Introduction
The history of Big Pharma began with the advent of manufacturing and testing drugs tailored to the needs of certain populations of patients. Evidence-based approaches were scarce, so it was essential for the government to come up with a strategy that would generate a closer connection between consumers and medical professionals (Ledley et al. 839). Consequently, the process of manufacturing and selling drugs became even more streamlined, offering related organizations wider access to the health industry market. Big Pharma turned into a profitable business that could be seen producing quite a few side effects, both positive and negative. The existence of hidden truths and complications became a core contributor to challenges associated with how large pharmaceutical companies could tamper with patients and care providers (Sell 4). The current paper explores the wider effects of Big Pharma, and although society teaches its members to embrace modern Western medical practices for the sake of one’s health, the pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profits over the personal health of its clientele.
Big Pharma: Drug Pricing Dilemma and Profit Maximization
The first argument that has to be reviewed when dwelling on the issues with Big Pharma is the fact that prescription drug prices keep increasing. The drug pricing dilemma has a negative impact on American citizens, irrespective of all the subsidies coming from taxpayer money (Adler et al. 165). This alarming scenario has to be addressed because pharmaceutical companies keep raising prices without looking back at their target communities and their socioeconomic status. The healthcare industry slowly turned into a business-like environment where the lack of investments and swift decisions might lead to bankruptcy. This was one of the main reasons why Big Pharma eventually started focusing on pricing strategies that would leave patients clueless yet still willing to pay to gain access to required medication (Barbosa-Leiker et al. 189). The current million-dollar-revenue reports further prove the idea that Big Pharma focuses on profits and not patient outcomes. Even with generic drugs at hand, the situation remains the same because pharmaceutical companies are looking for the best opportunities to sell their products even if the target population does not need them at the moment.
As for the concept of profit maximization, numerous Big Pharma representatives were quick to jump on the pharmaceutical bandwagon due to the possibility of launching new drugs rapidly. The growing demand for medications intended to alleviate life-threatening conditions gave Big Pharma the carte blanche it needed to increase profit margins without any significant losses (Al Dahdah 378). Even though the greater portion of the American population cannot even afford such drugs, pharmaceutical companies keep producing them. On the other hand, the primary rationale for the increasing prices is the alleged difficulty of the manufacturing process (Sell 6). The focus on revenue maximization and strong marketing leads Big Pharma toward getting more pharmaceutical companies investigated thoroughly. For example, Heled et al. dwelled on how Gilead Sciences tried to maximize their profits without considering the grade of affordability or adequacy of the chosen pricing strategy (22). With this information in mind, it can be safe to conclude that pharmaceutical industry moguls have little concern for the target patients and their socioeconomic opportunities.
President Trump’s Administration and Drug Pricing Capacity
President Trump promised in 2016 that he would negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma companies in order to bring down all the related expenditures. Nevertheless, the promises turned out to be broken when numerous half-measures were deployed, with no actual impact on the prices set by Big Pharma (Florko 3). The lack of commitment became one of the key issues averting the government from addressing the gap that was created by pharmaceutical companies. The true cost of drugs was never highlighted by the government’s actions because Trump announced a series of regulations that addressed Medicaid and Medicare but ignored the actual impact of Big Pharma (Al Dahdah 380). Many consumers were misled by the government’s actions while Trump surrounded himself with numerous representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. Not only it allowed respective organizations to maximize their profits, but it also brought new, unassuming clients to the table who were ready to spend their money while waiting for the medication prices to go down.
Both Trump’s administration and the US Congress were unable to curb exceptionally high drug costs. Instead, numerous representatives chose to partner with Big Pharma councils to gain access to campaign money and review the existing investment plans (Cutler 829). It was evident that Trump failed to alter prescription drug pricing and reduce Big Pharma’s impact on the industry. Nevertheless, no additional amendments were released in an attempt to cover up previous letdowns and prohibit Big Pharma from increasing drug costs sporadically.
Benefits of Siding with Big Pharma
Despite the negative elements associated with Big Pharma, there are also several variables that have to be considered prior to making the final decision on its effectiveness. For instance, Min et al. suggest that Big Pharma could be one of the shortcuts toward equitable clinical trials (62). It means that diverse populations could be involved in expensive experiments to test the impact of medications on various populations within the shortest time frames possible. Knowing that there were inappropriate and abusive care acts and research projects carried out in the US territory, it is safe to say that Big Pharma has transformed the environment in a relatively positive manner (Schuhmacher et al. 1786). Underrepresentation and the lack of advocacy are no longer addressed as crucial issues because they have been eradicated from the pharmaceutical equation. When looking at Big Pharma through the lens of representation, the government may see various organizations providing the healthcare industry with the most comprehensive and diversified list of medications. Nevertheless, Big Pharma still leaves American citizens underserved because they do not get a chance to ensure that the government delivers the best medicines.
Conclusion
This argumentative research paper shows that Big Pharma is one of the most inconsistent, questionable concepts associated with American healthcare. Even though it is rarely stated directly, a culture of exploitation could be one of the main reasons why many patients seem to witness no positives when interacting with Big Pharma. The focus on returns on investment became so huge that Big Pharma began overlooking human suffering in order to maintain its profit margins. There have to be initiatives launched that would provide more financial support to patients and reduce their dependency on Big Pharma. Irrespective of the upsides pertaining to the notion of Big Pharma, there is only a limited number of reasons for American patients to contribute to the development of pharmaceutical companies. With fundamental organizational priorities being set incorrectly, it is impossible not to notice how Big Pharma’s conflict of interests overpowers the legislation and benefits private pharmaceutical businesses. If the issue is not addressed in the future, Big Pharma will have the chance to prioritize financial benefits over personal health outcomes over and over again.
Works Cited
Adler, Terry R., et al. “Team Over-Empowerment in Market Research: A Virtue-Based Ethics Approach.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 176, no. 1, 2022, pp. 159-173.
Al Dahdah, Marine. “Between Philanthropy and Big Business: The Rise of mHealth in the Global Health Market.” Development and Change, vol. 53, no. 2, 2022, pp. 376-395.
Barbosa-Leiker, Celestina, et al. “Healthcare Professionals’ and Budtenders’ Perceptions of Perinatal Cannabis Use.” The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, vol. 48, no. 2, 2022, pp. 186-194.
Cutler, David M. “Are Pharmaceutical Companies Earning Too Much?” JAMA, vol. 323, no. 9, 2020, pp. 829-830.
Florko, Nicholas. “Trump Vows Azar Will Lower Drug Prices — But Dems Want Commitment.” Inside CMS, vol. 20, no. 46, 2017, pp. 2-4.
Heled, Yaniv, et al. “The Problem with Relying on Profit-Driven Models to Produce Pandemic Drugs.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-23.
Ledley, Fred D., et al. “Profitability of Large Pharmaceutical Companies Compared with Other Large Public Companies.” Jama, vol. 323, no. 9, 2020, pp. 834-843.
Min, Maung, et al. “Should Pharmaceutical Companies Engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?” Journal of Management Development, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 58-70.
Schuhmacher, Alexander, et al. “R&D Efficiency of Leading Pharmaceutical Companies – A 20-Year Analysis.” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 26, no. 8, 2021, pp. 1784-1789.
Sell, Susan K. “21st-Century Capitalism: Structural Challenges for Universal Health Care.” Globalization and Health, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-9.