In the past month or so, the announcements of 10,000 planned layoffs by Pfizer worldwide struck home for me, having worked at Pfizer for three years in the mid-1980s. Pfizer grew to become and still ranks as the number one pharmaceutical company in terms of global sales. Unfortunately, public perception of industry stands possibly at an all-time low. While some of the criticism of pharma by public leaders is deserved, all the vitriol, including comparison to big tobacco and gun manufacturers causes unwarranted yet long-lasting damage.
Too many politicians reach way down to repeatedly bad-mouth drug companies, one of the few industries in which the US still dominates. One elected official from Michigan recently described the "cold-hearted pharmaceutical" industry. I note the irony that, subsequent to "support" such as this, constituents in Michigan and elsewhere will suffer due to Pfizer's closing of R&D and production facilities in Ann Arbor.
For years, industry warned that overly restrictive limitations on marketing products, such as price controls and Canadian importation, could directly hamper the R&D process. Now, it's more than a threat. Not only will jobs be lost, but along the way, politicians seeking votes will disincentive companies to maintain if not expand research. 401K investors will put their money elsewhere. What will that mean to people with poorly controlled, chronic and acute common as well as rare diseases?
Development of new drugs depends directly on the ability to charge market-based prices for products, which are offered at below-market rates in most other countries worldwide. US citizens subsidize drug research and development for the rest of the world.
Today, poorly treated Alzheimer's Disease, cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity all spell doom for America's aging population. Do we want healthy, alive voters, or the alternative?
John Seng
