Yipeng "Robin" Fei
Pre-Medical Surgical Internship
Article Response #5
An effective eye drug is available for $50. But many doctors choose a $2,000 alternative
In this article, the author discusses problems about two drugs, Avastin and Lucentis, that are used to deal with blindness and sight difficulty afflicting the elders in America (Whoriskey & Keating, 2013) and tries to answer the question that why so many doctors are more willing to prescribe the one that costs forty times more while both of the two biological cousins work equally well. Although the author successfully acknowledge the cause of this situation by revealing the problems in pharmaceutical industry, I think the existence of this system still have its eligible reasons and the issues regarding pharmaceutical reform warrant further discussion.
First of all, while having problems, the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. also have accomplished great achievements in regards to medical science and the patient care during the past several decades. It is no double that research of new drugs consume huge amounts of money. But the society have also benefited both academically and practically from the invention of new drugs which have been cultivated by the same system. Moreover, the economic logic behind the system, that drug companies are covered by their patent for a certain period to enable companies to regain their initial investment in new medication, also allow them to earn more profits as the funding for research of further improvement or other new drugs. Some might say it is a vicious cycle that has nourished greed and snobbism in the industry (Whoriskey, 2013), nevertheless, this "cycle" benefits thousands of millions of present and future patients and keeps booming the industry ever since its existence. This is probably why the U.S. is the origin of most of the revolutionary...