Big Pharma Is A Drama Worth Watching
7 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 5th, 2007 // 8:23 am
At least Showtime thinks so. The cable channel has given a pilot order for a new drama called “Possible Side Effects,” which was written and directed by Tim Robbins.
And what’s it about? The hour-long project centers on a family that runs a pharmaceutical company. In addition to exploring the relationships of a dysfunctional family, Reuters tell us, the show will examine the political, scientific and bureaucratic machinery that makes up the pharmaceutical industry.
To get picked up, that first episode ought to be quite thrilling. Just imagine all the intrigue - clinical trial data about side effects that go undisclosed; inappropriate marketing to docs, who get free lunches; lab decisions made by marketing execs seeking blockbusters; huge lobbying fees paid to former US congressmen who now work for DC law firms; prices that are increased at least 10 percent a year automatically, and $50 million in annual compensation for the ceo, unless this is a privately held company. That would be disappointing. Then Wall Street wouldn’t be involved.
All this is imaginary, of course. We’ve not seen the episode and have no idea what Robbins has in mind. But sensationalism and simplification may just crop up. After all, what industry is more vulnerable to such portrayal these days than big pharma?
Chris
>
Oil, tobacco, mortgages, outsourced private security in Middle Eastern regions; but pharma’s the only REALLY bad industry isn’t it?
I hope they do as good a job as that film set in Africa - was it The Silent Gardener with Ralph Fiennes?
sid
I trust Tim Robbins for objective, unbiased information.
He was great in Bull Durham though, outside of The Natural the best baseball movie made. He will always be Meat to me.
I will give him a pass based on that movie.
It is amazing to me that every other area of the health care system gets a pass and everyone focuses on pharma. If you look at the numbers, pharma only accounts for 11% of healthcare dollars spent. And the experts will tell you this is actually keeping the costs down. Meds do much more good than harm when used appropriately. Save money, save lives. If we were a socialist country we wouldn’t have to worry about people treating it like a “business”. Maybe I should support Tim, and his leftist ideas.
Donna
Probably just a flashback from “Jacob’s Ladder”……..
Jack
Chris hit the biggest ones, but, although they may cause minimal political problems, I sure do hate the cable company.
Hank
“Constant Gardner,” btw.
Revised figures, which even PhRMA now acknowledges, say that the drugs account for about 19% of healthcare dollars. The 10-11% figure died awhile back.
The reason why pharma is the subject of so much ethical focus is precisely because of all the good they do, and because so many of us are dependent on them. A “moral drama” about big tobacco (even with Mike Wallace) just isn’t that interesting. For drama, you have to have priests, docs, or pharma who mess up - those whom we do, indeed, need to trust in a different way than, say, sociologists.
On the other hand, Ralph Nader got a lot of mileage (so to speak) out of cars.
eDrugSearch Blog » Blog Archive » Hollywood lib Tim Robbins prepares Big Pharma take-down
[...] lib Tim Robbins prepares Big Pharma take-down From Pharmalot: [Showtime] has given a pilot order for a new drama called “Possible Side Effects,” [...]
Pharm Aid
Surely Hank is willing to provide some reference for his statements?
PhRMA (Reporter’s Handbook 7-3), CMS Office of the Actuary, and even the rabid anti-pharma folks (Kaiser FF May 2007 and others) are all still reporting 10-11% based on the past year….exactly the same percentage it was over a decade ago.
Sorry Hank…