Title: Fact or Fiction: The Need for Independent Pharmaceutical Policy Research
Abstract: people are entitled to their own opinions not their own facts.However, these days it seems that industry or think tanks can produce literature either in the form of research or expert opinion and then rely on the media and policymakers to repeat them to the point that they become well-known facts.For example, it is "well known" that the cost of creating a new drug is $802 million dollars. 1 However, fewer people realize that this cost estimate for drug development is based on a nonrandom sample of ten companies for which the data is proprietary and thus not accessible by independent researchers. 2Furthermore, the research center that issues such reports is mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry which would give most consumers of this research reason to pause.There are many such examples in the pharmaceutical policy arena.For example, it is "well known" that if drug prices were reduced pharmaceutical innovation in the US would be adversely affected.The domestic policy concern about preserving innovation has even affected US trade relations-the US government has insisted on national formulary changes in Australia and South Korea to ensure sustained innovation. 3,4owever, to our knowledge no study has specifically compared innovation between pharmaceutical manufacturers in the US and other countries, nor proven that Australia's evidence based formulary, for example, has adversely affected innovation.Repetition and dissemination appear to create "facts."In this issue of JGIM, Baker and Fugh-Berman review the research of Dr. Frank Lichtenberg. 5Dr. Lichtenberg is an influential health economist whose research focuses on the impact of newer drugs on health, productivity, and spending.][8][9][10] Baker and Fugh-Berman's critique pertains to a 2007 study by Lichtenberg that addresses the question of whether newer drugs have a greater impact on increasing life expectancy and decreasing morbidity compared to older drugs (newer vs. older "vintage" drugs, as Lichtenberg terms them).Their Perspectives piece describes critical flaws in Lichtenberg's methods and interpretation of his findings, including omission of key