The new alliance between UB and Pfizer Inc., one of the nation's biggest makers of pharmaceuticals, is beneficial to both organizations. UB gets a grant to the tune of $7.5 million over five years while Pfizer benefits financially from the research's results.
The UB/Pfizer model looks to make drugs less costly to develop, and make them safer to use. It's easy to think this will make drugs cheaper, which is beneficial to society at large. But Pfizer is a corporation, and corporations live by profits, not generosity. They didn't give UB millions for altruistic purposes: they expect a return on their investment.
And herein lies the problem. Our nation has a two-tier health care system that increasingly pits the haves against the have-nots. Many Americans have plenty of choice within their health care, but millions are without health insurance and receive inconsistent quality of care. The Exxon-type profits that drug companies like Pfizer seek are a major source of this problem.
A new cancer drug exemplifies the situation. The drug Avastin shows real promise in treating colon and breast cancer in patients, yet costs twice as much as existing treatments. It wasn't the free market or even the cost of production that dictated the price. Drug-maker Genentech set Avastin's price arbitrarily on "the value of innovation, and the value of new therapies." This is bureaucratic lingo for "bug off, we're making money on this drug. Lots of money."
The huge profits received by drug companies have ebbed a little, but Pfizer's stock has risen 25 percent since December. UB's deal with Pfizer is great for the school, but unless Pfizer is responsible with the results, it's not good for the public at large. If successful, Pfizer's investment of millions will bring them billions, while the mounting cost of health care continues.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
