expert guidelines promoting the use of prescription medication can also drive prescription behavior, because doctors feel like they need to be following the guidelines to adhere to accepted standards of care.

In 2005 in the aftermath of the Vioxx debacle and withdrawal from the market, Janet Woodcock, Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the FDA, said that the nation's drug safety system had, "pretty much broken down." She charged that neither doctors nor patients had enough information about the side effects of drugs to make informed decisions about taking them. Dr. Woodcock went on to say that, "the bottom line is that a lot of drug safety problems are actually preventable, [because] most adverse events are from known side effects."

I'm not saying that some drugs don't ever successfully prevent disease, or that newly described diseases and syndromes are necessarily invalid. But the fact is that no matter how you look at it, the US (and to a lesser extent other countries) has a prescription drug problem. The US spends two times more on drugs, and takes twice as many drugs, as other countries, and has worse health. In fact, we have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the industrialized world, including total life expectancy, and survival of children to their 5th birthday. In a survey of 13 industrialized nations, the US was found to be last in many health-related measures, and overall was 2nd to the last. Even England, which has higher rates of smoking and drinking and a fattier diet, has better health than the US.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nutrition, supplements, vitamins, big pharma, prescription medication, prescription pills

Doug Bremner MD is author of 'Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May be Bad for Your Health: Risks and Side Effects You Won't Find on the Label of Commonly Prescribed Drugs, Vitamins and Supplements'.

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


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:
Rainbow
Posted by: irisgray on May 9, 2008 3:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, of course, my diabetes does not need to be treated. I don't need insulin shots four times a day. I should have just lost weight and exercised and ate healthy food -- regardless of the fact that I was actually so skinny when I was diagnosed that I resembled a famine victim.

The prescription drug companies have just brainwashed me! And asthma? Oh, forget it. I should have prevented it with changes in my lifestyle and diet, never mind that it's genetic and everyone in my family has it.

No, of course my acid reflux problems don't need drugs. I can just stop eating altogether and develop esophogeal cancer as a result of the acid eating away at my windpipe.

And of course, depression never, ever, needs to be treated. Ever. Just let the depressed people kill themselves; then they'll stop being a burden on the health care system, like all of the other people with imaginary illnesses.

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

» RE: ainbow Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: ainbow Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
» RE: ainbow Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
» RE: ainbow Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» The Question is Why Posted by: FoonTheElder
concerneddoctor
Posted by: wcox on May 12, 2008 5:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As in many opinions, there is a little truth, a little over simplifycation and a litte exaggeration in this article. I am an MD and am not an apologist for the behavior of other MDs or the drug companies. Many diseases occure more commonly as we age and our population is aging at a record rate. Many diseases are preventable or treatable by means other than drugs. Many children are victims or their environment and lack of affordable health care and maintenance and therefore develope diseases that are no fault of their own. I don't know or care what the AMA says about anything, but people should be evaluated for diseases that can and should be treated and prevented such as high blood pressure, cervical cancer, colon cancer, glaucoma, diabetes and I could go on and on. To be evaluated for these and other conditions that may be asymtomatic requires a visit to a doctor. Just because there may be no current evidence for a better outcome with visits doesn't mean there is no better outcome for these visits. It just means no one has the evidence for it yet. I personally doubt that what the author states about this is true. But, screening and detection of the diseases I mentioned above does save lives and improves health. Some of these disease must be treated and many times that means medication prescribed by a competent physician and filled by a competent pharmacist. We need more education on how to prevent disease and more screening for disease and then appropriate treatment with a combination of education and medications when necessary. The patient in the first commentary has a point.

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

» RE: concerneddoctor Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
anti-medicine articles
Posted by: jane.christ@bluewin.ch on May 12, 2008 11:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have really a bias against medicine and are exceptionally uninformed.If the political articles are just as poorly based,there is no need to continue to subscribe to your newsletter.It amounts to propaganda for the uninformed.We get enough of that from the Bush administration.

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

» RE: anti-medicine articles Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
Screening is not case finding
Posted by: kilgor on May 13, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article notes that..."you shouldn't go to the doctor if you are not sick and have no risk factors for disease? Who says that? The American Medical Association! Why? Because there isn't any evidence that screening for disease really improves health outcomes." That is not true. The author confuses screening with periodic health check ups. The Canadian Task force On The Periodic Health Exam has a blueprint of various periodic health exams for different age groups along with the strength of the evidence supporting the benefits of the various health exams. Screening may be defined as an activity that is conducted on a large group of apparently healthy people in an effort to find undiagnosed disease. This is not the same as a periodic health exam that is tailored to a speciifc age group and is done in a physicians office with evidence that the intervention has a benefit.

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

» RE: Screening is not case finding Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
Simple answers cloud the real problems
Posted by: Jim Swanson on May 13, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors are so obsessed with finding demons they ignore the real causes of American's serious health deficiencies. There is an inequality in access to, and utilization of, health care, with some of the population receiving too much medical attention, a lot of which is not necessary or even healthy, and the denial of health care and prevention to the poor.
In order for us to raise our health status to that of Canada and Europe we must provide adequate nutrition, medical screening, and pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, and early childhood assistance to all poor people in this country.

This is the real issue, not demonizing doctors and big pharma. The best schools in the world cannot remediate the harms inflicted by poor nutrition and medical care during the earliest stages of life.

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

» RE: Simple answers cloud the real problems Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner
a poisoned culture
Posted by: mont on May 13, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How anyone could justify the advertising promoted by drug companies is utterly beyond me. Food that is full of pesticides and doctors who usually outright ignore even elemental nutrition. We are what we eat. Genetics play a role but our continual drop in health is not due to genetics but obvious pollution. We are not alone. India will account for half of world wide heart disease very shortly. Eat out of your gardens and otherwise make sure your ground beef isn't from a sick cow. Doctors treat diabetes and other life style diseases but do not prevent it. Prevent in the sense of utilizing knowledge and not propaganda. Fall into the clutches of doctors and watch the prescription to prevent the the prescription flourish.

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

Waldmeister
Posted by: Nasookin on May 13, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2003 Health Canada (equivalent to the US FDA) attacked a group of mentally ill patients and the company who supported them with a multi vitamin product.

Health Canada forced the University of Calgary to stop a clinical trial of this natural therapy funded by the Government of Alberta. When fifty dollars worth of vitamins per month replaces anti psychotics worth $1,200 a month and eliminates bi polar disorder in the process, Big Pharma is worried and so are the regulators who suppress the truth.

When nine women (The Red Umbrellas) approached Ann McLelland (the then Canadian federal health minister, former Minister of Justice and a law professor) to plead their right to access the food supplement in question, McLelland viciously labeled these mild mannered ladies as "terrorists."

Why are anti vitamin stories (unsupported by documentation) now appearing simultaneous in the media as if like magic? Where are the garage full of bodies vitamins (and other dietary supplements) that certain medical and nutrition writers - using weasel words like "may" or "might" - and by definition insinuate they exist ?

The company (Truehope) reported that they lost contact with more than 300 of their Canadian participants. The Canadian Mental Health Association told of suicides as a result of government action. Health Canada then charged the not for profit company.

Truehope was found innocent by necessity by the Alberta High Court and instructed by the judge to continue to supply the supplement under legal and moral responsibility.

The agents admitted knowing they were injuring people through their actions. Under oath they stated they care only about policy and directive. In the months and years following, reports of hospitalizations and suicides during the seizures have surfaced. No Health Canada agent has ever been charged.

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

Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: jamesdouglasbremner on May 13, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK I guess I wasn't clear, I was referring to the annual checkup. Most people (including doctors, me included before I wrote my book) don't know that the annual checkup is not evidence based. You can read for yourself here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15983282

That said, I am not saying that periodic screenings are not needed or useful.

And I am not saying that medications are never needed. And I do outline screening for cervical cancer, breast cancer, etc in my book.

And I am not anti-doctor. I am a doctor and most of my friends are doctors, and mostly they aren't happy with American healthcare.

As for vitamins, I wrote more about that today on my blog for anyone interested
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/blog.html

Doug Bremner MD

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

yes.
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 21, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
next question?

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

Corporate Pharma Treats The Symptoms, Ignores Causes
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Jun 7, 2008 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of most modern drug manufacturers is to treat the symptoms of chronic diseases with expensive drugs but not cure the disease. That way they continue to gouge big profits from their patent monopolies.

The drug research is not made to cure diseases, but rather to develop reverse engineered copycat drugs that largely do the same thing as cheaper drugs already on the market. That way they can extend their ability to cash out on new drugs that are little different than ones already on the market.

Look at ulcers. It took a decade to get modern medicine to believe that a germ caused ulcers. Leading the non-believers were the drug companies who were busy pushing expensive acid reducers, when all that was really needed was a short course of antibiotics.

The same thing goes for many chronic diseases. The research goes into expensive blockbuster drugs that help symptoms and thus are used for years at a big profit for drug companies. The research a drug companies rarely goes to cure a problem, because once that is done there is no reason to buy the drug any longer.

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

Blaming disease on the victim?
Posted by: luzmejor on Jun 8, 2008 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the good doctor can tell us how to change the entire environment of the US and other industrial countries, perhaps he might be proved correct.

But we would need to reorganize our nation and get rid of autos, airplanes, heavy machines and all the pollution and stress that comes with them.

We would need to reduce our population by two thirds, create small self-sustaining communities and go back to growing our own food and making our own clothing. We would need to use solar and other kinds of heating and cooling for our homes.

I guess we would need to live like the Amish and the Quakers did. We definitely would not be able to make or use any kind of military weapons, because people who think they may be blown up at any time are bound to be victims of stress, which is also triggered by the overcrowding we experience every day.

Perhaps we would need to control our own fertility.

All of our money would need to go into medical and peace research instead. I'm all for that!

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