The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Pharmaceuticals

Facing an Epidemic: An Analysis of HIV/AIDS, Antiretroviral Drug, and International Response to the AIDS Pandemic

Michael Tate — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:30:00 PDT

More than 33 million people are living with HIV/AIDS around the globe with 68% of all cases occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. The global prevalence rate is shocking considering that the disease was relatively unknown just 30 years ago. After reviewing medical, health policy, and health statistical journals, I will argue in this paper that international aid to nations struggling with AIDS needs to be redirected and refocused on supplying antiretroviral therapy to afflicted nations because ARV has been proven to be effective in managing the disease in countries that can afford the costs of treatment. International aid to countries that are ravished by the epidemic, and the United States is one of the top contributors to such efforts with its “President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The U.S. has realized the potential economic benefits of helping out such as becoming primary trade partners with the nations who have plenty of valuable natural resources despite their AIDS issues. In the U.S.’s efforts to combat terrorism, the nation has an interest in “stabilizing” certain countries, which are typically in Africa, so that they can resist potential terrorist threats or military coups. PEPFAR’s goal in fighting AIDS is part of the stabilization effort on the continent of Africa.

Fortunately, major pharmaceutical companies have discovered compounds that are effective in attacking the HIV virus, and this has led to the production of “antiretroviral” drugs. Anti-retroviral therapy has proven to be a useful tool used by those suffering from HIV/AIDS to manage their disease better and obtain a higher quality life. Such medications are widely available in wealthy nations, but poor countries that have the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence have a harder time affording such therapy or managing the drug supplies. Potential solutions to this problem include selling antiretroviral drugs at a lower cost to developing nations or using generic versions of such drugs.

Recession Proof Pills: An Examination of the Relationship Between Recession Economics and Pharmaceutical Expenditures

Kevin Gray — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:30:00 PDT

The first decade of the 21st century proved to be a time of turbulence and volatility in the worldwide economy. Oddly enough, even as Americans’ disposable income decreased, spending on health care steadily increased. Americans spent $249.9 billion on prescription drugs in 2009, contrasted against $120.9 billion in 2000—a 105% increase.1 We may question the overall ramifications of such increases in pharmaceutical sales and the correlation to other economic factors. That is, how was the pharmaceutical sector able to boast gains when the housing market collapsed? One answer is that people place a priority on their health, even with limited resources. A report sanctioned by the World Health Organization illustrates the problem when it states that, “It is hard to gauge the implications of the recession on people's health”.2 In this paper, I examine pharmaceutical sales figures to develop a better understanding of how the Great Recession (2009) affected health care and pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States.

A January 2011 Health Affairs article argues that, “In 2009, despite the economic downturn, the number of prescription drugs dispensed rebounded to prerecession rates of growth”.3 While the recession stifled the overall rate of spending on prescription drugs, Americans allocated a greater amount of GDP to pharmaceuticals—$249.9 billion in 2009 contrasted against $237.2 billion in 2008.4 The pharmaceutical industry, then, really dispenses recession-proof pills. Understanding the complexities of recession economics will ultimately illustrate the need for restructuring how pharmaceutical companies produce and government agencies regulate prescription drugs in the United States.

Medicines that Kill

Lina Ahmed Abushouk — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:30:00 PDT

The prevalence of counterfeit drugs on the African continent has been increasing at an alarming rate. “Medicines that Kill” is a research paper that attempts to analyze the factors that make African countries particularly susceptible to this global threat. Nigeria, a country that has had some of the highest rates of counterfeit drugs in the world, is the main case study for this paper. Its efforts to combat the issue are compared and contrasted with those of Tanzania and Kenya in an attempt to understand what aspects of the issue are unique to Africa and the methods that have been successful in combating the issue. To provide further insight on the impact that drug counterfeiting has had on African public healthcare systems, their struggles to overcome this issue will be discussed. Particular attention is paid to the successful efforts of Dora Akunyili, the head of the Nigerian Drug and Food Agency, in reducing drug counterfeiting in Nigeria. The role of mobile phones in helping combat this issue is also examined. The efforts of African leaders and legislators, who have come together, to form continent wide legislation to persecute drug counterfeiters is included. Finally, based on these efforts and the analysis of leading experts like Roger Bates, a Harvard professor on public health, whose research is used extensively in this paper, Dora Akunyili and the World Health Organization future predictions about counterfeit drugs and their effects on public healthcare systems in Africa are made.