I agree with you on the advertising thing....I had a discussion with several
docs who are quite frustrated when people come in demanding the newest,
latest drug advertised on the television. What they don't listen to is the
side effects or the disclaimers. This drives the price of health care up.
Rather than take a medicine that is more suitable, and mist likely generic,
they insist on the newer medication at the higher price...the insurance
company, then, is left with the balance after the co-pay....and we wonder
why prescription riders are so high?
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:55 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


I believe that is correct Dave. BTW what do you think of the idea of
patenting a drug for treating a specific disease and then later on
finding another disease to treat with the same drug, and as result being
able to extend the original patent?


I don't have any problem with that in principle. The policy question is
whether the financial incentive is necessary or appropriate to encourage
inventors to develop the use of old drugs for new applications. Dave

In principal it appears sound, however it hasn't really worked that way.
Instead it has led to the creation of fictional syndromes. In the
psychiatric field, make up a new disease (irrational fear of menstrual
cramps is one), give it a nice latin name, get a couple of crackpot
shrinks to include it in the index and Bob's your uncle! Presto, another
few years to gouge the public.

I would have much less of a problem with pharmaceutical companies if they
didn't spend more, much more, on advertising than they do on R&D.

Cheers
Marty