In the same week that some journalists reported that “many don’t take prescriptions because of cost,” other journalists gave us reminders of how inconsistently they help readers think about drug costs.
Yesterday, for example, the NBC Nightly News reported its second story on the high costs of Makena, the first FDA-approved drug to prevent premature birth. Good job. But then they immediately followed with a brief story on Merck’s boceprivir drug for hepatitis C – and NEVER MENTIONED cost. The screen shot at left is from the NBC website, showing how they “packaged” the two Makena drug stories (online and on the air over two days time) around the hepatitis C drug story for which cost apparently was a non-issue.
Wrong. Stay tuned.
They weren’t alone. Undoubtedly many newspapers across the country did what my local Star Tribune newspaper did, telling the story of Medicare’s consideration of paying for the expensive prostate drug Provenge. But above that little Provenge cost story, the Strib placed a big banner story for the Merck hepatitis drug, and, again, never mentioned cost.
Nitpicking? I don’t think so.
First, there are at least two horses in the race for the first protease inhibitor for Hep C to reach the market; Vertex’s telaprevir and Merck’s boceprivir. It’s probably safe to say that the cost will be in the thousands per month. The costs of existing treatment is about $70,000 for 48 weeks of treatment.
Folks, as a country, we have a limited pot of money to spend on health care. Costs are always important. Yet 70% of the 1,469 stories we’ve reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org as of this moment fail to adequately address costs.
That’s the population-wide, national problem.
For the individual concerns, go back to the top of this post. “Many don’t take prescriptions because of costs.” Costs are always important.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like