The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently ran an investigative piece on a University of Wisconsin research group called UW Pain and Policy Studies Group. The investigation found the group repeatedly advocated against stricter regulations in the use of painkillers known as opioids. Perhaps the most notable of these painkillers is OxyContin, which is manufactured by Purdue Pharma, a company that has given the research group $1.6 million over the past decade. The story went on to point out the intricate and often undisclosed financial relationship between pharmaceutical companies and researchers, showing the research group received more than $2.5 million in funding from pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceuticals are big business, I know, not exactly a shocker. Purdue Pharma alone pulled in $3 billion in revenue last year, with sales skyrocketing after the FDA approved the use of OxyContin in the United States.

There are two main problems this story reveals that need to be addressed for the improvement of health care in this country.

The first is the separation of researcher and manufacturer. The university had some answers when asked by the Sentinel about the relationship between these two entities. UW spokesperson Lisa Brunette said the money given was in educational grants with no strings attached and that the group did no direct work for the company. But businesses don’t make investments without cause, and the financial advantages to the researchers of producing favorable results appear to be a theme in the Sentinel’s investigation. 

I don’t believe anything in the past was done illegally necessarily, but I think the positions taken by these individuals in medical journals greatly benefited the companies who had helped fund the research. At the same time, it provided the researchers themselves with easy money, while the proliferation of these drugs led to a sharp increase in related deaths. 

A study presented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linking deaths from narcotic painkiller abuse and a 500 percent increase in these drugs prescriptions highlights this correlation. These drugs present a real risk of dependence and long-term addiction, and a concerted effort to combat stricter regulations seems a dangerous, albeit profitable position to take. 

My own solution to this conflict of interest would be to prevent pharmaceuticals from funding researchers, but obviously every company has the right to research its own products. But doctors need an unbiased opinion off of which they can base their prescription decisions. The government needs to step in and provide the increased research, providing these groups the educational grants they need to better understand the effects of new drugs.

The second problem I see is just the mind-boggling amount of money these companies make. We sit here and yell back and forth about health care reform, but it seems to me we would be better served addressing specific problems within that system. One problem: Prescription drugs cost a hell of a lot of money. Why? The most expensive drugs are rarely the ones that cost the most to produce. Instead, the most expensive drugs are the ones that fill a new niche in the market or have almost no competitors. 

Then, when manufacturers and insurance companies sit down, there is very little to guide the negotiation. That certainly seems to make it a great investment to have a research group like UW Pain promoting the inclusion of opioids into the market when you have a pill ready to fill that niche. Yes, new drugs cost a lot of money to bring to market, but after that there is absolutely no relationship between what it costs to make an individual pill and what it sells for. The result puts both manufacturers and insurance companies in the drivers seat and leaves the average patient facing constantly rising costs and potentially unnecessary prescriptions.

I understand that the people working in our research facilities need funding, and outside of that researchers are looking for opportunities to profit from their knowledge. But is it really in the best interest of the patient to essentially have a company’s product rubber stamped by a research team? Watchdog journalism like the work done in this Sentinel piece can help highlight these conflicts of interest, but structural changes need to be made to ensure that new drugs are being created to better service the needs of the patient, not the bank accounts of the manufacturers.

John Waters ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.