Page 15


pea guistmas GRates $8.40 for the first gift $7.35 for a second gift $6.30 for a third gift $5.25 for each additional gift \(Subscriptions sent to persons residing out of state are Your own subscription may be renewed at these same rates. A greeting card New gift subscriptions will begin with the last issue of the year, which should arrive 00 it can be sent to you 7 . . for you to sign and deliver or remail. announcement of your gift will be sent to arrive just before Christmas; or, if you prefer, between Christmas and January first. If you have another preference as to the mailing date of the greeting cards or the beginning issue of new gift subscriptions, please include igo such instructions with your order. 0″ 0 Send Gift Subscriptions to: DO et se 00 o ,,a o 0 Sign gift card from %f f .% 0, \(AO V street state zip 00 Sign gift card from .00 O0 Str011t 00 c v e city state zip 0 Sign gift card from 0 Sign gift card from 60 Your name Street Od e 0 City, State Zip 0 Shall we enter or extend your own subscription? yes Ono Check enclosed To be billed in January O o o c o boo o oo o o 0 0 0 0 410e p 0 0 0 0 o 0. 00 0o oo 00 00 o 0 0 00 o o o a 0 0 ct o 0 00 0 el 0 street _CO city state zip GP 0 00 . . a \(Pe 0 0 terms of totally effective drugs, with Abbott and Squibb also having more than 20 percent in that class. Smith Kline & 4.6 Hoffman-LaRoche, American Home Products and CIBA-Geigy also having less than ten percent of their drugs judged totally effective for all indications. In terms of drugs the NAS study considered totally ineffective, only companies with fewer than one out of ten products judged worthless. Pfizer, Upjohn, American Home Products, Hoffman-LaRoche and Merck all had between 20 and 23 percent of their drugs in the totally ineffective category. IN ORDER TO determine the productivity of the firms’ research departments, the CEP study chose the Medical Letter’s list of significant new drugs introduced since 1966 as its authority on therapeutic breakthroughs. The Letter list contains 56 drugs; 34 of them were marketed by the CEP’s 16 companies. Merck developed five, Eli Lilly and Burroughs-Wellcome four each, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Pfizer and Upjohn three each, and CIBA-Geigy, American Home Products and Sterling two each. Smith Kline & French introduced no significant new drugs; all other firms included in the study developed one each. The study found no clear correlation between company size and therapeutic breakthroughs, though it was roughly true that “the greater the total number of new drugs introduced [including non-significant ones], the lower the number of significant new drugs,” and vice-versa. Eli Lilly, which had one of the largest totals in each group, represented a pointed exception to that rule. The report also contains profiles of each of the 16 companies studied and a great deal of other information on the drug industry. It includes a section entitled “For Future Research,” pointing out areas where questions remain unanswered. How does the ethical drug industry’s role as a major part of the U.S. health care system jibe with the fact that it is one of the two most profitable industries in the country over the last decade? Why must drug companies spend an estimated 20 percent of their incomes on promotion? And, most important, does an information system dominated by the seller allow the consumer doctor or patient any chance of making real judgments? J.F. The Council on Economic Priofities is a non-profit research organization. Information about the CEP, as well as copies of “In Whose Hands?”, may be obtained by writing to 84 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10011.