Letters
WHY DRUGS COST SO MUCH
"Your article on why U.S. drug prices are so high should have come with a warning label: MAY CAUSE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE." BOB HENSLER North Ogden, Utah
After reading Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele's article on why we pay so much for drugs [Feb. 2], I was mad, damn mad! In my naivete, I thought our elected officials would look out for our welfare and well-being, but it seems the only people our elected officials are looking out for are the ones who can line their pockets. The failure to address excessive prices for drugs is outrageous and unacceptable. Americans need to do something--and fast. Our health and wallets are being held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry. PAT CICALESE Stoughton, Mass.
You reported that "in the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue." That 17% profit guarantees that new drugs will be in the pipeline when we need them. Can any other system, including government-run labs, produce such a cornucopia of lifesaving and life-enhancing cures at any price? Studies have shown that it costs $800 million to create a new drug and get it through FDA approval. Your story promoted Soviet-style price controls. Remove incentives, and you will get Soviet-style results and products. As a practicing physician and surgeon, I'll take a capitalist drug company for my patients every time. CHRISTOPHER LYON, M.D. Newport Beach, Calif.
The arrogance, greed and lack of social conscience of the CEOs of big pharmaceutical firms are comparable to those of tobacco-company executives in the recent past. Eventually the drug companies' CEOs will get their comeuppance too. JOHN MITCHEM San Jose, Calif.
I am a mother of three who has been disabled by multiple sclerosis, a disease without a cure. Most of the medical help I've received over the past 17 years has come from advances achieved by the drug industry. For those of us who are ill, disabled or just plain old, it is the drug companies that offer genuine hope. And it is hard to put a price on hope. MIMI AMBROSE SMITH Annandale, Va.
How much could the costs of medicines be reduced if the drug companies stopped spending millions on those ridiculous TV ads aimed at consumers? Shouldn't doctors decide what drugs their patients should take, not the drug companies or the consumers? SANDRA CLARK Scottsdale, Ariz.
The pharmaceutical industry is justifiably controlled by numerous regulatory agencies at every stage, from research and development to clinical trials. There is no margin for error, since medicines have to be absolutely risk free. Any risk-free product must have a proportionately high price tag, as it is difficult to assign a value to a human life. KRISHNA SUBRAMANIAN Portage, Mich.
If consumers aren't allowed to import cheaper drugs, then U.S. companies should not be allowed to outsource our jobs to cheaper labor markets. CHARLIE SPRATT Charlotte, N.C.
>> Some readers felt our investigative report on the high cost of prescription drugs overlooked the issue of Americans' overdependence on medication. "The entire nation is full of drug addicts," wrote an Ohioan. "Prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines--you name it, we take it! Drug companies and doctors have convinced us that we need drugs every day simply to survive." An Illinois reader agreed, "Americans rely on pills as an easy fix for all their problems. Most of us would need fewer medications if we simply ate healthier foods and exercised more. How many Americans have walked at least 45 minutes in the past week?"
THE DRUG INDUSTRY RESPONDS
We welcome debate about the value Americans gain from medicines, which is why we were so disappointed in your misleading cover story "Why Your Drugs Cost So Much" [Feb. 2]. The article repeatedly used highly selective information to present its authors' opinions as news. The examples below demonstrate this:
The new Medicare law authorizes powerful private plans to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and includes a provision prohibiting government interference with these negotiations. TIME didn't tell its readers about the negotiations and characterized the provision (which originated in a plan developed by President Clinton) as preventing patients from obtaining savings. Yet Congress's scorekeeper, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, determined that this bill's approach--private plans driving hard bargains--achieves larger savings on drugs than do other approaches it reviewed. TIME also failed to mention that the provision protects seniors from the government's establishing a national drug list that restricts the medicines they can choose.
The article portrayed the opposition of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the importation of drugs through Canada as protecting the pharmaceutical industry, not consumers. TIME failed to explain that the FDA is enforcing a law Congress passed in 1988 after a multi-year investigation revealed threats to the nation's drug supply, including importation. The article should have emphasized that the Clinton Administration, as well as the Bush Administration, was unable to demonstrate that importation could be done safely and would achieve significant savings. Presumably, the dangers explain why illegal importation schemes, such as one in Springfield, Mass., often require users to sign a liability waiver--another fact TIME omitted.
TIME cited one government-agency report about a single drug to support its claim that the government plays a large role in discovering new medicines. Yet TIME failed to note that the same agency reported that the government was involved in developing only six of the 100 drugs that federal agencies most commonly buy. In fact, pharmaceutical companies develop nearly all new medicines.
American health care is changing as new medicines play a growing role in treating a broad range of conditions, with dramatically improved results. The country has taken a step forward in improving access to these medicines, with the passage of the Medicare law, which provides drug coverage to 10 million previously uninsured seniors, along with better coverage for many millions more.
We welcome a fair debate about all these issues, but TIME did a disservice to its readers by cloaking opinion as news.
ALAN F. HOLMER, PRESIDENT AND CEO PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA (PHRMA) Washington
FREE ELECTIONS FOR IRAQ
Your article "dealing with the cleric" reported on the objections of Iraq's Grand Ayatullah Ali Husaini Sistani to the U.S. plan to turn over control of Iraq by June 30 to a transitional government chosen by a caucus system rather than by direct elections [Feb. 2]. One thing seems clear: President Bush started a war that has claimed hundreds of American lives, and now he wants to have a nice, friendly handover of governance just in time for the U.S. presidential election. Meanwhile, the Iraqis lose out on having a true democracy, something Bush uses as a justification for the war. Bush needs to guarantee fair elections, even if they come too late for his campaign ads. PHILLIP CHAN Washington
DOES GOVERNMENT KNOW BEST?
Andrew sullivan's essay on George W. Bush as "Nanny-in-Chief" should be required reading for all who cherish civil liberties and individual choice [Feb. 2]. The Republican Party preaches about less government, states' rights and individual freedoms but reveals itself every day as standing for just the opposite. RICHARD D. GREEN Lilburn, Ga.
Sullivan's accusation that bush is a Big Government moralist, spending the American people's money on social issues, should be taken as a compliment instead of a criticism. Our President is doing his best to stand up for and fund what is right because he knows what is best for Americans: establishing the difference between right and wrong. CHERIE JOHNSON Chicago
CRITIQUING THE PLAYERS
It is laughable to read elite pundits like Joe Klein [Feb. 2] who chastise politicians for not connecting with regular folks. Puh-leeze! Klein called John Kerry's language "abstract and overly fancy," creating a distance between Kerry and the audience. Klein criticized the "slightly narcissistic quality to Kerry's speech; it's all about his leadership, his vision." Imagine that: in a presidential campaign, a candidate is openly promoting his leadership and vision. Amazing! JILL RAYMOND Silver Spring, Md.
Not only is senator Kerry presidential, he is positively Lincolnesque. Maybe if the Democrats make him their candidate and we elect him, the South will secede again, and Congress will finally be rid of those rock-ribbed, Bible-thumping Christian conservatives who have bedeviled it far too long. JOHN CUSHMAN Beaverton, Ore.
WHY GO TO MARS?
Your article on the proposed manned mission to Mars [Jan. 26] estimated the cost at $600 billion. That was distressing, to say the least. I live in Africa, a continent ravaged by AIDS and extreme poverty caused by drought and a lack of employment. To spend all that money to see whether Mars has water, check the content of its dust and perhaps provide the trip of a lifetime to some superrich person is nothing short of criminal! We have mismanaged this incredible planet God has given us, so why spend astronomical amounts on so-called scientific research to go to another planet that cannot benefit us in any way? We are tackling the AIDS problem and other issues with limited resources. Imagine how $600 billion could be used in African nations and other countries. God forgive us for this unbelievably egocentric waste when human lives are at stake on Earth every minute of every day. (THE REV.) DERECK STONE Howick, South Africa
Sending humans to Mars sounds fantastic, but the problem is that the mission would just give us another world to mess up. Until we have a complete change of attitude and behavior, let's stay away from other planets. LYNN FOURIE Johannesburg
There are a number of goals that a mission to Mars could accomplish. Once a base is set up there, it could serve as a staging post for space exploration for destinations beyond. Such a base could also be a communications hub for future space exploration and travel. After a stopover on Mars, travelers could venture farther into the galaxy. The case for going to Mars couldn't be more compelling. Sure, today's technology is not up to the task. We need to develop lightweight materials that can shield space voyagers from radiation and build spaceships that can fly from one planet to another without cumbersome booster rockets. But technology is developing at a terrific rate, suggesting that long-range spaceships could be carrying humans from this planet to work on other planets within 30 years. IAN WARD Paisley, Scotland
SEX AND LOVE EXPLAINED
Your report on "Love, Sex And Health" was quite interesting [Jan. 19], if only for the clanging banalities emitted by sociologists and psychologists trying to pretend they are real scientists. But there is a fundamental point that needs emphasis: sex and love are two totally different things. Sex is essentially selfish. It is really about scratching that biological itch, about satisfying an internal hunger. In contrast, love is essentially selfless. It is about giving to another without thought of reward. Sex and love can exist completely independently. There are many examples of sex without love--rape, prostitution and maybe even regular sex between couples. And you can love your parents, dog, God, country and football team without wanting to have sex with them. MIKE SHIELDS Jarrow, England
Surely sex is far more than compounding biology, chemistry and emotion! Your informative and helpful articles about sex were unduly academic, as if to suggest that since Creation, common people have discovered nothing for themselves about this distinctive aspect of their lives. Sex is wonderful, but it can be a curse if it is obsessional. It is at the heart of continuous creation; it happens to affect our sense of achievement and also failure. Sex also plays a moral role because it defines the good-faith boundaries that give security to individuals and families and even to nations. (THE VEN.) DENNIS EDE London