Funding big pharmaceutical companies
What is the logic in doling out multi-million public dollar grants from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to pharmaceutical conglomerates to fast-track FDA approval of “super-bug” antibiotics, as reported in the Star Tribune on June 3, 2013?
There is a critical shortage right now of already approved, highly effective antibiotics to treat such rampantly common infections as Lyme disease.
A parent wrote in the Star Tribune Letter of the Day on June 20, 2013, that less expensive ADHD medication in short supply was replaced with “other medication that cost 10 times more, was less effective, and had more side-effects for her son.”
Economics 101 teaches that when supply is reduced, demand and price will increase. The pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money. They have so much money that they can afford commercials on every TV channel throughout the day.
Why are public funds being spent to finance pharmaceutical corporations? It would be better for the public if the funds were used to increase supply of antibiotics, such as Doxycycline, and other medications that are in short supply.