1

Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Responsible for the High Cost of Prescription Drugs? Michael Higgs Faculty : Soc. Work #500368144 CHST701 210 - Sci Tech and Modern Society - W2014

The topic I am discussing will be on the rising cost of prescription drugs. The argument is

not exactly that of a binary belief system. Both the camps of agreement and disagreement

overlapping little in their concessions to the other side. Foundations with an agenda such as the

Michael J Fox foundation, Herper (2013) which pays for M.S. research admits costs are high.

The contention the public have with the pharmaceutical industry deal mainly with the expense

range during their purchase. Not all insurance plans cover medications such as Ontario disability

support program drug benefit plan. Trilliums drug benefit plan has the same weaknesses. People

are purchasing cheaper medication across the borders on the Internet. The price ranges very from

country to country causing the uproar controversies in the public arena. The public demand to

know why this is. The pharmaceutical industry acknowledges that research and development

make brand-name medications expensive.

The group supporting pharmaceutical companies are presented first. Barry Werth

discusses how pharmaceutical companies are obliged to offer life-saving medication be for those

who cannot afford it. Insurers and governments and of having to pay for the drug. Sometimes

life-saving medications designed by pharmaceuticals refused by hospitals as they are too

expensive. This puts them in a position of having to give discounts to medical institutions. It is

not stand well with the company’s accounting. Industry Canada is concerned that many of the

pharmaceutical companies today are looking for the manufacturing of drugs outside of Canada.

The federal government is trying to attract pharmaceutical companies to do their work in

Canada. This is continuing to be done through giving pharmaceutical companies in Canada tax

credits and subsidies to encourage them to stay here. Pharmaceuticals in Canada the largest

Québec. The pharmaceutical packaging market police that they will promote a stronger industry

by preventing counterfeiting of medications. Better design of shipping systems will guarantee

2

less-developed and help economies thrive to investing in developing nations. Matthew K

describes the cost of getting medications to market. He states that it costs $350 million to get

medications on pharmacy shelves. The return on average is $5 billion. It is yet to be seen how

much of a profit pharmaceuticals are actually making.

The groups critical of the pharmaceutical industry are presented next. Fierlbeck (2012)

concerns herself in her book with the types of policies that the federal government is

using to warm up to pharmaceutical companies in Canada. She mentions the need for national

drug benefit plan across Canada to help subsidize payments the public have to endure. She thinks

the federal government to be more creative in lowering drug prices while at the same time

encouraging pharmaceuticals to stay in Canada. Belk(2014) clarifies and discusses the roles of

brand-name pharmaceuticals versus generic versions. He unpacks the different switching costs

associated with the two products. Gently generics are two thirds cheaper. Keppler (2014)

describes pharmaceutical companies profit from consumers. Keppler mentions that other

countries including Canada are paying a lot less for medications than United States. She believes

her Masters degree discovered the markup for pharmaceutical products higher for life-saving

dedication than it was for life enhancing medication. She discovered that pharmacies have made

agreements on wholesale prices as they feel they are the arm of the medical system in the ad

states. She feels that pharmacies see themselves providing a service rather than making a profit.

Werth (2013) states that “. Most of the new drugs either treated rare diseases like cystic

fibrosis or were marginal improvements over existing cancer drugs. All carried extremely high

price tags”(p.1).Werth goes on to state that an American pharmaceutical firm manufacturing

brand-name drugs for cystic fibrosis slashed their drug prices in half so that hospitals could treat

their patients more efficiently and quickly. Insurance companies and the federal government in

3

the United States subsidized and paid for the discount given to patients. A similar event of a

French generic company making medication for cancer patients went through a similar ordeal

with an expensive medication. All although this French company was willing to give discounts

on its life-saving drug, the American government and private insurers said enough is

enough(p.2).

The American government and the British government both refused to get involved.

Werth sees an interesting view of how the pharmaceutical companies do business. Werth (2013)

states “The primary customers in the United States are not patients or even individual physicians,

although physicians can drive demand for a drug; rather, the customers are the government

(through Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance companies”(p.3) .

Industry Canada (2013) lauds the investment of pharmaceuticals in Canada. They make

our business environment suitable for their product manufacturing . Industry Canada (2013)

states “Merck and Pfizer announced plans to expand existing manufacturing facilities in Quebec

along with Ontario”(p. 9). The federal government notes we have many research facilities that

could contribute support to these industries. This in turn would promote the economic spiral

upwards(p.9).

4

Pavlou, Fedra,Lawrence, Corrine, Sutton and Stephanie(2009)write that they feel that

the packaging industry is beneficial in that it prevents counterfeit products from entering the

system. Through packaging systems in accordance to pharmaceutical standards, this industry

helps in the sales and marketing aspects of medications. Professional designed labeling and a

focus on going green helps industry to expand. Pavlou et al. (2009) go on to state that $62 billion

on average was made incorporating professional looking packaging.Pharmaceutical companies

directly reinvested some of this profit into developing nations. Pavlou et al. (2009) go on to state

that their work enhances the industry and everyone profits..

Herper (2013) writes that most of the medications developed for humans failed to meet

standards or work (p.1).Herper (2013) goes on to say that when drug companies failed to

produce the drugs of their projects – they end up paying financially for the failure themselves.

They have no insurance companies or investors coming to the rescue. It is very difficult

sometimes in the technology to invent specific drugs that will solve acute diseases. Herper

(2013) states that companies on average spend 5.2 to $6 billion monitoring medications for

safety infractions(p.3). Many of the small pharmaceuticals manufacturing medications do not

have the risk factor therefore the financial load for failures of projects(p.3). Larger companies

that carry more expenses experience devastating effects with failed medications.

Here I present the group questioning the rising costs of the pharmaceutical firms.

Fierlbeck (2012) states that much of the health care given to Canadians is increasingly

administered using therapeutic medication. Due to the increase in these types of drugs, outpatient

5

services have increased, necessitating patients to buy prescription drugs(p.152). Fierlbeck states

that prescription drugs are provided for free in hospital settings. While in hospital

O.H.I.P. in Ontario will cover medication costs (p. 153). Fierlbeck further states that the

pharmaceutical industry is concentrated into a large group of multinational corporations.

Authorities find it difficult to regulate this kind of system and is problematic due to the nature of

the product which are highly complex requiring a high level of expertise to evaluate

effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness. The problem is how do we give these

pharmaceutical organizations oversight regarding their economic and political influences on

governments (p.154). Fierlbeck (2012) questions the balance between technological innovation

and political oversight of these multinationals. According to Fierlbeck, there have been many

instances where a national health and drug plan have tried to be incorporated into the Canada

health act much to no avail (p.154). Use of private insurance companies keeps prices high on

medications because of the administrative costs, marketing and advertising expenses needed to

produce the profits of pharmaceutical companies (p.155).

Belk (2013) discusses the influence of generic medications over brand-name prices. The

American national drug plan called Medicare and Medicaid subsidize a portion of prescription

payment. Most Americans have private drug insurance plans. Belk (2013) writes “ Most generic

medications are about 95 to 99 percent cheaper than their brand-named equivalents! That's not an

exaggeration. The pharmacy usually pays at least $300 to $500 for 100 pills for a brand-name

medication. If it's generic, the exact same medication might cost anywhere from $2 to $10 for

100 pills”(p.1). Belk (2013)targets where these generic drugs can be purchased, the savings one

can aquire as opposed to brand-name medications. Belk writes “The FDA mandates that all

6

generic drugs are tested to make sure they have exactly the same effect as their brand named

equivalent before they can be sold in the U.S. So you get the same medication in the same dose

with the same effect but it costs nearly 100 times less money”(p.2). Belk ends the statement

explaining one can get generics cheaper paying cash, than insurance covered purchases at

Costco, Wal-Mart or Target (p.2) .

Belk (2013) mentions that he had a list of over 100 generic medications that were cheaper

than most of the brand-name prescriptions (p.2) . Belk goes on to state that even if you are

buying generic drugs using your private insurance it’s going to cost you more money than

buying with cash. The system has been set up so that if you use your insurance coverage you will

be billed a higher rate. This is the situation in the United States.

Keppler (2014) asks “. How much money can a health care company garner for their

services before it becomes profiteering (p.1) ? In the United States the federal government puts

in 10% of the funding towards prescription drugs on plans like Medicaid and Medicare. Keppler

states that pharmaceutical companies in the United States seem to have some control over

government policy. Keppler (2014) writes “The short answer is that, since we lack a national

healthcare system, we have less collective leverage to negotiate prices with drug companies or

buy medicines in bulk, and the pharmaceutical industry spends a lot of time and money lobbying

in Washington to keep this system exactly the way it is”(p.1). Keppler mentions that

pharmaceutical companies spent hundred $52 million in 2013 lobbying the federal government

of the United States (p.1). Keppler (2014) continues “when Congress was drafting a reform of

the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D) in 2003, the law was specifically

written to forbid the federal government from being able to negotiate bulk prices with drug

companies”(p.1). Pharmaceutical companies argue they spend countless amounts on research and

development. Where then is all the extra millions coming from to lobby the federal government?

7

Where do pharmaceutical companies get the power to influence legislation in the United States?

In most countries this would have to be voted upon in legislatures of the country.

Keppler (2014) a medical student reveals the answer to the access to disposible capital.

She writes “For example, the NIH funds much of the initial research for many new drugs, and

much of this research is conducted at public, non-profit universities throughout the country. In

fact, “According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research

projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995”(p.2).

Keppler (2014) clarifies expenses for research and development which pharmaceutical

companies claim they pay from their own pocket for. It is obvious at this point that

pharmaceutical companies have not been upfront with public on prescription costs.

Pharmaceuticals are paying little for research and development.It is obvious they are making a

profit on medications.

Pearson (2011) a political science student studying for her Masters, did some research on

prescription prices in her local pharmacies. She looked at prices being charged for

pharmaceuticals. She discovered in a research that deceives some discrepancies between the

wholesale prices and the retail prices of the medications. She discovered that there was not much

difference between the two. She interviewed a number of local pharmacies in a neighborhood.

Again she discovered that there had been agreements made. Local pharmacies feel they act as an

arm of the medical system in delivering pharmaceuticals. Pharmacies charge the given price by

the pharmaceutical company. The local pharmacies so prescriptions out of loss. The management

of these stores feel that profits will be made on customers buying other products in the store.

Pearson (2011) found that there is only a 20% difference between the wholesale price and the

retail price of the prescription medications.

8

Pearson (2011) does arrive at an interesting conclusion. Pearson goes on to write “Yet

two factors can be considered inconsistent with this view. First, numerous stores

reported negative markups on prescription drugs. As mentioned previously, demand for

prescription drugs is not completely consumer-driven; access to them is at least in part

controlled by doctors and other health care providers able to write prescriptions. It is unlikely

that a drug like Viagra or Zocor would ever be considered a “loss leader,” since prescription

prices are rarely advertised and consumers cannot go to a pharmacy to get certain drugs on a

whim. Thus, making a prescription drug the loss leader for a pharmacy makes little apparent

sense, as those coming into the pharmacy are there to buy what was prescribed and not what

they want at that immediate moment”(p.58). The pharmaceuticals must have the permission of

the federal government to sell their prescriptions at whatever price makes them proper. Pearson

highlights the loss leader concept illustrating a pharmaceutical service is it is in existence.

An analysis of the data presented gives an interesting overview are pharmaceutical firms

actions and intents. Pharmaceutical firms have projected a picture of costly development of

medications. The information they give is that much of the research and development that takes

place fails. Pharmaceuticals state that the failure rate is 95%. This means it costs them large

amounts of capital to cover their expenses in these situations. With no insurance available to

cover these situations, pharmaceutical companies pay for these failures. As indicated

pharmaceutical companies lobby the American federal government to enact legislation. As

Keppler (2014) stated $52 million was spent lobbying the American government not to negotiate

bulk prices with pharmaceutical companies for prescriptions. The pharmaceutical companies

wield immense power. Even Industry Canada (2013) makes a inadvertent comment in their

discourse to attract pharmaceutical companies to Canada. They mention in the discourse that

9

pharmaceutical companies will come here attracted by our research and development facilities. I

restate Industry Canada’s (2013) comment The federal government notes we have many research

facilities that could contribute support to these industries. This in turn would promote the

economic spiral upwards(p.9). This is a dead giveaway of what is being veild by the government

in Canada.I bring Belk (2013) statement regarding generic medication in the analysis. I provide

again his comment that “The system has been set up so that if you use your insurance coverage

you will be billed a higher rate. This is the situation in the United States”(p.2). All of the

evidence so far seems to be stacking up against the pharmaceutical firms. They insist that their

costs are due to research and development successes or failures. The facts seem to suggest that

there is a whole hidden strategy pharmacy companies are using to make profits high.

though pharmaceutical companies are painting a smokescreen. Price-fixing in the pharmacies,

using nonprofit facilities to do research,development and lobbying seem out of character .

Pharmaceutical firms are trying to make us sympathetic with their cause. These companies

though are not being honest with the public. Fierlbeck (2012) unpacks the strategies

pharmaceutical companies have used in Canada. She mentions that the Canada Health Act was

never designed to support a national drug benefit plan. Strategies have been put into place in

hospital systems in Canada. In Ontario as mentioned, O.H.I.P. will pay for prescription coverage

for patients while they’re in the hospital. Once the patient is discharged and set up with

outpatient services, fees apply to patient’s descriptions. More and more hospitals are using

outpatient treatment centers to cater to their patients. This means that pharmaceutical companies

have a pool of profits already in the public domain.

The popular press seem to look for sensationalism mixed with some pertinent facts about

our topic. Facts are presented in such way as to make you react positively or negatively.

10

Keppler (2014) although a medical student , certainly brought to light the political pressure that

pharmaceuticals exert on government. She had much inside information through medical school

on the types of activities that pharmaceutical companies exert. This kind of information is not

accessible to the general public. It is well-known that pharmaceutical companies fund medical

schools and interns in the University activities. Keppler (2014) would be privy to that and would

be networking with pharmaceutical representatives. Belk (2013) a writer for Huffington Post

internet newspaper would write much more dramatically than Keppler. Yet, Belk examines the

facts thoroughly and presents us with vital information on the pursuits of pharmaceutical

companies. Belk is sensationalist in his accusations and comments. What has to be considered

though is his knowledge of generic pricing and that of the brand name marketing. Pearson (2011)

a University political student meanwhile delved analytically and quantitatively into surveys and

pharmaceutical explanations. Pearson in her article illustrates many charts of pricing between

wholesale and retail differences. She sticks to factual events as she investigated the local

pharmacy’s policies. She contacted a number of state governors as well as pharmaceutical firms.

She delved deeply into the question why pharmaceutical companies sell their prescriptions at

near retail prices to the pharmacies. Her academic paper was quite descriptive of the dynamics

facing pharmacies selling medications and the impact it had on the small business. Fierlbeck’s

(2012) academic University press article goes into vast detail on the Canada health act

nonacceptance of a national drug benefit plan. She investigates in detail and professional

language the pressure upon the Canadian government to implement a national drug plan.

Fierlbeck sits out in detail the strategies that the pharmaceutical companies are using with

government hospitals in technical language. Industry Canada (2013) also is quite detailed in

their description of pharmaceutical companies investing in Canada and other parts of the world.

11

The report was done by a consultant firm in separate San Francisco in the United States.

Technical charts, percentages, quantitative conclusions of data are described. Graphic

illustrations of maps and bar charts feel that report by the federal government. The report is quite

complicated technically and would take somebody with a mathematics or economics background

to fully understand it. The federal government uses a lot of mathematical data to emphasize

Canada’s the reason for pharmaceuticals to come here. Werth (2013) blatantly on the side of

pharmaceutical companies, makes a case for all of the millions spent of funds pharmaceutical

research. He sensationalizes the 2012 Vertex Pharmaceuticals case where this firm was able to

sell to hospitals a life-saving medication at half-price to America hospitals. Later he describes

the case of Zaltrap pharmaceuticals that were selling a generic drug is a cancer cure to America

hospitals. The American government and the hospitals the United States turned down Zaltrap’s

medication as well as their offer to sell it at discount prices. Being a generic organization there is

some questions in regards to this event. What it really illustrates I think is a brand-name

pharmaceuticals have the power to influence government and hospital systems. Generic

companies being smaller and less powerful may not have those opportunities. This is a

sensationalist story. It is also an eye-opener to the fact that money and power rule in the world of

pharmaceuticals.

All of this readily applies to Pavri’s (2012) publication in the first section on

technologies.Pavri mentions that “because of its large investment in basic research, in the mid-

1960s the US Department of Defense conducted audits to discover how valuable that research

Was”(p.3). As illustrated by Keppler (2014), Belk (2013) and Pearson (2011), research is very

much a big part of big business and capitalism. As was noted in the essay, pharmaceutical

12

companies invest billions into the production of prescription medication. Knowledge of legacy

projects in the pharmaceutical industry is a platform built upon by succeeding discoveries in

medicine. Pavri’s (2012) writes “… A group of people to have its own tradition of knowledge

just that that knowledge will be tied to the group social networks and material

circumstances.”(p.4). Pharmaceutical companies build on previous knowledge of medications in

order to make better and effective formulas which can cure diseases which have mutated. It is

difficult for the pharmaceutical industry to keep on top of the mutation of diseases. Keeping a

reservoir of knowledge helps to design new medicines such as antibiotics to subdue the new

superbugs. Pavri’s (2012) writes further “that laboratory science is about what can be

constructed, new orientation to ask experimental inquiry”(p.4). She continues writing “…

Scientific knowledge is one resource on which engineers and inventors can draw, and perhaps on

which they are drawing increasingly. But there is no reason to see it as a dominant resource.

Rather, the development of technology is a complex process that integrates many different

things: different kinds of knowledge – including its own knowledge and traditions – and different

kinds of material resources”(p.4) The amassing of knowledge of herbs and plants from South

America and Asia . Researchers travel around the world looking for medicines which can be

synthezied into commercial medications. Molecular structures , active ingredients and

sustainability of body immunity have to be classified and put into catergories. This is the

accumulation and application of knowledge and experimentation. Inventing a new drug comes

from the technolgy and science involved .

In reference to pharmaceuticals using nonprofits and universities to do their research as

explained by Klepper (2014) , Pavri (2012) goes on to state “universities, and university

researchers, are increasingly happening their results, and entering into partnerships with

13

corporations to fund research and develop products. There have been a number of different

formulations of the changing structures of research. Much discussed is the idea that there is a

new mold of knowledge production”(p.5). Further she states “The scientific research: the

justification for and balance of academic freedom, the public domain, and this

the disinterested in the have all become unclear, disrupting the ethos of pure science”(p.5).This

applies I feel to the use of non-profits and university students in internships. There are still many

interns that are not paid for their work. Interns working for pharmaceutical companies for free

are utilizing science in the areas of biology and chemistry with a focus of making a profit. I

believe true science and technology should also be utilized for the benefit of the world. I believe

that some things are gifts that are given to us. I believe there is some knowledges that are handed

to us to help us on this planet. These items should never be capitalized upon. I believe that access

to medications should be free if one can’t pay something towards the science involved. Pavri

(2012) writes “some technologies appear particularly compatible with some types of political

and social arrangements”(p.5). Pavri continues “Following Engles, he argues that some complex

technological decisions will lend themselves to more hierarchical organization than others, in the

name of efficiency – the complexity of modern industrial production does not lend itself to

consensus decision-making”(p.5). This refers to the Keppler (2014), Belk (2013) articles

regarding the power pharmaceutical companies can use in order to dominate government, and the

public. Pharmaceutical companies act from the top down so that the public and small business

have no input as to their strategies and agenda. Engles idea of “hierarchical organization and the

complex of the of modern industrial production” is part of the pharmaceutical agendas metioned

by Pavri (2012) (p.5). Pavri (2012) also brings up the fact that “successful technology require

configuring the user”(p.7). Pharmaceutical companies have definitely got a strategy to

14

manipulate the public, government, and hospital systems into being players in their agenda to sell

more prescription medication. Fierlbeck (2012) describes how pharmaceuticals have configured

the Canadian hospital system and distribution of prescription in outpatient clinics(p.153). In fact,

configuration is a prime factor of how forms will companies have been influencing and

manipulating the public and the government. Pavri (2012) refers to the technological frame(p.5).

Pavri states that “Bijker’s theory is that of the technological frame, this set of practices and the

material and social infrastructure built up around an artifact or collection of similar artifacts…

As the frame is developed it guides future actions. A technological frame, then, may reflect

engineers understandings of the key problems of the artifact, and the direction in which solutions

should be sought. It may also reflect understandings of the potential users of the artifact, and

users understanding of its functions(p. 8). Pharmaceutical companies definitely have a

“technological frame”as to the way they perform their strategies to earn high profits(p.8).

In conclusion to the essay titled “Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Responsible for the

High Cost of Prescription Drugs?”, I have to say that I’m very disappointed in finding out about

the deceitfulness of pharmaceutical companies. The articles I have used for the side advocating

for pharmaceutical companies may now have invalid data. Although some articles overlapped

into agreeing that prices for prescriptions for high, the reasons may be untrue. Case in study is

the article by Industry Canada (2013) that nearly reveals reason why it is good for

pharmaceuticals to come to Canada. They are careful not to slip up and mentioning that research

could be done by nonprofits and university students. The articles by Herper and Belk in the

sensationalism to prop up pharmaceutical companies merit’s never mentioned the sinister side.

Pavlou, Fedra,Lawrence, Corrine, Sutton and Stephanie(2009) also failed to mention work

generic pharmaceutical companies are trying to do to bring down drug prices. They promote the

good work that pharmaceuticals are doing in the world of counterfeiterism medications. They are

15

targeting brand-name pharmaceuticals. A lot of these authors mention the power control of

brand-name pharmaceuticals.

In conclusion, Anti-oppression social work calls neoliberal capitalists those we let be

donimant . They are neoliberal capitalists who looked for a pool of cheap labor to supply them

with the workforce in order to manufacture goods at high prices. These dominant powers

are the same kind that wield power and control over public and government. The purpose of

anti-oppression social work is to unpack, deconstruct and then reconstruct discourses presented

by those in power. It is important to build to deconstruct the agendas, strategies, and discourses

that oppress dominated groups. Empowerment comes to dominated groups when they are able to deconstruct dominant powers and reconstruct strategies to topple them. Power and control

surrounds all of us one form or another. This is recognized by the individual when they find

themselves in a dominated place. Always have to learn how to take on these dominant powers so

that we announce subjugated into a disempowered marginalized context. Reflecting upon our

environment and being reflexive in our analysis of the power that obstructs us we, become

empowered. We don’t have to feel we are disempowered just by knowing there might be a force

obstructing our way. What to deconstruct and analyze the barriers in front of us, we can

reconstruct the dominant group seeing their weaknesses. Activist groups, social workers and the

luminaries are able to find the weaknesses in dominant powers. Once these weaknesses are found

the dominant force can be toppled. This is happened throughout history. Some examples of this

is the French revolution whether people overthrew royalty there were starving the people. It is to

constant resistance against the G8 nations by activists who continuously construct awareness

campaigns. Incidents in the Middle East such as Egypt, Syria and Iran have shown us that the

public can wield power of their own. Standing up as a group retaliation against totalitarianism

16

works. Pharmaceutical companies act in the same manner as totalitarian government.

Pharmaceuticals only have power if the public lets them. We must continue to put pressure on

government not to give into pharmaceutical agendas strategies. We need to stop government

from letting pharmaceutical organizations influence the way health acts, drug plans, and medical

systems are implemented. This is the good thing about universities. They make you aware of

society. They make you reflexive, that is look deeper into your being - making you stretch your

consciousness. University encourages one to break out of the mold you have been resting in and

take action. It is never too late for one to do this.

Scholarly

Corrine, F. P. (2009, November). The pharaceutical packaging market. Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, 21(11). Retrieved April 2014, from my.ryerson.ca

Describes the pursuit of this organization to enhance the sales of pharmaceuticals

Interesting concepts of marketing to counter counterfiet medication

Fierlbeck, K. (2012). Health Care in Canada : A Citizen's Guide to Policy and Politics (2nd Edition ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

A very good description of Canada's health care system , its good points and downfalls.

Moore, J. (2013). Canada Pharmaceutical Greenfields Investments. Retrieved April 2014, from Industry Canada: www.lifesciences.ic.gc.ca

Industry Canada's response to pharmaceutical firms investing in Canada .

Pearson, S. (2011, February 4). A need for government intervention ? : Presciption drug prices and retail markup . Virginia Department of Political Science, p. 1 - 85. Retrieved April 2014, from my.ryerson.ca

Susan Pearsons M.A. thesis for her Political Science Masters Degree at Virginia University

17

On Pharmaceutical Pricing in the local economy of Blacksburg Virgina. She questions in herinvestigation the price of brand name whole sale and retail prices.