For some classic discussions of the pharmaceutical industry, see DowlingH. F., Medicines for Man: The Development, Regulation and Use of Prescription Drugs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970); TeminP., Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980). For more recent critiques, see AngelM., The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It (New York: Random House, 2004); KassirerJ. P., On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
2.
LessigL., “Two Conceptions of ‘Corruption,’” in Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York: Twelve-Hackette Book Group, 2011): At 226–247; ThompsonD. F., Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995).
3.
For discussion of the misalignment of incentives for drug development and marketing and ways to address that problem, see GagnonM.-A., “Corruption of Pharmaceutical Markets: Addressing the Misalignment between Financial Incentives and Public Health,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 571–580; LightD. W.LexchinJ.DarrowJ., “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 590–600. See also SismondoS., “Key Opinion Leaders and the Corruption of Medical Knowledge: What the Sunshine Act Will and Won't Cast Light On,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 635–643; MillerJ. E., “From Bad Pharma to Good Pharma: Role of Accreditation, Certification, and Rating,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 601–610.
4.
Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, Manual of Policies and Procedures 6020.3 (2007). Some me-too drugs do offer slightly fewer risks or slightly greater benefits than the original. Me-too drugs also do increase competition, but the price reductions are small because, typically, both the original and the me-too are patented. The FDA grants higher priority to reviewing drugs that offer important therapeutic advances. This alone, however, is not a strong incentive for investment in challenging and high-risk research. AshburnT. T.ThorK. B., “Drug Repositioning: Identifying and Developing New Uses for Existing Drugs,”Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3, no. 8 (2004): 673–683.
5.
A study of new drugs introduced in France from 1981 to 2001 found that only 12 percent were therapeutic advances. See “Drugs in 2001: A Number of Ruses Unveiled,” Prescrire International11, no. 58 (2002): 58–50. When Prescrire evaluated drugs introduced beween 2002 and 2011, it found that only about 12 percent offered therapeutic advantages and only 1.6 percent offered substanial therapeutic advantages; “New Drugs and Indications in 2011,”Prescrire International21, no. 126 (2012). One review of new molecular entities introduced between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s found that only between 11 and 16 percent of new molecular entities produced therapeutic gains. See LightD.LexchinJ., “Pharmaceutical R&D - What Do We Get for All That Money?”BMJ344, no. 7869 (2012): E4348.
6.
The key exception is tax subsidies to promote research on orphan drugs, drugs for a medical condition that affect less than 200,000 patients annually.
7.
AshburnT.ThorK. B., “Drug Repositioning: Identifying and Developing New Uses for Existing Drugs,”Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3, no. 8 (2004): 673–683.
8.
LoveJ.HubbardT., “Prizes for Innovation of New Medicines and Vaccines,”Annals of Health Law18, no. 2 (2009): 155–178; LoveJ.HubbardT., “The Big Idea: Prizes to Stimulate R&D for New Medicines,”Chicago Kent Law Review1519, no. 3 (2007): 1528–1534; HubbardT.LoveJ., “A New Trade Framework for Global R&D,”PLOS Biology82, no. 2 (2004): 0147–0150. Comment from LoveJ., “Knowledge Ecology Int'l, to the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, World Health Organization, The Role of Prizes in Stimulating R&D,” September 30, 2007, available at <http://www.who.int/phi/public_hearings/second/contributions_section2/Section2_JamesLove-KEI_prizes.pdf> (last visited July 3, 2013); LoveJ., Consumer Project on Tech., Evidence Regarding Research and Development Investments In Innovative and Non-Innovative Medicines (2003). See generally, BakerD., Center for Economics & Policy Research, The Benefits and Savings from Publicly- Funded Clinical Trials of Prescription Drugs (2008). See generally, PoggeT., “The Health Impact Fund: More Justice and Efficiency in Global Health,”Australian National University, Crawford School of Public Policy, Development Policy Center, Discussion Paper #7 (2011). See generally, PoggeT., “The Health Impact Fund: Boosting Pharmaceutical Innovation without Obstructing Free Access,”Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics18, no. 1 (2009): 78–86.
9.
Legislation passed in 1962 required demonstrating that new drugs were safe and effective, but regulation specifying that to meet this standard required randomized trials was not promulgated until 1969. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351 (2012); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Hearing Regulations and Regulations Describing Scientific Content of Adequate and Well Controlled Clinical Investigations, Federal Register35, no. 90 (1970): 7250.
10.
See HiltsP. J., Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003); CarpenterD., Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
11.
See, for example, Interagency Coordination in Drug Research and Regulation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organization of the Committee on Government Operations, 88th Congress (1963); Examination of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Hearing on Section 3441 and Section 966 before the Subcommittee on Health and the Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 93rd Congress (1974); Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry: Hearing on Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry before the Subcommittee on Health of the Senate and the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Congress (1976); Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry: Hearing on Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry before the Subcommittee on Health of the Senate and the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Congress (1975); Drug Regulation Reform Act of 1978: Hearing on S. 2755 before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research and the Comm. on Human Resources, 95th Congress (1978).
12.
See, for example, ChanA. W.HróbjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GøtzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–5465; KesselheimA. S.MelloM. M., “Confidentiality Laws and Secrecy in Medical Research: Improving Public Access to Data on Drug Safety,”Health Affairs26, no. 2 (2007): 483–491.
13.
See, BrownA., “Understanding Pharmaceutical Research Manipulation in the Context of Accounting Manipulation,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 611–619; FeldmanY.GauthierR.SchullerT., “Curbing Misconduct in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Insights from Behavioral Ethics and the Behavioral Approach to Law,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 620–628.
14.
RodwinM. A., “Independent Clinical Trials to Test Drugs: The Neglected Reform,”Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy6, no. 1 (2012): 113–165.
15.
TobbellD. A., Pills, Power, and Policy: The Struggle for Drug Reform in Cold War America and Its Consequences (Berkley: University of California Press, 2012).
16.
See Rodwin, supra note 14.
17.
Drug firms design and conduct some post-marketing studies because the FDA requires them to do so as a condition for approving sale of the drug.
18.
For a thorough analysis of problems of drug safety, see AvornJ., Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).
19.
BodenheimerT., “Uneasy Alliance: Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry,”New England Journal of Medicine342, no. 20 (2000): 1539–1542; AngellM., The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It (New York: Random House, 2004).
20.
LundhA.SismondoS.LexchinJ.BusuiocO. A.BeroL., “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome,”Cochrane Database of Systematic Review12, no. 12 (2012): MR000033; DavidsonR. A., “Source of Funding and Outcomes of Clinical Trials,”Journal of General Internal Medicine1, no. 3 (1986): 155–158; Als-NielsenB.ChenW.GlundC.KjaergardL., “Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?”JAMA290, no. 7 (2003): 921–928; HeresS.DavisJ.MainoK.JetzingerE.KisslingW.LeuchtS., “Why Olanzapine Beats Risperidone, Risperidone Beats Quetiapine, and Quetiapine Beats Olanzapine: An Exploratory Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of Second-Generation Antipsychotics,”American Journal of Psychiatry163, no. 2 (2006): 185–194.
21.
Italy taxes pharmaceutical promotional spending. BoniniS.del ZompoM.FrancavillaL.GaraciE.GarattiniS.LiberatiA.RupoloG., “Feasibility and Challenges of Independent Research on Drugs: The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Experience,”European Journal of Clinical Investigation40, no. 1 (2009): 69–86.
22.
LangrethR., “Drug Marketing Drives Many Clinical Trials,”Wall Street Journal, November 16, 1998; PietersT., “Marketing Medicines through Randomized Controlled Trials: The Case of Interferon,”BMJ317, no. 7167 (1998): 1231–1233; GreenlandP.Lloyd-JonesD., “Critical Lessons from the ENHANCE Trial,”JAMA299, no. 8 (2008): 953–955. The FDA tried to prevent drug firms from disseminating articles on off-label uses of their products. Drug firms and the Washington Legal Foundation sued the FDA, alleging that the policy was an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech. Federal appellate courts held that the FDA policy was unconstitutional. For a summary of the WLF challenge and related cases and current status of the law, see Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, 202 F.3d 331 (2000) FDA, Decision in Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, Federal Register65, no. 52 (2000): 14286–14288, FDA Docket No. 98N-0222.
23.
France has started to allow under some control and evaluation, off-label durg use while a firm seeks approval to market a drug for a new use. See, EmmerichJ.DumarcetN.LorenceA., “France's New Framework For Regulating Off-Label Drug Use,”New England Journal of Medicine367, no. 14 (2012): 1279–1281. For a proposal to regulate off-label use in the United States, see, KesselheimA., “Off-Label Drug Use and Promotion: Balancing Public Health Goals and Commercial Speech,”American Journal of Law & Medicine37, nos. 2 & 3 (2011): 225–257.
24.
There would need to be measures to protect privacy. However, pharmaceutical firms already purchase prescription data from pharmacies that reveal the drug prescribed. It might also be possible to obtain this information from electronic medical records, but that would require obtaining much more mining of records from many more sources and it would also raise privacy concerns. See, RodwinM. A., “Patient Data: Property, Privacy & the Public Interest,”American Journal of Law & Medicine36, no. 4 (2010): 586–618.
25.
These issues are discussed in depth in RodwinM., “Rooting Out Institutional Corruption to Manage Inappropriate Off-Label Drug Use,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 654–664.
26.
VedulaS. S.BeroL.SchererR. W.DickersinK., “Outcome Reporting In Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label Use,”New England Journal of Medicine361, no. 20 (2009): 1963–1971.
27.
DwanK.AltmanD. G.ArnaizJ. A.BloomJ.ChanA.W., “Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias,”PLoS ONE3, no. 8 (2008): E3081. ChanA. W.HrobjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GotzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–2465; DickersinK.ChanS.ChalmersT. C., “Publication Bias and Clinical Trials,”Controlled Clinical Trials8, no. 4 (1987): 343–353; EasterbrookP. J.BerlinJ. A.GopalanR., “Publication Bias in Clinical Research,”The Lancet337, no. 8746 (1991): 867–872; DickersinK., “The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence,”JAMA263, no. 10 (1990): 1385–1389; DickersinK.SchererR.LefebvreC., “Identifying Relevant Studies for Systematic Reviews,”BMJ309, no. 6964 (1994): 1286–1291; DickersinK., “How Important Is Publication Bias? A Synthesis of Available Data,”AIDS Education and Prevention9, no. 1, Supp. (1997): 15–21; SchererR. W.LangernbergP.Von ElmE., “Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts,”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2, no. 2 (2007).
28.
DickersinK.RennieD., “Registering Clinical Trials,”JAMA290, no. 4 (2003): 516–523; ZarinD.IdeN. C.TseT., “Issues in Registration of Trials,”JAMA297, no. 3 (2007): 2112–2120.
29.
DeAngelisC. D.DrazenJ. M.FrizelleF. A., “Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,”JAMA292, no. 11 (2004): 1363–1364. There have been difficulties in enforcing this policy. See, MathieuS.BoutronI.MoherD.AltmanG.RavaudP., “Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials,”JAMA302, no. 9 (2009): 977–984.
30.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, U.S. Public Law 110–85 (2007).
31.
PrayleA. P.HurleyM. N.SmythA. R., “Compliance with Mandatory Reporting of Clinical Trial Results on ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross Sectional Study,”BMJ344, no. 2 (2011): D7373.
32.
LawM. R.KawasumiY.MorganS. G., “Despite Law, Fewer Than One in Eight Completed Studies of Drugs and Biologics Are Reported on Time on ClinicalTrials.gov,”Health Affairs30, no. 12 (2011): 2338–2345; ChanA. W.HrobjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GotzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–2465; MathieuS.BoutronI.MoherD.AltmanD. G.RavaudP., “Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials,”JAMA302, no. 9 (2009): 977–984.
33.
ZarinD.IdeN. C.TseT., “Issues in Registration of Trials,”JAMA297, no. 3 (2007): 2112–2120.
RodwinM. A.AbramsonJ., “Clinical Trials as a Public Good,”JAMA308, no. 9 (2012): 871–872. To enhance public understanding of these studies and to promote FDA accountability, it also makes sense to require the FDA to disclose all of its reviews of applications for marketing new drugs and to disclose all clinical trial data. TurnerE. H., “A Taxpayer-Funded Clinical Trials Registry and Results Database,”Public Library of Medicine1, no. 3 (2004): 180–182.
36.
For a discussion of the risks of drugs on the market, see Light, supra note 3.
37.
21 C.F.R. §§ 310.3–5.21; 21 C.F.R. § 314.80.
38.
Government Accountability Organization, FDA Needs to Enhance Its Oversight of Drugs Approved on the Basis of Surrogate Endpoints, 2009, GAO-09-866.
39.
SasichL. D.LurieP.WolfeS. M., The Drug Industry's Performance in Finishing Post-Marketing Research (Phase IV) Studies: A Public Citizen's Health Research Group Report, available at <http://www.citizen.org/hrg1520> (last visited July 16, 2013).
40.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 (2007). The problems with the previous approach to pharmacovigilance are carefully described in the Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007); BehrmanR. E.BennerJ. S.BrownJ. S., “Developing the Sentinel System – A National Resource for Evidence Development,”New England Journal of Medicine364, no. 6 (2011): 498–499.
41.
OldaniM. J., “Thick Prescriptions: Toward an Interpretation of Pharmaceutical Sales Practices,”Medical Anthropology Quarterly18, no. 3 (2004): 325–356; LarkinJ. M., “Optimizing Resource Allocations with a Strategic Focus: An Accounting Perspective”, Journal of Business Case Studies5, no. 5 (2009): 55–60.
42.
ZieglerM. G.LewP.SingerB. C., “The Accuracy of Drug Information From Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives,”JAMA273, no. 16 (1995): 1296–1298, MintzB.LexchinB. J.SutherlandJ. M.BeaulieuM.-D.WilkesM. S.DurrieuG.ReynoldsE., “Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives and Patient Safety: A Comparative Prospective Study of Information Quality in Canada, France and the United States,”Journal of General Internal Medicine (2013): 1–8; LexchinJ., “What Information Do Physicians Receive from Pharmaceutical Representatives?”Canadian Family Physician43, (1997): 941–945. “Cinq Ans D'observation et Un Constat: Rien a Attendre De La Visite Médicale Pour Mieux Soigner,”La Revue Prescrire26, no. 272 (2006): 383–389; BignallJ., “Monitoring Reps in France,”The Lancet344, no. 8921 (1994): 536.
43.
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973).
44.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Professional Education Institute, Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010), available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12704.html> (last visited July 16, 2013).
45.
SteinmanM. A.BeroL. A.ChrenM. M., “Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,”Annals of Internal Medicine145, no. 4 (2006): 284–293. U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-08-835, Prescription Drugs FDA's Oversight of the Promotion of Drugs for Off-Label Uses (2008); see also, RodwinM. A., “Drug Advertising, Continuing Medical Education, and Physician Prescribing: A Historical Review and Reform Proposal,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics38, no. 4 (2010): 807–815.
46.
Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Office of Inspector General, 68 Federal Register 86 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). Letter from Max Baucus, Chair, Senate Finance Committee, to Murray Kopelow, ACCME, April 27, 2007. Senate Committee on Finance, Use of Educational Grants by Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Prt. 110–21. 110th Cong., 1st Session (2007), available at <http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=9b20d8ca-fca3–4cbe-8deb-94bd841eda7d> (last visited July 16, 2013).
47.
See Rodwin, supra note 45.
48.
RodwinM. A., “Reforming Pharmaceutical Industry-Physician Financial Relationships: Lessons from the United States, France and Japan,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics39, no. 4 (2011): 662–670.
49.
TeminP., Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980): 106–120; MooreD. A.CainD. M.LoewensteinG., Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions from Law, Medicine and Organization Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); CainD. M.LoewensteinG.MooreD. A., “The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,”Journal of Legal Studies34, no. 1 (2005): 1–23.
50.
See, SahS.Fugh-BermanA., “Physicians under the Influence: Social Psychology and Industry Marketing Strategies,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3 (2013): 665–672.
51.
“Tap Pharmaceutical Products Inc. and Seven Others Charged with Health Care Crimes; Company Agrees to Pay $875 Million to Settle Charges,” U.S. Department of Justice, available at <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/October/513civ.htm> (last visited July 16, 2013); RodriguezT. A., “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Knowing When to Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth,” in GosfieldA., ed., Health Law Handbook (St. Paul: West Group, 2003). See also CosgroveL.WheelerE. E., “Drug Firms, Codification of Diagnostic Categories & Bias in Clinical Guidelines,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3 (2013): 644–653. For a discussion drug marketing through opinion leaders, see SismondoS., “Key Opinion Leaders and the Corruption of Medical Knowledge: What the Sunshine Act Will and Won't Cast Light On,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3 (2013): 635–643; and Snow LandaA.ElliottC., “From Community to Commodity: The Ethics of Pharma-Funded Networking Sites for Physicians,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics41, no. 3. (2013): 673–679.
52.
CosgroveL.KrimskyS.VijayaraghavanM.“Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry,”Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics75, no. 3 (2006): 154–160.
53.
See, RodwinM. A., Conflicts of Interest and the Future of Medicine: The United States, France and Japan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
54.
BrownL. D., “The Fox and the Grapes: Is Real Reform beyond Research in the United States?”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law37, no. 4 (2012): 587–609, at 588.