Sparked by the movie “The Constant Gardener”, Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research published recently an article that took a look at the following vexing question: How did the industry most associated with saving life become so easily and obviously despised? Here’s a few of the key passages from his analysis of the pharmaceutical industry’s situation :

• “Despite advertising worth at least $10 billion a year, perceptions about the drug industry are often wildly inaccurate. Ten percent of the U.S. health-care budget is spent on pharmaceuticals, yet opinion leaders and the general public put the number at 50%, according to various surveys. They believe health care is controlled by big pharma and so assume that, by lowering drug costs, we can substantially reduce health-care bills.”
• “Ultimately, drug companies are caught in an impossible situation. Good health is seen as a basic human right, and the idea that a corporation would charge you for your rights, let alone deny them to you because you can’t afford its product, is seen as morally reprehensible. “
• “As the attacks on the (pharmaceutical) industry from politicians, entertainers and lawyers have intensified, it has sensibly retreated into the notion that actions speak louder than words: Drug companies have recently donated large supplies of their products to developing countries and instituted greater transparency in clinical trial data publication. Now all they can do is hope that Americans don’t believe everything they see at the movies.”

I had never consciously thought about the notion of good health as a basic human right, but it is true that the pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its own success: patients have come to expect that there is a medicine for their every ailment, and that it is possible to mix and match countless prescription drugs without any untoward side effects. In many respects, today’s patients have less incentive for physical exercise and a well-balanced diet as they have access to cutting-edge medicines.

In contrast, patients in the 1970s seemed to be more grateful for the offerings of the pharmaceutical industry. According to my mother, a physician with 35 years of experience in intensive-care treatment - patients back then were facing a high mortality with just one major health issue - be it diabetes, hypertension or obesity - and their expectations were far from good health as a basic human right.

A recent keynote address by Merck’s ex-CEO Roy Vagelos examined similar territory of what the industry can do to correct the notion of “big bad pharma”. As head of research and later chairman and CEO of Merck, Dr. Vagelos led the company through an unprecedented period of drug discovery and financial success. In Fortune magazine’s annual surveys, Merck was voted “America’s most admired corporation” for seven consecutive Vagelos-led years. During his tenure, Merck developed such successful drugs as Mevacor (first statin approved in the world) and Zocor, cholesterol lowering agents;Vasotec, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor for high blood pressure and heart failure; and Recombivax HB, a recombivant vaccine to protect against hepatitis B. Vagelos made two key points in his speech:

• Drug companies need to deliver value to the patient. Roy Vagelos pointed out that if a medicine delivers true and lasting value to a patient, companies will have the moral high ground.
• There is no better way to establish goodwill then to bring health to patients. Vagelos referred to the successful Ivermectin campaign that led to the wide-spread erradication of river-blindness and other parasitic diseases. By giving away the anti-worm medicine to poverty-stricken inhabitants of underdeveloped countries, Merck saved millions of lives in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, thus becoming “America’s most admired corporation”.