How Drug Companies Cheat the Patent System

According to the New York Times, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries recently payed $512 million to settle claims that the company was paying off generic drug companies to keep their cheaper products off the market. The drug company's intent, as explained by the article, was to be able to keep selling their sleep disorder drug, Provigil, for hundreds of dollars without competition from generic copycat drugs. While this would obviously be great for Teva, the reality is that American consumers are forced to pay ridiculous sums for their medications for far longer . When the release of generic drugs is delayed, many ill people must simply forgo medication that much longer.

This is not the first time this practice has been seen in the industry. The New York Times also cites an instance in 2011 in which Cephalon "paid generic drug manufacturers more than $200 million" to delay sales of their generic drugs until 2012. It also says that drug purchasers argued that "were it not for deals with generic companies, the drug [in this instance] would have faced competition in 2006", meaning that Cephalon's pricing remained absurdly high for six years longer than it should have.

According to former Federal Trade Commission policy director, attention being brought to this issue is "a great result for consumers". But, paying off generic companies is not the only way that Big Pharma companies can use their money to slip past the system. Companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson have all payed sums greater than a billion dollars to settle claims for offenses such as off-label promotion and paying "kickbacks" to doctors. Hopefully, raising awareness about the Teva incident will subsequently raise awareness about these questionable business practices as well. 

Is College No Longer Worth Investing In?

In the last two decades alone, the amount of both people and money going into higher education has skyrocketed. According to a recent article in The Economist, the percentage of college age students actually enrolled in college increased from 14% to 32% over these years, while the OECD countries increased their spending on higher education from 1.3% to 1.6% of total GDP. That means millions of students and billions and billions of dollars. This is undoubtedly great news for global education as a whole, however, the subsequent increase in demand for degrees may be turning America's higher education into a money driven system, not a system focused on learning.

While the article admits that a bachelor's degree does still promise a 15% return on investment, it also states that, in a recent study on "academic achievement", "45 percent of students made no gains in their first two years of university". Though such a lack of learning may be hard to believe, it might not matter so much. Another study on "recruitment by professional-services firms" found that firms selected candidates from the "most-prestigious universities because of those universities' tough selection procedures", not because of "what candidates might have learned" in their time at that university. This is because America's higher education system lacks a "clear measure of educational output". The article therefore suggests that, when considering post-college employment, college really is all about getting in.

However, this goes directly against every single one of the reassuring, don't-obssess-over-college talks I have gotten in high school. This information seems to reaffirm everything that I foolishly thought about college going into high school: that I must always work my ass of because I have to get into the most selective university I can or the world will end.

What about the piece by Frank Bruni that was the most-emailed New York Times article for two weeks straight, "How to Survive the College Admissions Madness"? That article seems to directly disagree with the economist in a number of ways. It quotes Sam Altman, "one of the best known providers of first-step seed money for tech start-ups" as saying that the school where the graduates most stand out is "'the University of Waterloo'", not one of the country's most selective private schools. It also describes the obsession over "getting into the Stanfords of the world" as "getting crazier and more corrosive", not important for employment as The Economist would lead you to believe.

So which assessment of America's college system is closer to the truth? Which one do you think should the college system strive for?

What Drug Companies Don't Tell You

The F.D.A.'s recent approval of a new drug, named Corlanor and developed by the drug and biotech company Agmen, may keep millions of Americans suffering from heart disease out of the hospital/

Whereas many "new" drugs released are basically the same as older medications, Corlanor actually does promise to have a different effect on its patients, those suffering from chronic heart failure. According to the New York Times, "the drug works by inhibiting what is known as the 'funny current' in the heart's natural pacemaker". Based on the study that won the drug the F.D.A.'s approval, the drug promises a reduction in risk [of hospitalization for heart failure] of 26 percent".

This sounds like fairly good news, but the problems lay in the way the study was conducted. First of all, it says in the New York Times article itself that the study was payed for by Servier, a french pharmaceutical company. Although Servier and Agmen may be different companies, this is still a tremendous conflict of interests because the companies have collaborated together in the past. Even if that wasn't the case, the study would still be inherently bias because, as I have learned from my Junior theme book, Our Daily Meds by Melody Petersen, drug companies that pay for studies tend to disproportionately favor the interest of the company. According to the book, one way that drug companies can make this happen is by requiring those who conduct the studies to test the drug against a placebo instead of against a competing drug or an older drug.

Interestingly enough, that is exactly what is done in the study that was cited in the New York Times. The article says that "[patients] were randomly assigned to take either the ivabradine [Corlanor] or a placebo. The obvious problem with this is that Corlanor is really being compared with nothing. Therefore, the "promising" results really only mean that taking this $4500 a year drug is better than nothing.

Corlanor has also shown signs of being unsafe in trials. The article states that cardiologists are "lukewarm" about the drug's approval in part because the it has been shown to drop heart rates "dangerously low" in some patients.

Based on the flawed studies and with its potential risks, should Corlanor have even been approved?Should the FDA hold companies like Agmen to higher standards?

University.com

With the average annual cost of tuition at a private university reaching more than $31,000, and average graduation debt reaching $40,000, more and more students are turning to the internet for more affordable degrees. Though some look down upon online degrees as inherently inferior, both state schools and elite universities alike are beginning to integrate online courses as a supplement to their core curriculum. Arizona State, Columbia, Penn State, and Harvard are a few of the pioneers who have been able to save their students both time and money through this educational revolution (The Economist).

The integration of online courses into college curriculums may help improve some of biggest problems in secondary education. According to a recent article in The Economist, "The Log-On Degree", Arizona State has "almost doubled undergraduate enrollment since 2002" through online courses, and "increased the share of students who graduate after four-years from two-thirds to one-half". All the while, tuition has stayed "reasonably low" at $10,000 in-state.

Online courses are increasing college enrollment and keeping students on track to graduation through their convenience and personalization. The article explains that many college courses with online components feature an "eAdvisor system" which tells students whether they are on track or not, while "prompts and explanations ensure that teachers do not have to keep going over the basics". This allows universities to increase college enrollment without having to fund new buildings or pay expensive professors for as much of their time.  And when universities save money, so do the students. 

The question is where will online courses take us in the future? Will Americans take advantage of the benefits that online courses offer as a supplement to college education, or will college tuition continue to rise as America's educational system refuses to change? 

The Problem with the Religious Freedom Act- Part I

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was passed in Indiana on April 25th, allows businesses to use their religious affiliations as an excuse to refuse service to certain customers. While some say that the act provides further protection to the first amendment freedom of religion, others believe that the act legally supports discrimination, particularly against members of the L.G.B.T. community. As one can imagine, this act has become a hot button issue on a national level.

The wording of the act itself is interesting. It explains that the government may not "substantially burden" a person's freedom of religion, defining the word burden as an action that "constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies" the exercise of religion by a person. All of those words could potentially encompass a great deal of actions. The act is protecting the expression of a right with far too much wiggle room. By that I mean that religion is something that is constantly up for interpretation. As history has blatantly revealed, there will never be a consensus on what religion to believe in, or even what a certain line of belief specifically means. Christianity alone has dozens of subsets each with their own values and beliefs. The problem with that is that nobody is regulating religious beliefs and therefore nobody is controlling what is protected by the RFRA. Anybody could claim that a certain person is constraining, inhibiting or curtailing there religious freedom if there is no set definition for religious beliefs. Laws cannot be based upon such subjective grounds.

Religion is something that must be constantly revised and reinterpreted as well. Back in the pre-Civil War era United States, the Bible was used to support slavery. Also, the Bible is extremely sexist, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (1 Timothy 2:12). Should the RFRA really be legally justifying these beliefs, allowing people to discriminate in business and service?

Are Latinos the Future of America?

The real fight over immigration may no longer be whether or not we should open or close our borders, but rather what should be done with the immigrants that are already here. In a recent article from The Economist, it is made clear that the 48 million documented and many more undocumented Hispanic immigrants on course to becoming the population majority could give the United States an advantage over other nations in the near future. 

In the coming decades, the article predicts that the relatively young and rapidly growing Latino demographic will bring down the median age to "a spritely 41"- 11 years younger than Germany's-

and allow America's population and labour force to continue expanding, while that of countries such as China will shrink. The result would be a lower percentage of the population reaping the government benefits of old age, and a higher percentage fueling the country's economy. 

The article suggests that it would be in Americans best interest to "not squander . . . the rise of Latinos", and instead take care to educate the demographic. Certain states are making the right move in this situation, making college more affordable for students with "good grades but the wrong legal status". Yet other states, including Arizona and Georgia, refuse to give undocumented students in-state tuition rates, and others such as Alabama and North Carolina refuse to even permit them enrollment. This is a tricky issue, as I partially feel that U.S. citizens should be given priority. However, the reality might be that "the whole country will suffer" if the 2044 majority of the population is "poorer and worse educated than [today's] American average". 

Avoiding the moral issues regarding illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition, I believe from a economic stand point that the country should follow the path of states such as California, New Mexico and Texas, which go as far as providing undocumented Hispanic students with state financial aid. Although it might not make the most sense to reward those coming to the United States illegally, it may be in the country's best interest to give in.