Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsPrices

Prop. 78 May Suffer From Drug Makers' Poor Image

The industry is spending millions on the discount plan but a poll shows distrust of the backers.

September 30, 2005|Lisa Girion | Times Staff Writer

Californians like the idea of a statewide drug-discount program for the poor: A recent Field Poll found Proposition 78 leading by a healthy margin.

But that support sagged when respondents learned that the nation's big drug makers were behind the initiative.

And therein lies the problem for supporters of the measure: Its biggest backer is also its biggest liability.

"Public opinion has a short list of bad guys, and the drug companies are on it," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. "That can be hurtful to Proposition 78."

The initiative would set up a state drug-discount program for low-income residents and give pharmaceutical companies the option to participate. A competing measure, Proposition 79, would set up a more extensive program and give the state power to punish drug makers that don't join.

The trade organization spearheading the Proposition 78 campaign -- with more than $80 million in funding from Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline and other drug companies -- prefers to focus on what the measure offers rather than problems caused by the industry's image.

"Proposition 78 is not about the popularity of any one industry," Ken Johnson, senior vice president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement. "It's about good public policy and real-world solutions that will help people with their prescription drug costs."

The public image of drug companies wasn't always so low. In 1997, for instance, 79% of respondents in a poll by research firm Harris Interactive said drug companies did a good job serving consumers.

Seven years later, only 44% offered the same opinion.

The reason for the about-face: skyrocketing drug costs, and a corresponding rise in industry profits, issues at the heart of the rival ballot initiatives. U.S. spending on prescription drugs grew 214% from 1994 to 2004, according to a June report by the Center for Studying Health System Change. During the same period, profits at the top 10 U.S. drug companies grew 150% to $36.5 billion.

Drug company profits got most of the blame for rising healthcare costs in a 2004 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Most consumers also believe that profits are the biggest component of prescription drug prices, according to a 2004 Harris Interactive poll.

Of nine big industries, only tobacco and oil companies were held in lower regard than pharmaceutical companies in a Kaiser public opinion poll conducted this year. Kaiser is not affiliated with healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.

The decline in public opinion coincides with the period during which pharmaceutical companies have been advertising directly to consumers with television commercials and print ads pitching drugs as diverse as allergy pills and cures for erectile dysfunction.

Only 18% of adults polled this year by the Kaiser foundation said they trusted pharmaceutical advertising most of the time. That is down by almost half since 1997, when a third offered the same opinion.

"Once you start to become the butt of Jay Leno's jokes," said Kaiser spokesman Larry Levitt, "you know you are in trouble."

At the same time, drug companies have been the target of a wave of lawsuits blaming prescription medications for patient deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers have succeeded at trial by using a company's own marketing materials and drug trial data to portray it as putting profit ahead of safety.

Big pharmaceutical companies also suffer just because they are big, said David Stewart, a USC marketing professor. An industry consolidation has led to dominance by a few large multinational corporations -- a trend that typically alienates consumers.

"Any time things get framed as 'big corporation versus the little guy,' corporations get put in a bad position," he said.

With this in mind, backers of rival initiative Proposition 79 have waged a guerrilla campaign this month at movie theaters around the state.

Showing up at some screenings of "The Constant Gardener," a movie that casts a fictitious drug company as the villain, consumer advocates have handed out leaflets that attack pharmaceutical prices and profits.

They urge audience members to vote for Proposition 79 to "Stop the Constant Gouger" and call Proposition 78 a "smokescreen bankrolled by the prescription drug industry."

Just how much the perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry at the box office -- and in the jury box -- matter at the ballot box depends on whether voters know about the role of drug companies in the election, political observers say.

The Field Poll in late August found that 49% of likely voters favored Proposition 78 and 31% were opposed. But only 13% were aware that it was supported by the pharmaceutical industry. And after being told this was the case, 44% said the information made them more likely to vote against it.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|