AU Blogspot

              
             Thanks to Javier Belmont for permission to use this Photo.

While working as a pharmacy technician, you will see that most muscle relaxants and hormones are available only as prescription (or legend) drugs.  A few years ago, I was working at a retail store late on a Friday evening.  A person walked slowly up to the pharmacy counter and asked me to sell him some carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant).  Being pretty naïve, I asked for his name so I could pull up his refills on the computer.  He replied, “I don’t have a prescription.”  After I informed him that carisoprodol required a prescription, he left the pharmacy.  Without a valid prescription I could neither provide the man with carisoprodol nor appropriately assess his intentions for use.  

Be aware that, even though many muscle relaxants are not controlled substances, they do have the potential for being abused.  You can perform a valuable service by assisting the pharmacist in monitoring the quantity and frequency of refills your customers purchase.  If you notice a possible abuse situation, notify the pharmacist.  If it’s a case of the original prescription being no longer adequate, it may be time for the patient’s doctor to try a higher dose or another medication altogether. 

Tina Boyd Stacy
Pharmacy Technology Instructor
Ashworth University

Many parents have said yes. David Healy, a Scottish psychiatrist, prompted by those stories, did a small experiment in which undepressed persons took anti-depressants. About 10% of them started having suicidal thoughts. Drug companies and the University of Toronto (where Healy had been offered a job) reacted very badly to this information, as Healy describes in Let Them Eat Prozac. An article in the latest issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry by David Leon, a biostatistician on the FDA oversight panel, describes why he voted to extend a warning about this from children (< 18 years old) to young adults (18-24 years old). This was the main data:

What’s shown is the odds ratio for a report of suicide ideation or behavior, comparing those who got anti-depressants with those who got placebos. (more…)

                 Thanks to Gianni for permission to use this Photo.

Daniel Carlat, of the Carlat Report, has an article in the New York Times Magazine.  It’s six pages long, and decidedly anti-Pharma.  But Daniel Carlat isn’t from New York– so why would he have an article published there?

You say: well, where he’s from has nothing to do with it, the New York Times is publishing it because of what he says.

Exactly.

His article, well written and persuasive, stands as is, undisputed because there is no forum in which to dispute it.  I guess it would be nice if the Times would allow me to write an op-ed– you know, in op to the ed– but I guess this blog will have to do.

Carlat is wrong, very wrong, not because he is factually incorrect about his target, but because his target is a straw man.  The problem isn’t Pharma.  It’s doctors.

The article, called Dr. Drug Rep, chronicles his introduction into the world of lecturing for drug companies– a company hires you to give a talk about a topic or drug to a bunch of doctors– and the effects of the lecturing on doctors and himself, and then his pulling out.  For context, Carlat is a fairly famous psychiatrist blogger who is both a sort of watchdog of Pharma, as well as a source of information about psychiatric drugs. 

The general message is that Pharma softly manipulates doctors to act as proxy drug reps, which in turn lends credibility/celebrity endorsement to the Pharma message, and thus influences other doctors to prescribe the medicine.  Ok, I hear you.  I have no beef with Carlat, his point is not unique.

But break it down:

So we don’t want doctors lecturing about the drugs.  Okay.  Well, who do we want?  More reps?  Here’s where it all falls apart, and I defy anyone to contradict me: doctors aren’t studying these drugs on their own. (more…)

 
                Thanks to supergiball for permission to use this Photo.

On the surface, it seems that American voters have made their will clear.  Poll after poll shows that they are calling for a major overhaul of our health care system.  But when you look closer, their responses bristle with contradictions, contradictions that I think the reform-minded presidential candidates will have to consider when deciding how to approach health care reform. 

In a poll reported in Health Affairs at the end of last year, sixty-nine percent of respondents rated the US system as “fair” or “poor.” Yet in the same survey, when asked about their own experience with receiving medical services or with their own physician, 80 percent who had received care in the last year ranked their care as “excellent” or ”good.”  Other polls reveal the same pattern.

According to a survey released by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner in July, voters express doubts about the quality of the American health care system (with 49 percent dissatisfied), while 74 percent were dissatisfied with the cost.   Yet, “at another, more personal level,” the pollsters note, “a slightly different picture emerges. Fully eight in ten (82 percent) describe themselves as satisfied with the quality of the health care they receive personally. This number jumps to 90 percent among seniors (64 percent very satisfied), but includes impressive majorities of nearly all groups…”

Nevertheless, when the pollsters asked the same group about health care reform, three-quarters called for “major changes” or “completely rebuilding” the system.  If they are satisfied with the care they are receiving, why would they want radical change? Because they don’t feel secure that they will be able to keep what they have:  “There’s a precariousness to Americans’ contentment with their own health insurance coverage,” the Kaiser Family Foundation reported after looking at a number of polls at the end of last year.  “Among the insured, six in ten are at least somewhat worried about being able to afford the cost of their health insurance over the next few years, and nearly as many (56 percent) said they worry that by losing a job, they or their family might be left without coverage.”

This, then, is why so many Americans want universal health care: it would guarantee that they and their families would always be covered. (more…)

 
           Thanks to Megan Walton for permission to use this Photo.

For the past year, progressives have begun to talk about health care reform as if it is inevitable. Listen to the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates, and it seems just a question of what form the health care revolution will take, how quickly it will happen, and how we’ll finance it. After all, the polls show that the majority of taxpayers, employers and even most doctors want to see a major change.  Moreover, health care research shows that if we cut the waste in our system, we could fund universal coverage. What, then, is stopping us? (more…)

As any policy-maker knows, catering to public opinion, ensuring the public interest, and managing costs can seem an impossible task–especially when what the public thinks it wants is at loggerheads with what it needs. But in the case of health care, there may be an opportunity to do all three at once according to a proposal in the September/October Health Affairs.

The proposal argues for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) “to set priorities for Medicare coverage of new or costly interventions” through a citizens’ council made up of “a cross-section of users” who can provide leadership with “well-considered social-value judgments.” This citizens’ council model is borrowed from the UK, where a group of 30 men and women advise the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on behalf of the public.

The British experience shows that there are likely to be practical complications with implementing a citizens’ council, but it’s still an idea that’s on the right track. We need to turn “cost-effectiveness” from a bad word into a public interest issue in the US.

The authors of the proposal, Dr. Marthe Gold from CUNY, Shoshanna Sofaer from Baruch College, and Taryn Siegelberg from CUNY, envision the American citizens council as being an advisor to the Medicare Evidence Development Coverage Advisory Committee. The council would advise on the criteria for CEA—in other words, how to decide whether the effectiveness of a new intervention justifies its cost, and thus warrants coverage under Medicare. Issues to be deliberated would include: How should we assess weigh factors such as a patient’s level of suffering or disadvantage, behavioral choices, and age when making a decision? How effective must a treatment be to warrant coverage? Should we give a higher priority to preventions or cures?

These are profoundly difficult questions to answer definitively, particularly for members of the general public who lack medical expertise. As the authors note, information is a major concern—the council needs to know enough to function effectively. 

Unfortunately, striking the right balance between information/education on the one hand and deliberation/ autonomy on the other has proven difficult. A 2005 study from the Open University showed that the UK citizens council has “struggled less than successfully with understanding its role…and understanding the questions set.”

The council, caught between being the voice of the people and needing to understand complex health care issues, often lacks the right mix of “knowledge base, role, authority, and the design of the social situation.” It’s not always clear where the council fits into the decision-making process, in part because the council is expected to simultaneously learn about issues and comment on them.

                   Thanks to Jim for permission to use this Photo.

Because of these difficulties, NICE pays “more attention to the process than the product [i.e. citizens’ advice] and the way in which that product would be used.” Procedure trumps output. As a result, the citizens council is sometimes relegated to “abstract core tasks”—such as issuing general declarations rather than providing substantive guidance—a pattern that incurred the wrath of patient advocates who called the council a “toothless tiger.”

Anyone who wants to understand 21st century health care faces a steep learning curve. Balancing public input with the expertise and nuance needed to provide meaningful guidance is a tricky business, and the challenge of doing so should not be underestimated.

Still, the UK citizens council has only been around since 2002, and the Open University report notes that with every installment of the council, more and more kinks are worked out. And even if public input in health priorities represents a challenge, it’s by no means a fool’s errand.

Conventional wisdom assumes—without proof, as Gold et al. note—that Americans do not want to discuss health care costs because they view cost-cutting as a synonym for quality-reduction. But the absence of CEA in the US is due more to a lack of conversation rather than to resistance.

Polling data shows that Americans are ready to talk about cost. Indeed, it’s hard to argue that cost is a non-starter when the public views it as the nation’s most important health care problem. Back in 1999, Americans thought AIDS and cancer were bigger concerns, but today it’s the cost of health care that keeps Americans up at night. The average American is just as worried about cost as is the policy wonk, making now the perfect time to institutionalize a role for the public in cost management.

Requesting public inputs while setting health priorities can begin to demolish the misconception of “more care is better care” that conflates cost-effectiveness with stinginess. By opening the insular world of cost management to public priorities, we defuse the possibility of Americans viewing CEA as a means to “cheat” them out of care.

Will it be a bumpy ride? Maybe. But if democratizing cost-effectiveness helps the US move toward smarter, more sustainable health coverage, then it’s worth the effort.

Maggie Mahar
Creator of Health Beat
Ashworth University Contributing Blogger

*Maggie Mahar is a fellow at The Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006) and Bull! A History of the Boom, 1982–1999 (Harper/Collins, 2003), a book that Warren Buffett recommended in Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report.  We would like offer our gratitude to Maggie Mahar for granting us the opportunity to share her brilliant perspectives with the AU student community.  Visit’s Maggie’s blog, Health Beat, for some of the best healthcare analyses on the Web.

So once again I’m in the weird position of having to defend something I’m actually against. 

The latest is from John Edwards, et al. Here’s the headline: Edwards unveils plan to control drug advertising.  Read that sentence, and decide what you think the intent of the plan is.  Is he talking about controlling the colors of the ads?

Most likely, you think it’s the effect the ads have on drug prices.  “The excessive costs of prescription drugs are straining family budgets and contributing to runaway health care costs…”

Let’s temporarily grant that that this statement is true.  What is the link between advertising and prescription drug costs?  Is he saying that spending on ads increases the price of drugs?  That would be wrong, and I have to believe he knows it.

First, Pharma spends about $4b on DTC ads.  It has yearly sales of about $200b, so even if every penny spent on ads was instead used to lower the price of the drugs, no one would actually notice.  Additionally, prices of branded drugs rise about 6%/year, regardless of how much they spend on ads.

Second, we should probably define “drug prices.”  If I roll into a pharmacy with a prescription and choose to pay cash, how much will it be?  The answer, as it turns out, depends on the pharmacy.  These are retail prices, that pharmacies charge no-insurance cash payers; on average, 15% more than insurance rates. But let’s be honest here: cash payers can’t afford a lot of these medications at any price.  If you’re one of the unfortunate working poor who don’t have a prescription plan, you can’t afford the medication at full price, 20% off, even 50% off. The price is irrelevant; what matters is whether you have a prescription plan, or a doctor who can provide samples forever.

So for everyone else, “prices” really means prices to insurance companies, or Medicaid/Medicare, all who  negotiate a price that has almost nothing to do with the actual patient demand for a drug.  A  price which is considerably lower than retail.  Medicaid apparently gets a 20% discount, the VA 40%. (1) 

So DTC advertising doesn’t affect the price because the consumer isn’t paying it.  The price was set in negotiation.  Certainly the price Pharma asks from wholesalers and insurers takes into account their costs, including advertising; and more ads (hopefully) means more scripts which means higher profits. But increases in advertising don’t translate directly to higher prices, they reduce the profits.  Higher prices are the result of  negotiations between parties that are immune to the effects of advertising.  That’s the problem.  

Third: perhaps what we really mean is that DTC ads raise the overall Medicaid/Medicare expenditures because more scripts are being written that would otherwise not have been written without the DTC ads.  Well, if this is what we’re saying, we should just say this; let’s not use factually inaccurate soundbites that play to the hearts of superficial idiots. 

But if we are saying this, then the problem isn’t the prices of the drugs, it’s doctors prescribing drugs they shouldn’t be prescribing.  The solution isn’t, therefore, to reduce drug prices; in fact, that’s the opposite of what you want, because it makes it even easier for doctors to prescribe what they shouldn’t be prescribing.  The actual solution would either be to raise drug costs (bad idea), controlling doctors’ prescribing (bad idea), or giving them a medication budget they have to stay within, but preserving prescribing freedom.

It should bring us pause that even the AMA refused to recommend banning DTC ads.  If Edwards plan was specifically about protecting the patients from half-truths or seductive graphics that compel patients to request medications that they don’t need or might compromise their health, then I’m behind him 100%. I already think DTC should be banned. But like all political soundbites, this isn’t about content but about ambiance, creating a feeling that he’s all about cutting costs— that’s he’s more than Hillary. Unfortunately, empty rhetoric like this distracts us from real problems, like Iraq, Iran, wealth divergence, recession, etc.

——

1.  As a horrifying diversion into drug pricing, let’s look at Medicaid.  Medicaid, by law, will pay (to a pharmacy who dispenses the drug) a percentage of the average wholesale price, plus a dispensing fee.  Both the percentage and the dispensing fee vary from state to state, but it’s on the order of 85% of average wholesale price, and $5 dispensing fee.  On average, Medicaid pays about $61 per prescription: $14 goes to the pharmacy, $47 to Pharma.   If anyone can tell me how DTC ads affect that, I’m listening.  So pharmacies don’t make a lot on this, and it’s a far cry from the markup the pharmacy can impose on a cash payer.  And pharmacies aren’t obligated to participate in Medicaid.

In practice, wholesale price is anything Pharma says it is, including some bizarrely inflated price.  But whatever it is, I hope it is clear that it has nothing to do with ads.

And then there are the rebates. I hope you’re sitting down.

In gratitude for this excellent reimbursement, Pharma agrees to rebate Medicaid about 15% or the manufacturer’s price, plus an additional rebate every year for the amount of price increase that exceeds inflation.  In 2003, the average rebate was 31%.

There’s another rebate.  Many insurances have pharmacy business managers (PBMs) who make preferred drug lists.  How does a drug get on that list?  It isn’t by being cheap; ask Illinois Medicaid in 2005, when they wouldn’t cover Seroquel, arguably the most demanded but hardly the most expensive.  What it takes is, as they say in Big Pharma, “our willingness to play ball.”  Another “rebate.”That money stays in the managed Medicaid’s pocket. The savings aren’t passed on to the patient, either directly or indirectly.   If you want an analogy, it’s the parking authority; revenue from tickets doubles, triples, but the amount they pay to the cities doesn’t change.   The extra “profits” goes back into the authority, to hire more people, pay more salaries. It’s a self-propagating bureaucracy.  I should also mention that, consistent with bureaucracies, it can’t even collect those rebates very well.

The Last Psychiatrist
Ashworth University Contributing Blogger

*”The Last Psychiatrist” is an academic psychiatrist specializing in forensics, a respected author, and an award winning blogger.  Selected as one of the “Best Doctors In America”, The Last Psychiatrist prefers to remain anonymous in cyberspace and allow his/her work speak for itself through their acclaimed blog.  We would like to express our gratitude to this very talented professional for providing us with the opportunity to share his/her exemplary work with the Ashworth University  student community.  We encourage you to visit The Last Psychiatrist blog for additional insights.  Thanks Doc! 

1.  References

This is how references are done now:

I could make a career out of exposing references that have nothing to do with, or directly contradict, the referenced statement. (Here’s one.)  This system of referencing makes it very hard to do this– and I wonder if that’s not the point.

It is, by contrast, very easy to link the exact article referenced– even the exact page in the article.  There is no reason not to do this.  Even in this ridiculous blog, I link back to at least the abstract of each article I reference.

One might respond that, online, when you click on the superscript, it takes you to the references, which has a further link to the actual article.  Ok– why the extra step?

Note that the way references are done here is antithetical to science.  Look at the reference pictured above.  What do you see?  What is important?  What you see are the authors and the journal, not the scientific content.  That’s what’s implied to be important.  We’re supposed to accept the science of a statement by the force of the author and journal?  But that speaks to my later point about bias.

2.  Subscription

Sorry, why should government or Pharma sponsored research require me to pay someone else (the Journal) for access to that information?  So, if I’m a welder in Kentucky, I can’t know what’s really up with Depakote for bipolar?  I have to read some nut blogger?

It is a simple process for a Journal to host online all articles as free text.  Or, better, scientists can publish their work on their own site (hosted by a university, etc, if necessary.)

Neither are Journals necessary as repositories of vetted information.  There are numerous ways these scattered articles can be collated, packaged and even summarized for easy use.  Slashdot, Digg, and others are very effective in this regard; and something similar can be done with science.  I know, Digg can be gamed. What, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry can’t? 

3.  Where’s The Raw Data?

Rephrasing from above: why am I not allowed to see the raw data from a government sponsored study?  (And from Pharma– if they agree to do a study, then they must agree to make all data public.) You may have heard that there are rumblings about making this data accessible– but not to everyone; only to those with appropriate access (academics, etc.)  Again– why? 

4.  Slow

This is a common lament, but it misses the point: it is artificially slow.  As in on purpose. Articles that are submitted for peer review should simply be published in a “pending peer review” section.  Other sciences already do this.  To the criticism that doctors may act on unreviewed science, it should be noted that citing “personal communication” (e.g. an email) as a reference is perfectly acceptable.  Is that safer? Oh, and about that peer review:  

5.  Peer Review

Even with a Cray XT4 supercomputer, MATLAB, the host of Fresh Air and a team of Vogons, it would be nearly impossible to create a worse system than peer review.  A skull resection would be a cleaner way of evaluating information.  Peer review does not have the potential for bias; it is specifically designed to retain bias, and to maintain the primacy of subjective opinion over objective findings.  The only people who support peer review are other peer reviewers, and angler fish.  If necessary, money should be diverted from pediatric AIDS research and however many koalas sacrificed in order to put a stop to this oligochracy.  It’s that important.

In medicine, “peer review” is the editor of a journal and three other doctors- that the author suggests as reviewers.  While ostensibly the author’s identity is unknown to the reviewers, in practice it is simple to determine authorship (type of research; meetings; and even looking at the Microsoft Word manuscript’s Properties.)  Oh, and the editor knows who you are. 

Most people think peer review is some infallible system for evaluating knowledge.  It’s not.  Here’s what peer review does not do: it does not try to verify the accuracy of the content.  They do not have access to the raw data.  They don’t re-run the statistical calculations to see if they’re correct.  They don’t look up references to see if they are appropriate/accurate.

So what do they do? They look for study “importance” and “relevance.”  You know what that means?  Nothing.  It means four people think the article is important.  Imagine your four doctor friends were exclusively responsible for deciding what you read in journals.  Better example: imagine the four members of the current Administration “peer reviewed” news stories for the NY Times.

On the force of the recommendation of these three reviewers, and the editor– who, by the way, decides whether to even send it to reviewers at all, or simply reject it– the article gets published or not.  And there is no right to an appeal.

Imagine a movie gets previewed by four people, who decide if the movie is important or not, and whether it will play in theatres.  You know what you get?  Notes On A Scandal, that’s what.  And riots.

The peer review system also promotoes the perpetuation of biases.  Doctors are subtly pressed into writing articles about certain topics– consider the Depakote madness of 2000-2004; the noradrenergic hypothesis of depression in the 70s (where’d that go?); and how every issue of BMJ has an article on war.   (Except July: that was the month they wrote about whether to boycott Israeli academic institutions.  Ok.)  Academic careers are made, in part, by the number and quality (i.e. journal) of publications, which will be influenced by what they think certain journals would publish.   

                Thanks to Carmen for permission to use this Photo.

6.  Lack of Debate

There is no way to have a meaningful debate about an article within the Journal system.  As an example: if I find a logical error in an article (e.g. mistaking correlation for causation) I can only point this out by writing a “Letter To The Editor.” Here’s the problem: “Letters” are peer reviewed, too. 

The original article may be disseminated and read widely; but even if it is published, my Letter will have little attention.  An example from my own practice: I’ve been as vocal as I can about how there is only one double blind, placebo controlled study about Depakote in maintenance bipolar– and it did not beat placebo.  This fact is important precisely because it is popularly (by psychiatrists) believed that Depakote has volumes of such data supporting its efficacy.  I don’t have to be a major academic player to look this fact up; but I do have to be in order for anyone to publish my discovery.  

Contrast this with Metafilter or Slashdot.  Not only is there meaningful debate, but one gets to know the participants (and can search on them.)  There is a system for favoriting comments, etc.  And the author can fix the article quickly to take into account any new information/criticisms. 
 

7.  Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

Almost completely invalid for its intended purpose.  So if a doctor does a dinner program for a drug rep, he has to disclose the relationship.  But if a doctor is dating a drug rep– that relationship he doesn’t need to disclose. 

Even more strange is that these are commercial conflicts of interest, only.  If you are a communist, or Priest of Scientology, or a serial pedophile; these are not disclosures.  Neither is being funded by the NIH (any surprise that NIH studies always find that the generic is the best?)  Or being married to the Chair at Harvard. If your academic career is so far built on studying antiepileptics in bipolar, and you write an article saying lithium should never be used, only antiepileptics– isn’t that a conflict?

Aren’t personal beliefs a bias?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t disclose drug company ties; I’m saying to single those out as somehow more damaging, more biasing than any others is preposterous.  It’s not a false sense of security; it’s a deliberate misdirection from all the other things that actually bias science.  And it sidesteps the entire point of scientific articles– if they are truly scientific, if the articles were truly “peer reviewed”– it shouldn’t matter what your biases are.  I could own Pfizer.  The article on Zoloft should stand on its own.  It’s also worth noting that the peer reviewers are not asked to disclose any of their commercial interests. 

8.  Boring.  

Jesus.  No exposition needed.  I’m not saying you need references to Cheap Trick or a gratuitous nude woman with a bottle, but come on. 

9.  Abstracts As Promos

See this blog post, where it starts out, “I know, right: only ten?” and then you have to click to get the full article?  So my promo has really no useful information in it.  You know why?  Because I am a blogger, that’s why.

Contrast that with the abstract from an important study on Lamictal for maintenance treatment in bipolar (emphasis mine): 

Conclusions: Both lamotrigine and lithium were superior to placebo for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of mood episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder who had recently experienced a manic or hypomanic episode. The results indicate that lamotrigine is an effective, well-tolerated maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder, particularly for prophylaxis of depression.  

The Conclusions seem to say Lamictal is good for preventing mood episodes, mania and depression– is there any other way to interpret it?  In fact, this study shows it is only good for preventing depression, not mania at all.  Why is it written this way?  Because the authors want to advance the idea that Lamictal is a “mood stabilizer” and not what it actually is: an antidepressant. 

You have to understand that most doctors do not read the study, they don’t even read the abstract– they skim the abstract.  “Look- just tell me what happened.”   For this reason, the abstract has to be an accurate summary of the article, not a promo for an idea. But that’s why it is written this way; it’s not about the findings, it’s about the authors’ agenda. 

What’s stupid about this is that negative findings are as important to a clinician as positive findings.  They are less important, of course, to academics whose careers depend on positive findings, and the drug companies who sponsor them. 

10.  Advertisements  

Pick up a medical journal– inside you will see drug ads.   I haven’t heard many people complain that this influences the science in the journals, the way authors’ “conflicts of interest” is supposed to.  But before you respond, consider that  the ads are only for one product per class.  For example, in the NEJM, there is a two-page, full color ad for Lipitor, but none for any other cholesterol drug.  Oh, my mistake– there are two, two page ads for Lipitor (running $32,000 per issue).  Same with one inhaled insulin; one antidepressant (Effexor); one sleeper (Rozerem) etc, etc.  If having ties to Pharma influences the outcome of science, what is the effect of having a financial ties to only one Pharma company per class?    The way to test this would be to see whether the journal publishes more articles, or more favorable articles, about the suspected drug (i.e. Lipitor.)  Well, get to it.

The Last Psychiatrist
Ashworth University Contributing Blogger

*The Last Psychiatrist is an academic psychiatrist specializing in forensics, a respected author, and an award winning blogger.  Selected as one of the “Best Doctors In America”, The Last Psychiatrist prefers to remain anonymous in cyberspace and allow his/her work speak for itself through their acclaimed blog.  We would like to express our gratitude to this very talented professional for providing us with the opportunity to share his/her exemplary work with the Ashworth University  student community.  We encourage you to visit The Last Psychiatrist blog for additional insights.  Thanks Doc! 

The New York Times recently published an interesting article by Jane Brody describing the phenomenon of polypharmacy: simply put, too many drugs, whether prescription, over-the-counter, or both. It’s a particular problem in elderly patients, who suffer from multiple conditions, and who often see multiple doctors who don’t know what other drugs patients are taking. Those drugs often interact, producing additional morbidity and even death.

Here are some sobering data describing the incidence of polypharmacy: Polypharmacy is responsible for up to 28 percent of hospital admissions and, he added, if it were classified as such, it would be the fifth leading cause of death in the United States.

 
              Thanks to mediterrate for permission to use this Photo.

Polypharmacy can even occur when doctors do know what other doctors have prescribed, but are afraid to override other doctors’ decisions. There’s an increasingly useful role for consultant pharmacists, who, despite their superior training in identifying potential interactions, often come into conflict with physicians when they question prescriptions.

I’m glad, however, that the term “polypharmacy” is now out there in the New York Times. Increased awareness of polypharmacy is one way in which patients and their families can be better advocates for their own care. Changing the culture of medicine and reducing the fragmentation of health care to reduce risk of polypharmacy are, again, as we all know, different stories entirely.

Dr. Emily DeVoto
Creator of The Antidote Blog
AU Contributing Blogger

*Dr. Emily DeVoto is an independent health care consultant, epidemiologist, and journalism groupie. She is exploring ways to promote, via the Internet, the use of evidence to improve health care and health journalism.  We’re honored to introduce the perspectives of such a distinguished, honorable, and dedicated health care professional to the AU student community.  Emily has been very generous in allowing us this opportunity and we extend our deepest appreciation to her.  Emily’s blog, The Antidote, is one of the most respected resources in the health care field and we encourage you to visit it and comment.  Thanks Emily!