Pfizer Hits Ehrlich with $5216 to $8357 in Retiree Health Benefit Costs!

For a real life demonstration of how inadequate McCain's health plan is, even for well-off pharmaceutical company retirees, I offer the following from Bob Ehrlich who wrote in his eNewsletter for DTC Executives (find his entire article over at DTC Perspectives Blog):

"I am considered a Pfizer retiree. I worked there for about three days after their takeover of Warner-Lambert in 2000. I am covered for health insurance by the Pfizer retiree plan. When I received the retiree newsletter last week I was rather shocked to see that insurance costs will rise dramatically starting in 2009. Apparently Pfizer and many other corporations have capped their contributions which reached a peak in 2008. So all retirees are going to carry the up charges from now on.

"Pfizer says our costs will be $5216 in 2009, $8357 in 2010 and $11,808 in 2011. Sounds like a bubble to me. The company says these rates are still less than if we went out on our own to buy health insurance. I do not like paying these rates but I can afford it. What about the majority of their retirees who cannot afford such rising costs? I imagine there are millions of retirees who face this same dilemma from thousand of corporations."

If McCain were elected president and was able to implement his $5,000 tax credit for buying health insurance in the "open" and de-regulated insurance market, Erhlich would immediately lose $216 and up to $6,1808 in 3 years. That's considering just the cost of subsidized benefit. He would also be likely to pay taxes on the portion of the benefit paid by Pfizer.

What would Erhlich have to pay for health insurance if it were not subsidized by Pfizer? That is, what would he pay in the "open" market? If he is going to pay $11,808 for his share of a subsidized plan, I got to imagine the total bill for his plan is at least 2X that! Yikes! Could he afford that in an "open" market? What group would he be able to join that can offer a better deal than the thousands of Pfizer retirees?

Maybe this is why only 31% of Pharmaceutical employees who have taken my "McCain vs. Obama: Who's Better for Pharma" survey say they will vote for McCain versus 54% who say they will vote for Obama!

DTC Blogspectives: Another Pharma Meta Blog

Back in February, 2007, when I started Pharma Blogosphere^TM -- a blog about blogging about the pharmaceutical industry -- it was the first ever "pharma meta blog." At the time, several bloggers questioned the wisdom of a blog about blogs. Today, however, there are at least 3 "blogs" in this category: this blog, Christine Truelove's "Pharma Blogs: Week in Review", and now Bob Ehrlich's Blog on Blogs, "DTC Blogspectives."

You may know Bob from such publications as DTC Perspectives magazine and his other blog, DTC-In-Perspective.

While the focus of Pharma Blogosphere blog is more about behind the scenes gossip and critique of bloggers in this space, the other two blogs summarize the content of pharma blogs. Truelove claims the her blog "monitors blogs so you don't have to..." (to which I have said "Truelove, Explain This Please!"). Ehrlich, on the other hand, claims his blog "is not a blog recap per se, but my editorial spin, comment, rebuttal or agreement with those bloggers."

Which seems to mean that Ehrlich will now compete with me! But only within the DTC space. Now that DTC spending is on the wane -- having DECREASED by about 5% in 2007 (see "Professional Advertising Doing Well. DTC? Not So Much!") -- Ehrlich's focus must be viewed as a niche category.

As far as I can tell, DTC Blogspectives does not yet have a Web home, but is only delivered by e-mail. So, to introduce you to this new "blog," I reproduce it in its entirety below (Bob does not like to be quoted out of context):

Welcome to our first issue of Blogspectives. Bi-weekly I will comment on health blogs that discuss pharmaceutical marketing, public policy, and consumer trends and behavior. This is not a blog recap per se, but my editorial spin, comment, rebuttal or agreement with those bloggers.

I scan what I believe are relevant blogs to the DTC Perspectives audience. There are hundreds of health blogs but about 10-20 that specifically cover our industry. I plan to provide Blogspectives twice a month for now and perhaps weekly in the future.

What better way to start a blog on blogs than to report that John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog (5/27) wonders whether the little guy blogger can compete with corporate sponsored blogs such as Pharmalot and the Wall Street Journal . He believes that their resources allow them to report more scoops first. While that is true, the independent blogger can comment on news stories and create new perspectives about an event or issue. I do not usually discover news and see myself as adding depth to a news story. I have no doubt the independent health blogger is still needed.

In recapping the House hearings of May 9, Pharmaceutical Executive's Patri ck Clinton comments the hearings were inconclusive as expected. He believes the real issue is whether DTC causes inappropriate prescribing which he believes has not been answered yet. He also believes the industry claims that DTC educates in a balanced way is “mostly absurd.” I agree with Mr. Clinton. DTC for specific brands is meant to sell product as evidenced by management demanding positive ROI. It is not educational in its mission although PhRMA uses that term in its statements defending DTC. Branded ads may educate but that is not why they fund DTC. It is to sell more product. Nothing wrong with that, except it sounds better to say it is educational. I remember former Pfizer executive Pat Kelly wanting to replace the term DTC with HIFC, (health information for consumers), because of the negative associations with the DTC. It never caught on because it is what it is. DTC is advertising that contains health information.

On the same subject, Merrill Goozner of Gooz News (5/12) references the hearings in asking who stopped the FDA from pulling Procrit ads claiming reduced fatigue from chemotherapy, a non FDA approved claim. He mentions Dan Troy, FDA counsel at the time, and now working for a firm representing J&J, Procrit's maker. Goozner wrote the the Industry critical book “The $800 Million Pill,” calling into question the drug industry cited cost of R&D. Troy definitely was a champion of limiting FDA power while there but I believe he felt the limits were based on not violating commercial free speech and not because he was in the pocket of the drug industry.

Alison Bass, author of a new book “Side Effects,” the critical story of Paxil and GlaxoSmithKline, covered the House hearing in her 5/11 blog . Her take is that it is unlikely that new regulation will come out of the hearing. Her blog reports mostly on Professor Ruth Day's negative testimony that side effects are presented in DTC to minimize comprehension. Ms. Bass ends with her bleak assessment “it looks like American consumers are going to continue to be distracted” citing Day's example of Nasonex and the flapping wings of its bee icon during the side effects reading.

CNBC's blogger Mike Huckman (5/12) was perplexed by the new bed sheet Evista commercial that promotes reducing the risk of breast cancer as well as the old indication for Osteoporosis. He said “there was something about it that just doesn't sit right.” He says the commercial was unsettling because of how many women looked like they were on Botox. I admit it is an unusual execution but as I said in my column on May 23 , I liked it for its stopping power and clear message. Mr. Huckman's blog had a survey and 54% of the 507 respondents said the ad is fine, while 36% said it was kind of weird. Only Lilly will know for sure if the ad works but my guess is it will, weird or not.

Maggie Mahar, in her Healthbeat Blog (5/21 healthbeatblog.org) takes on DTC for medical devices. Ms. Mahar, author of an excellent book on health care policy called “Money Driven Medicine,” feels J&J's DTC for the Cypher stent can cause significant friction between surgeons and patients. Here, she says, DTC goes beyond pill ads because use of a particular medical device requires specialized knowledge. She also says the reason for DTC may be because the Cypher stent has a higher rate of problems and DTC demand creation can help put pressure on surgeons to use it. I doubt any surgeon will use the stent just because a patient mentions it because it is a more serious decision versus a pill choice. I also doubt a patient would push a surgeon on a brand of medical device, because this is not a simple choice of prescribing a consumer requested anti-histamine or proton pump inhibitor.

In the Wall Street Journal (5/28) blog by Scott Hensley , he reports that a review of media stories on health yields unsatisfactory results. The study, done by HealthNewsReviews.org , shows media stories fail to do a good job discussing cost, evidence of efficacy, alternative treatments, and risks and benefit trade-offs. They analyzed 500 stories and made their subjective assessment. While I did not examine 500 stories, it seems to me that consumers get a lot of coverage on high drug costs and risks of their prescriptions. The reviewers of the stories are doctors, public health experts and a professor of journalism.

On thehealthcareblog.com , Jane Sarasohn-Kahn congratulates Viagra on its 10 th anniversary. She points out that Viagra “reshaped pharmaceutical marketing. The company used direct-to-consumer advertising to great effect.” I do not agree that Viagra reshaped marketing. It received so much free publicity that consumer awareness was achieved without a lot of DTC spending. It did later use DTC to help add new users and probably had positive ROI. Like many observers of DTC, Ms. Sarasohn-Kahn overstates its impact. Viagra was a successful drug before any DTC money was spent. In fact so was Lipitor, also commonly quoted as a drug built by DTC.

'Round the Sphere: Christiane Truelove and the Jarvik Fop Flap

Some day I'll meet up with Chris Truelove -- she works just down the road from me! For now, however, I'll just have to be content with reading "Pharma Blogs: Week in Review," the weekly e-newsletter Chris writes (subscribe here). This week's edition is a gem, and not only because she mentions me at least 3 times! She managed to cite every one of the posts I made this week to Pharma Marketing Blog! Thanks, Chris.

I don't think Chris will mind if I excerpt some of her comments here.

Chris cited several blogger comments about Jarvik, the "doctor" celebrity Lipitor spokesperson. She notes that uber-liberal Peter Rost at Brandweek's NRx and Ayn Rand groupie Peter Pitts over at Drug Wonks make strange bedfellows agreeing with one another on the Jarvik issue:

What I am very surprised at is that Mr. Pitts and Dr. Peter Rost at BrandWeekNRx actually agree that picking on Dr. Jarvik for not being a licensed physician is wrong. Dr. Rost came to Dr. Jarvik’s defense. "Quite frankly, I'm shaking my head a bit," Dr. Rost says. "It is one thing to go after celebrities who know nothing about medicine and another to go after a guy who happens to have contributed more to medicine than most practicing docs."

Obviously, there's "medicine" and then there's the "practice of medicine," which is a point Bob Ehrlich and I (two other strange bedfellows) focused and agreed on. Chris writes:

John Mack at the Pharmaceutical Marketing Blog had thought Dr. Jarvik was a practicing physician when the ads first aired. Now that Dr. Jarvik has been outed, Mr. Mack says, “I am not belittling the contribution Jarvik has made to medicine, but it does appear to me that the Lipitor ads are misleading consumers into believing that Jarvik is a doctor similar to the doctors they are used to seeing in real life -- one that treats patients and has experience with cholesterol medications. Why else would we believe him as an endorser of Lipitor?”

At DTC Perspectives’ blog, DTC in Perspective, Bob Ehrlich admitted that he was surprised to hear that Dr. Jarvik was not a licensed physician. “I assumed he was a leading cardiologist,” he says. “Of course that was my assumption, not something Lipitor ever said in their ads. Jarvik is what he says he is. He is a scientist who invented the artificial heart. Like many researchers who have a medical degree, they do not practice. I am sure; however, Jarvik knows a thing or two about the heart.” Although “Pfizer is not guilty of anything in a literal sense,” Mr. Ehrlich suggests that Pfizer put a clarifying statement on the commercial that states that Dr. Jarvik does not practice medicine.

Yes, Pfizer is not guilty of anything except a lack of transparency.

Speaking of using celebrities in DTC ads, Jarvik actually was MADE a celebrity in the public's eye BY the Lipitor ads. I mean, do you think Joe Sixpack ever heard of Jarvik BEFORE the ads aired? I don't think so. On the other hand, the Boniva commercials do not even have to mention Sally Field's name; everyone knows her! In other words, Pfizer CREATED the image of Jarvik as a world-renowned DOCTOR in the public's eye -- they even fooled an expert like Ehrlich into believing Jarvik was a practicing cardiologist who knows something about treating high cholesterol.

BTW, even a layperson like Paul Winchell, the renowned ventriloquist, can invent an artificial heart, which he did BEFORE Jarvik did. In fact, the Winchell family claims that Jarvik STOLE Winchell's idea after forcing him to donate his patent to the University of Utah. Here's a comment I received to my October, 2006, post "Lipitor's Jarvik: Fop or Flop?" that first "outed" Jarvik as possibly a closet gay guy (not that there's anything wrong with that):

I am offended by Dr. Robert Jarvik's claim to be the inventor of the artificial heart. It appears he's stretching the facts, perhaps due to what you alleged might be vanity. As a young medical student in the 1970s, he joined the research team on artificial organs at the University of Utah under Dr. Kolff. Dr. Kolff had convinced the inventor of a battery-powered artificial heart to donate his patent to the University. That man was Mr. Paul Winchell. Mr. Winchell invented the artificial heart in the 1950s and filed for a patent in 1961. Dr. Kolff requested he donate his research and the patent ten years later in 1971. Winchell was a pre-med student at Columbia at the time of his invention, but later dropped out. If you recognize his name, he earned his money for medical school through entertainment--as the famous Paul Winchell, with sidekicks Jerry Mahoney and Knucklehead Smiff. I believe this is why Dr. Jarvik does not acknowledge Winchell as the original inventor. Jarvik used air compression in his version of the artificial heart, and did indeed create the first one for use in humans. Winchell didn't agree with the air compression design and kept trying to get the University researchers to consider batteries for power, so patients would not be tied to a compressor (about the size of a briefcase with tubes to the body). Kolff and Jarvik distanced themselves from Winchell, and as far as I can determine, have never credited Winchell for 1) inventing the first artificial heart, or 2) dontating his patent to the medical community for the benefit of the world. You can read Winchell's side of the story at his site, www.paulwinchell.com. One last note--it's interesting that Dr. Jarvik is now going public on a national scale only after Winchell died in 2005. Spread the truth. ~Kimn Gollnick

BTW, I should note that the Lipitor ads are very careful to say that Jarvik invented the "Jarvik artificial heart" as opposed to any other type of "artificial heart." I bet the Pfizer lawyers were all over the ad agency on that point just to be sure that "Pfizer is not guilty of anything in a literal sense!"

Mystery Blog Panel Revealed

A few months ago, Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot, asked me if I would like to participate on a blog panel he planned to moderate at an upcoming DTC Perspectives conference (see "Do Pharma Blogs Have Any Influence?"). At the time, however, I was embroiled in a tiff with Bob Ehrlich (see "Mack and Meyer Clash with Publisher Over 'Journalistic Integrity'"), the chairman of DTC Perspectives. So I assumed that neither Myer nor I would be invited. Ed made no promises and I told him not to worry -- he shouldn't go out on a limb to get me invited.

Well, I wasn't invited, which is OK. This is not sour grapes. I was busy presenting at another conference elsewhere anyway (see "J&J Blog, Shire PR: The Whole Story and Nothing But the Whole Story!").

I have since made amends with Bob and helped his people promote the DTC conference by being a Media Sponsor. I did hope to attend the blog panel session and report on it, but in the end I decided that I couldn't afford to be out of the office, spending 4 hours driving back and forth to attend a 45-minute session. I hoped that Ed would blog about it on Pharmalot -- but so far, he has said nothing.

In fact, Ed and Bob had been very secretive as to who exactly would be the bloggers on the panel. The conference agenda on the website just said "Bloggers/Panelists to be announced" and even when asked, Ed refused to name the panelists. Even up to the day of the conference, Ed remained mute on that subject (see his post, above).

Why all the secrecy, I wonder?

Here's a report on the panel from Christiane Truelove, author of the Pharma Blogs: Week in Review e-newsletter:

Bloggers on pharma blogging
Yesterday I left the office and made the trek up to Parsippany, N.J., to participate on a panel about pharmaceutical blogging at a conference hosted by DTC Perspectives. Mr. Silverman had invited me to participate, and I was flattered. I am unaccustomed to public speaking, having spent most of my career lurking around with a notebook and pen and asking the questions, instead of having questions asked of me.

The more-than-two-hour-drive along Route 287 notwithstanding, the panel, which examined whether pharmaceutical blogs were influencing consumers and opinion leaders, went pretty well. Some of the highlights:

Mr. Silverman touched on how blogs create the opportunity to exploit word-of-mouth communication. Most of all, pharmaceutical blogs give an opportunity for people from very different areas a chance to mingle and network — physicians, industry people, and consumers. “These were people who two years ago, weren’t connecting with each other,” he says.

For Mr. Hensley, the comments to posts on the Wall Street Journal Health Blog are extremely interesting because of the intelligent level of the discourse. “Sometimes the blog is just a starting-off point,” he says.

Mr. Pitts says although the pharmaceutical industry may wish these blogs to go away, blogging — “a wonderful, terrible, unexpurgated type of media” — is here to stay, and the industry must learn how to deal with it. He pointed out that certain types of stories are getting deeper coverage in the blogs rather than the mainstream media.

In answer to an audience question as to how companies should address legal fears about participating in the online conversation, the panelists generally agreed that the corporate lawyers always will give the most conservative advice. Mr. Pitts pointed out that the FDA regulations about online communication as far as blogs were concerned were practically nonexistent, and companies that want to engage in more online communication should be able to prudently handle what risk there may be.

The "blogger" panelists -- Ed Silverman (Newark Star-Ledger/Pharmalot), Scott Hensley (Wall Street Journal/Health Blog), Peter Pitts (Manning Selvage & Lee/Drug Wonks), and Christiane Truelove (MedAdNews) -- were of all one stripe: journalists or PR hack! It can be debated whether or not they are representative of the Pharma Blogosphere community as a whole, but at least they know the territory and are familiar with all the luminaries.

A Hack-in-the-Pack
Peter Pitts (the PR hack-in-the-pack), however, would not have been on my list of invited panelists. He is neither trustworthy nor transparent. Pitts is the biggest shill for the pharma industry there is. Don't take my word for it, read what GoozNews has to say about him here.

Pitts often uses words I do not understand like "unexpurgated" to describe blogs! (I looked it up on Google: it means "not having material deleted" or "uncensored news reports".) That's very funny coming from a guy who is known to delete posts from his own blog (see "DrugWanks Pull Post")!

OK, so it wasn't my dream blogger panel! But who would be on such a dream panel? Give me your opinion by taking this simple poll (see results so far after you vote):

Select the Members of YOUR "Dream" Pharma Blogger Panel
	Mack/Pharma Marketing Blog
	Myer/World of DTC Marketing
	Silverman/Pharmalot
	Insider/PharmaGossip
	Giles/Pharma Giles
	Shanley/On Pharma
	Henessey et al/WSJ Health Blog
	Rost/NRx
	Fard/HealthcareVOX
	Woodruff/Impactiviti
	Senak/EyeOnFDA
	Carlat/The Carlat Pschiatry Blog
	Anonymous/PharmaFraud
	Lowe/In the Pipeline
	Monseau/JNJ Blog
	Pitts/Drug Wonks
	Someone Else/Not Listed

Blogs Bob Ehrlich Reads

Who is Bob Ehrlich and why do I care what blogs he reads?

Ehrlich is Chairman of DTC Perspectives, which publishes the trade publication, DTC Perspectives Magazine, and is host to several DTC industry conferences. Ehrlich also writes a weekly OpEd email piece called DTC in Perspective.

Back in May, Bob was a guest on my Pharma Marketing Talk podcast where the subject was "Blogs vs. DTC: What's Best for Consumers?" You can listen to the audio archive of that podcast here.

Of course, Bob and I have had our differences (see, for example, "Mack and Meyer Clash with Publisher Over "Journalistic Integrity""), but we've agreed to disagree and remain cordial and frequently exchange opinions by private email.

Whatever our differences are, we are avid readers of each others' work and this week Bob reveals that my blog, Pharma Marketing Blog, is one of the three pharmaceutical blogs that he reads on a regular basis. The three are:

1. Pharma Marketing Blog
2. Pharmalot
3. Peter Rost (not sure if he reads Question Authority or NRx)

I note with interest that Ed Silverman (Pharmalot) and Peter Rost (NRx) will be the star blogger panelists at the DTC in the Age of Innovation Conference (October 24-25, 2007) hosted by Ehrlich's company.

Ehrlich had this to say of me and my blog:

"I am always interested to know what John Mack has to say. His Pharma Marketing blog is usually fun to read even when it annoys me. John always likes to ruffle feathers but I usually appreciate his humor, even when the feathers he ruffles are mine, which he does frequently. He will review controversial DTC ads or new tactics used by marketers. Few will get a good review but he is worth listening to because he could just right sometimes."

Thanks for the kind comments, Bob!

One thing regarding my review of DTC ads; ie, "Few will get a good review ..."

As I have said before (eg, "I'm Non-Objective and Proud of It" and "Trade Publications Must Be More than Drug Industry Cheerleaders!"), the field is crowded with publishers and pharma marketing experts that never have a NEGATIVE thing to say about DTC or other types of pharmaceutical marketing. Their reviews are ALWAYS good!

I believe that there is a great unmet need out there for constructive criticism, which is what I strive for over at Pharma Marketing Blog.

You can read Bob's weekly e-Column OpEd piece here.

While I enjoy Bob's weekly commentary, I find it difficult to cite. The commentary is sent via opt-in e-mail, but the Web site that I linked to above is not updated for several days afterward. I wish that Bob would start a blog instead. That way, he can join the conversation here in the Pharma Blogosphere!