The article Big Benefits from big Pharma: Longevity and Real Welfare Growth” starts with two statements against the pharmacy industry: one claims that the pharmaceutical corporations care more about the money than the benefits that they can bring to humankind, other argues that intellectual property shouldn’t be apply to the pharmaceutical industry to lowered the cost of medication.

Justin Hicks, based on a study conducted by The National Bureau Of Economic Research, know as NBER, brings a new vision to the table. In the article he mentions the “statistically significant” of the research and also comments about the positive economic effects. He mentions a research by Murphy and Topei who find that if United States reduces 1% cancer mortality “it would be worth over $500 billion.”

Hicks argues that pharmaceutical patents protection should be increase to incentivize research and development (R&D), in that way the pharmaceutical industry could grow and prosper, which will bring positive economics and individual health.

On the other hand…

Arnolds Relman and Marcia Angell opposed Hinks vision. Both authors argue, in their article “How the drug industry distorts medicine and politics.
America’s Other Drug Problem” that average R&D costs per drug is not nearly as high as corporations claimed.

The Authors analyze facts to support the theory. These reasons are based essentially on researches, lack of data provided for the pharmaceutical companies, real cost of developing new drugs, and the interests of the health care industry.

The fact that companies invest more money in advertising than in R&D is also a red flag in pharmaceutical’s claim that the high cost of their products is due to the investment they make in R&D. The theory is further supported by other data that include:

– An increasing number of drugs are simply licensed from academic medical centers or biotechnology companies, and are not entirely developed in the drug companies.
– R&D expenses are deductible from a firm’s tax base; calculation of the cost of R&D should be reduced by the amount of corporate tax avoided.
– Drug companies are impelled primarily by the financial aspirations of their investors and executives.
– Full disclosure of the data, including the identity of the drugs selected for study the pharmaceutical industry based their cost claims, and the costs for each of the studies.
– Most approved drugs entering the market are not really new, or they are licensed from other sources, or both.
– The private health care industry is primarily interested in selling services that are profitable, but patients are interested only in services that they need.
– Far from being a “research-based industry,” as it likes to call itself, the pharmaceutical industry now devotes most of its resources to functioning as a vast marketing and advertising.
Both authors point of view are valid, both are based on research, but I considered that Arnolds Relman and Marcia Angell article approaches more to the reality of the health care system and how they analyzes corporations’ used of different method to support a multibillion-industry and their investors.

I have some suggestion to approach the next shooting session:

Arms Wrestling:

For Arnolds Relman and Marcia Angell article I would like to use a contrasting light, where one side use a soft bright light while the other side reminds in the shadow; a ratio of 8 to 1. The image will be two-men/women arm wrestling. The idea is not to identify any of wrestling arms either with the corporations or the government/consumer, in that way spectators will decide who is who based on their own experience and the use of the contrasting light and the text. In both side we will see the same prescription that could have a white label or not.

Birthday Cellebration:

For Justin Hicks article I would like to shoot a birthday cake with the number 97 on it. The cake will be decorated with pills of different colors.

Another approach could be the number 97 covered in pills surrounded by birthday props.