Sunday, September 23, 2007

Help Pay for Vioxx?

The HPV vaccination Gardasil protects against 4 strains of HPV, 2 of those responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine is administered to females between the ages of 9 to 26, is recommended by the CDC, and is said to be almost 100% effective. So what's all the fuss about?

The cost of the full dose is $360, and many naysayers suggest that Gardasil is Merck's way to cover the costs of Vioxx lawsuits, considering Merck's aggressive lobbying in DC for the government to mandate the vaccine for schoolgirls. Merck also donated to Women in Government, a group of female legislators--a Maryland senator introduced a bill to mandate Gardasil after learning of the vaccine from Women in Government. In reaction to the suggestions that Merck is 1) only looking to line their pockets with the lobbying, and 2)encouraging promiscuity with the vaccine, Merck announced in February that they would cease the lobbying for the federal mandate.

Merck's intention at the Capitol is suspicious (can't Gardasil's abilities speak for itself-it is a cancer vaccine!), and provides another black eye to Big Pharma, viewed as money-grubbing greed machine. Note that Merck estimates $2.8 billion to $3.2 billion in revenue from Gardasil sales this year. Texas has already mandated the vaccine, and many other states are considering this action as well. Merck: patience is a virtue, the big pay day from Gardasil will no doubt arrive! Don't use our government as a marketing tool.

2 comments:

atowers said...

Several colleges are already requiring Gardasil - my cousin had to receive the vaccine in order to attend Kutztown this fall. Merck should not be lobbying to make this vaccine mandatory - there is too much conflict of interest involved, aside from the ramifications from the Vioxx trials. Merck would greatly increase their revenue if Garadil became mandatory for every college age female student. In addition, I imagine the vaccine is still patented, meaning there is no competition for patients to receive a vaccine from another company. In addition, I feel that wooddragon's comments to my post last week apply - the government may be stepping over the boundries of autonomy by requiring this vaccine. However, the cost of the vaccine for the female population will greatly cut the cases (and therefore, cost of treatment) of cervical cancer. Less disease and less strain on the healthcare system is worth a small infridgment on autonomy.

Shannon Marie said...

I have a feeling that Merck would have marketed Gardasil and lobbied for it just as much regardless of Vioxx. But this issue does seem to come down to autonomy, while the vaccination would certainly help prevent costs of disease and cancer down the road, is HPV to be considered in the same public health disease category as mumps, measles, polio, and the other diseases for which schools require vaccinations?