The Twisted Nature of Pharmaceutical Companies

You feel weak, you’re feverish, shaky, have a headache, and suddenly find out that the price of the only treatment for the disease that ails you has increased 60-fold.Then you find out that this practice is common throughout the pharmaceutical industry. It should be illegal for pharmaceutical companies to increase the price of a drug that much, and there should be ways to receive the same drugs for lower prices.

Toxoplasmosis presents flu-like symptoms in most individuals; if you are a healthy individual you will most likely be okay, but if you are one of about 35 million people living with HIV/AIDS you face severe risks from toxoplasmosis. And if you are pregnant, your baby has huge health risks to face, if it survives.

When news broke that Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of the life-saving drug, Daraprim, from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, there was mass outrage. Many people were shocked that Shkreli was even able to pull off such a large increase. Those that needed the drug the most though were devastated.

Turing Pharmaceuticals, the producer of Daraprim, has faced very little legal backlash in regards to raising the price. Shkreli, however, was recently arrested on securities fraud. When asked why he raised the price of the drug, Shkreli said that he had to turn a profit for the shareholders, it was his job as CEO, and anyways, the drug was still underpriced relative to its peers. Politifact checked the claim Shkreli made about pricing and discovered that it was false. Daraprim was a generic drug that was created 70 years before being bought by Turing Pharmaceuticals. The drugs that Martin Shkreli compared it to are cancer drugs that have an enormous amount of research put into them by the companies that are actually selling them.

Daraprim is a 70 year old generic drug that Turing Pharmaceuticals bought recently before driving the price up. It treats toxoplasmosis, an infection which most commonly affects AIDS patients. After the price hike, most people could no longer afford the medication, and their insurance would no longer cover it.

Not only are the prices exorbitant, most people with toxoplasmosis are already suffering from AIDS or other immune disorders and have to pay for various other medications and treatments. It’s unfair to those suffering to make prices so high just to turn a profit. Most people cannot afford to pay $700 a day in order to treat a disease. Toxoplasmosis takes about 3 weeks of taking Daraprim to go away, making the total cost over $14500. If insurance is not covering the medication, patients may lose a quarter of their annual salary (assuming they make the national average of $53,000 per year). That’s unreasonable to ask of someone, especially if they support a family or are paying other medical bills. It should not have to be a choice between a life-saving medication and eating or supporting a family or buying a different life-saving medication.

While Martin Shkreli isn’t the only pharmaceutical CEO to raise their prices, he is the most well-known. In fact, most drug prices are inflated tremendously. As the former US Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said, “It would be a huge mistake to say he [Shkreli] is unusually bad, he may be front of the line, but there’s certainly lots of others who are now in the sights”. The committee plans to look into four pharmaceutical companies, including Turing and another formerly owned by Shkreli.

 

 

Companies should not have the ability to skyrocket prices like they have been doing, but it’s also nearly impossible to prevent them from doing so, since, shouldn’t companies be able to do what they want? Corporations do count as individuals under the law. Unless the government finds a constitutional way of preventing price-gauging, there may not be many options.

But this whole situation raises the question; why should those most in need of these medications be flung aside like they don’t matter? While Daraprim treats toxoplasmosis, there are drugs that heart disease and hormone deficiencies that have also had their prices raise tremendously. No one company should be allowed to hinder patients from being able to afford their health.

Pharmaceutical companies must constantly make the decision between saving lives and making profits, a fact that Martin Shkreli brought to light. The Biotech industry is well known in the equity world because it has such high returns on investment. The shareholders of pharmaceutical companies know that they are going to receive large returns on their money as well. And really, how can a business expect to be successful if they can’t make money for their shareholders? The whole situation is convoluted.

There are not many solutions to this problem, companies need to make money, and people need pharmaceuticals. A large reason this industry can get away with price-gauging is drug prices are fairly inelastic. If the company owns the only patent for a compound, and the medication is imperative to stop a life-threatening disease, people will have no choice but to pay the higher price. It may be morally wrong to raise prices, but economically, Martin Shkreli and his peers are working the system to great advantage.

Two companies trying to bring competition into the market for Daraprim are Express Scripts and Imprimis. Imprimis recently acquired the rights to Daraprim from GlaxoSmithKline, the original maker of Daraprim. Together, the two companies are rolling out a $1 per pill alternative so that patients only have to pay about $21 for their full dosage.

Industry-wide solutions are even harder to come by than those for Daraprim. One option is to make all pharmaceutical companies private rather than public, however they would still have shareholders, and they would still need profits in order to function as a company. There could also be rulings passed by the government similar to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which would make such large monopolies for generic drugs illegal altogether. Since the patents for generic drugs have expired, there should be no issues with breaking up these kinds of monopolies.

Another possible solution is to introduce free health care. Countries with free health care already have very low drug prices, because the government subsidizes the costs for the companies. This allows the companies to still have funds, but it also allows for patients to afford their medication.

This does come with its own limitations though; many countries are less willing to introduce new drugs to the market due to the high cost of subsidizing them. Often the care is also worse in countries with free health care, and individuals find themselves using private health care anyways. One example of this is in Uganda, where only 30% of citizens use the free health care, the rest opt for their private health care, citing poor service by doctors and drug stock-outs for their decision.

If it is impossible to find another solution, there should be ways to make free health care possible, or find some other way to subsidize the companies, so that individuals don’t have to worry about whether or not they can actually afford the medicines they need to survive.

There should be no reason for those in need to suffer while CEOs fatten their wallets and pad those of their shareholders. It should be absolutely illegal for companies to raise their prices so rapidly, and if there is no constitutional solution, we must turn to other options like free healthcare.

Reflection:

1. The title and lede catch the reader’s attention, the title and subtitle give insight into what the article is about, while still having a thoughtful approach. The lede really draws the reader in though by invoking a personal element to the piece.
2. The introduction almost immediately locates the problem, within the first few sentences I introduce the idea of needing a lifesaving drug but not being able to afford it. I then go into the background of the controversy surrounding Martin Shkreli and price-gauging in the pharmaceutical industry.
3. I talk about how it should be illegal for companies to raise the prices so much, and if there isn’t a way to do that, there should be other options. I show this with my data and analysis of that data, and use previous research to lend more credibility and opinions to my argument.
4. I clearly present all of my facts in a straightforward manner, then within the facts I insert my own opinions. My presentation is unique because of the graphics I use, and the wording I use within my article.
5. I made sure to explain all of my points, and added facts and statistics to back them up. I also added historical instance of legislature passed to make monopolies illegal. I don’t think that readers would be able to argue the facts that I am using, they would only be able to argue my opinion. I organize all of my statistics and facts well, and they back up the opinions I present.
6. I clearly researched the controversy, then once I decided on my stance, I used research I found to back up my stance even more. I made sure to push how important the argument is by constantly bringing it back to those who are suffering.
7. I have more than 6 secondary sources, 3 visual sources, and at least 1 primary source (I think I actually have 2). I have multiple scholarly sources, and I also pulled various statistics into my research as well.
8. Most of my research is paraphrased, in the cases I did use quotes I introduced the speaker and then added in the quotes.
9. I use ethos logos and pathos well in my piece. I established my credibility by including my research and my character by showing that I believe that this morally wrong deed is in fact wrong. I used pathos by constantly bringing up the idea that people are suffering for the profits of these companies, and used this to play on the emotions of my readers. I used logos similar to how I used ethos by showing my research and the logical idea that this is wrong.
10. I used very appropriate visuals, my first introduces the topic and draws in the readers, that’s the one of pills on top of money, the others are also very appropriate and revealing; they are actual visuals of some of the prices hikes made in the industry. If the visuals were not there, I don’t think the article would hit as hard, because you can’t see how insanely steep the price raising is.
11. I definitely came far with the different critiques, I feel like I finally developed a good claim by the final draft. I also had more to talk about than I originally thought. My paper and most of my drafts were shorter than they were supposed to be, but I feel like they got to the point effectively and if I had added more to them, they wouldn’t be as effective.
12. I made sure to cite all of my sources using hyperlinks, I believe that they were effective, but I didn’t always know the right place to put them, I just kind of put them where I felt they belonged. It was difficult to find the exact right spot for them since I paraphrased so much, but I feel they were appropriate in their positions.
13. I made sure to edit multiple times, and use words and grammar that would lend to my credibility as a writer. I believe that my overall presentation is that of a New York Times Magazine article.

Pierce Noonan

4/18/16

Unit III Final Draft

WRT 205, Amy Barone

PTSD: The One Thing Veterans Don’t Deserve

While many veterans get the medical treatment they deserve, too many are not obtaining the same help they need to ease their transition back into the world they once knew. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, known as PTSD, is keeping these soldiers from returning not only physically but mentally as well, and we need to do more about that. Veterans who go through hell for our country and serve to protect us need assurance to come home to a safe and normal lifestyle. Yeah of course many veterans are being helped with the use of service dogs, medical marijuana and even medically induced therapies with the help of professionals and other organizations but not enough are being saved.

11-20 out of every 100 American soldiers are experiencing PTSD from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). From the Gulf War (Desert Storm), about 12 out of every 100 veterans have PTSD in a given year. These American’s whom risked their lives for us to protect us from the people who took down our towers in New York City deserve more. They protect us from the bombers and shooters in San Bernardino, California and they deserve more.  These soldiers deserve everything they don’t receive, and that is the removal of PTSD after returning home.

Most people know others who have either went to war and returned or are currently mid-tour. Don’t you want them to get the help they need when the time comes? I don’t want my loved ones feeling fear, anger, or depression every day of their lives and neither do any of you. There can’t be people in this country who lose limbs and get shot at for our country with these feelings because of PTSD. No veteran should feel guilty, shameful or confused because of the trauma they have witnessed.

PTSD not only disturbs the veteran who experienced amounts of trauma overseas, but it effects the family of the returned soldier. From a military article, “One Person’s PTSD Can Affect a Whole Family,” writer and spouse of a twelve year military veteran, Andrea Carlile, says “Family members of people with PTSD can suffer from secondary stress and experience some of the same debilitating effects of PTSD.” From the depression and anxiety along with the substance abuse and violence; this is not something you want to experience after missing your loved one for such a long time while he/she was away.

Think about it.

A New York Times article written by former soldier Christopher Drew, “Reporter’s Notebook: Navy SEAL Commander’s Suicide,” says Commander Job W. Price had committed suicide during a deployment in late 2012. Times reporters had “learned more about the stresses on elite Special Operations troops, the stigma that many have felt about seeking help for mental health issues.” In this situation, the military is currently trying to change ways they can help other soldiers. However the Commander did not get the help he needed and the result was fatal. Veterans make up 7 percent of the American population. These veterans account for 20 percent of our populations suicides.

What can we do to help that isn’t already being done? Clearly a lot.

Former Marine Infantry Officer David J. Morris and writer of New York Times article, “After PTSD, More Trauma,” experienced PTSD. He also experienced trying to get help from the Veterans Affairs. Explaining in his article he admits that, “going in for therapy at a Veterans Affairs hospital is a lot like arriving at a large airport in a foreign country.” He then went on to say his first session started with a graduate student therapist finishing up his doctorate in clinical psychology offering him in some way, an apology. The apology was to make David J. Morris informed about the fact that he will probably make mistakes and say stupid things… After reading that my jaw dropped, honestly!

Now why is it alright for our veterans looking for help to be helped by someone who admits he will in fact make mistakes during the therapy sessions? Sounds extreme to me. Why not a professional doctor that knows exactly how to help these ‘patients?’ Especially from the Veterans Affairs who are supposed to be one of, if not the best and largest organization trying to help these PTSD acquired veterans.

Back to Mr. Morris’ article, he writes, “but after a month of therapy, I began to have problems.” Therapy is supposed to help these veterans not make them have problems; Nausea, sleepless nights, losing focus. David Morris acquired all of these symptoms and he even stabbed his cellphone with a stainless steel knife until the blade was at 90 degrees after it failed to dial a simple phone call.

From the research I’ve been doing, I found on a ProQuest Central database that Apollo Applied Research is launching the largest medical cannabis study on how medical marijuana impacts the reduction of PTSD effects on veterans and first responders. Based on the article found on this database, Apollo Applied Research “currently prescribes medical cannabis for patients diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has seen its benefits as a viable treatment option.” For this medical research operation, in Canada, this is a big success. How come not in America?

Okay now picture this fight: The State of Colorado vs. US Veterans.

We might get to witness that as Veterans are launching a lawsuit against Colorado to access medical marijuana to treat PTSD. Greg White who is a former U.S Marine Corps Sergeant, who has yet to heal from the trauma of having to wear green on a daily basis, writes on this topic. In his article, “Veterans launch lawsuit against Colorado to access medical marijuana to treat PTSD,” White goes on to write that medical marijuana, even though it is now legal in Colorado, it is illegal for the treatment of PTSD.

Absurd. Absolutely Absurd! America, the place people want to be to live the ‘American Dream’, refusing to help out the people who make our country great.

Looks like America is the loser in that fight.

US Army scout and sniper, Curt Bean, told sources that talking about taking lives is never easy. Bean spent times in Iraq but after he came home, he found himself fighting depression and anxiety. So this man who drank a lot, stayed in bed a lot, and avoided the company of other people, was diagnosed with PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs who prescribed him with a potent antidepressant. As I spoke about earlier, Veterans Affairs did not help much for David J. Morris. Likewise, the prescription of antidepressants just made Curt Bean’s condition much worse.

People tend to say when you are down all the time, try something to get up. People turn to their own ways of fun and happiness for a little relief.

So, Bean decided to smoke a little pot, recreationally of course, and he felt instant satisfaction, according to Greg White’s article. Mr. Bean added, “Cannabis helped reduce his anxiety, move past the Iraq War and get on with his life.” So why it is not allowed to be used as a medical treatment belittles and confuses me.

What is it that all of these soldiers had in common? PTSD and a hand that was not there to help.

If a professional athlete were to have PTSD, people from all around the world would want to see them get better. Yes of course a lot of good citizens hope everyone is healthy and safe, but that is not the case in this on-going situation. Not only would these athletes have the support from all of the people they perform for, they have millions of dollars to get them the treatments needed. A professional basketball player’s average salary is 5.15 million dollars. A professional baseball player’s salary is 3.2 million dollars. Comparing those millions to an average annual income of a veteran making around 43 thousand dollars. I am a HUGE sports fan and absolutely love the entertainment these players give the crowd. Yet numbers this distant are hard for me to understand.

Having organizations like the Veterans Affairs is a great thing to have that indeed has an impact on so many lives. This impact can be so much more enhanced with more organizations like this and that needs to be understood. Not only do we need more major organizations focusing on helping veterans who suffer with PTSD, but we need better ones. We need to make sure our veterans are taken care of. We need to make sure PTSD is limited to the minimal. No matter what it takes? Absolutely.

 

Reflection Unit 3

WRT205/Spring 2016

1.)    For the title, I used a two-part title, “PTSD: The One Thing Veterans Don’t Deserve.” This title to me gets the reader thinking PTSD is something that a lot of veterans have and they deserve to get the help they need to get better. For my lede, I thought this was one of the tougher parts of writing this article. I could not really get the lede I was looking for. However, my lede does lead the reader into the text and provide insight on the issue I wanted to inform the reader about. I explain what the issue, PTSD, is and I explain that it is disturbing the lives of veterans who have it. “The One Thing Veterans Don’t Deserve” is PTSD and we need to do something about it.

 

2.)    I thought I did a very good job in the beginning of my article. I explained exactly what the issue was while giving proof that it is an issue. I give examples of how veterans are being helped; service dogs, medical marijuana (though not to an extent) and medically induced therapies with the help of professionals and other organizations. I also end my opening paragraph with “not enough are being saved.” And that is my issue I am trying to get the reader to see. I explain, “11-20 out of every 100 American soldiers are experiencing PTSD from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). From the Gulf War (Desert Storm), about 12 out of every 100 veterans have PTSD in a given year.” Giving proof that it is an issue.

 

3.)    I gave proof of research that needed to be done in order to expand on the idea of veterans and PTSD. Without researching this topic the amount that I did, I would not have any proof that not enough is being done to save these veterans. If you go on va.gov you see all the help the Veterans Affairs is trying to give. However, while continuously researching, I saw that they hurt a lot of veterans as well by making their symptoms much worse or just didn’t help at all as I explained with David J. Morris in my article. Myself, I did not know much about PTSD and the topic of what I wanted to talk about. I learned a lot about the effects of PTSD, about ways people are treated and about ways people need to be treated. For my evidence I used a lot of stories from veterans talking about the effect PTSD had on their family or on themselves and the help they tried to get and didn’t receive it.

 

4.)    Clarity of thought: I thought I was clear in the point I wanted to get off. I spoke about veterans not getting help they needed and I showed my point of view by continuously saying we need to change that. I used pictures to support my claims and I thought the way I wrote my article was of unique presentation. I asked the reader questions and made them think about the questions by proving my information with evidence and story. For example, Commander Job W. Price committed suicide and I went on to say “what can we do to help that isn’t already being done? Clearly a lot.” I did not use large paragraphs as an article is supposed to be friendly looking via text. Hyperlinks were given throughout the article as well.

 

5.)    I know NYT’s Magazine audiences will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped. I do not think I underdeveloped my article. I believe my research and information is all credible and is proving to the topic I wanted to discuss. I have many different arguments proving this. I do think I avoided cliché and vagueness and I addressed points and issues readers would have about my topic. Organizing my article I just simply thought and wrote at first. Then, I changed a couple paragraphs to go somewhere else in the body of my article to make the article sound better. I knew I had researched enough and I knew what I wanted to write about, so I found the best sequence to write about these topics.

 

6.)    Research wise, I have been researching since Unit 2 on this topic. I used databases like ProQuest, along with New York Times articles, and even an article on a lawsuit. I believe my stance is clear and that other readers who have read my article would start the feel the same way once they realized there is proof.

 

7.)    The first research I did was research the effects of PTSD and exactly what it is. I then researched the effects of PTSD on veterans and how it affects themselves along with their families. Stories came to my attention like Commander Job W. Price and David J. Morris. I used a numerous amount of sources varying from Apollo Applied Research to the Veterans Affairs Website. Also from New York Times articles and Military articles from Military.com. My secondary sources back up my primary research of PTSD and the effects on veterans and the help they aren’t receiving. Picture wise, I used 3 pictures. Visually, a reader looks at pictures harder than the text in my opinion, at least I do. The first picture, the 12 steps of PTSD. It shows how someone would act while having PTSD. I also wrote about some of those feelings and actions in my text. The next picture was a statistic on veterans and suicide. I used information to back that up saying “veterans make up 7 percent of the American population. These veterans account for 20 percent of our populations suicides.”

 

8.)    My secondary sources and my primary source integrate very well. I think I used my secondary sources to back-up my primary information. I used information like the suicide numbers that I used in number 7 to back up my argument for Commander Job W. Price. This supported and complicated the topic. I did not drop quote the statistic as I simply just wrote it.

 

9.)    I’m not sure how I persuaded the audience because I am not sure who read it. I believe if someone were to read my article I would have persuaded them to definitely think about my position and see that I am indeed correct. The audience I am writing too is to every American. My rhetorical tools were on point during this article. Not so much ethos was used, but I used pathos and logos throughout the article. Pathos was used for example when I said, “While many veterans get the medical treatment they deserve, too many are not obtaining the same help they need to ease their transition back into the world they once knew.”

 

10.)  My visuals were definitely appropriate. They spoke about my topic in many ways. “A picture is worth a thousand words.” My picture on the 12 steps do explain the 12 steps of PTSD, however they make you think about what a veteran or someone else with this disorder would actually be going through on an everyday basis. I wrote about the effects of PTSD in my article as well. The medical cannabis picture shows how medical marijuana could help chronic pain or sleep apnea. I wrote about how medical marijuana is not legal for the use of PTSD recovery in America which was one of my major issues. Also, the suicide picture I did not know what else to put as a picture so I simply put the statistic that says a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes. That is a very deep thought and comment. I wrote statistically about suicides and the relationship with veterans along with a story by former soldier Christopher Drew on the commander I have talked so much about in this reflection.

 

11.)  My first 800 word draft was very similar to my final draft, not going to lie. I thought I really worded everything great and used good sequence and use of sources. After the 800 word draft we had to make a 1250 word draft where I tried to move stuff around and I did change little things here and there. I ended up switching back to more of a style I used in the 800 word draft. We did a scramble technique in class for peer reviewing and I liked the way my partner scrambled my text ultimately. However, I really thought I had a good article before that and stood with it. For my lead, I had a pretty bad one and I thought that was what I had the most trouble with. I tried using other people’s advice for that but in the end I don’t think it worked out I think I lacked a great opening lead.

 

12.) I hyperlinked where necessary. I hyperlinked PTSD so people could look up more about that if they wanted too. I hyperlinked my articles for source proof. I hyperlinked the veteran’s affairs for importance proof. I hyperlinked Apollo Applied research because I didn’t think anyone would know anything about that. They were effective and appropriate. I wasn’t sure to hyperlink the authors so I didn’t because I didn’t want to hyperlink too much.

 

13.) My grammar is good I believe. I am not a professional writer nor do I have the best use of vocabulary, however I don’t think I used a simple writing technique. I believe my style of a New York Times article was used effectively. I believe I wrote a good article, not perfect, but good. I constantly changed up paragraphs throughout the editing of this article. I think I argued a good argument and I believe I have a good stand for persuading the audience I am correct.