What if the medical research behind your prescriptions was written by the same company profiting from the drug? Seniors are often the most medicated and the least represented in clinical trials—making them especially vulnerable to misleading health news and overprescription. This eye-opening article explores how pharmaceutical companies and sensationalized media shape our understanding of health, and offers guidance for families and caregivers looking to protect their loved ones from a system built for profit, not prevention.
(Note: About Us, a reference bibliography, related books, videos and apps can be found at the end of this article.)
Article Highlights
- Many medical studies are funded and written by the same companies that sell the drugs being tested. This creates a built-in conflict of interest.
- Academic doctors may appear as study authors, even when the research was actually ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies.
- Positive studies are published far more often than negative ones, giving a distorted view of how well drugs actually work.
- In a major review of antidepressant trials, only 51% showed real benefit, but 94% of published papers appeared positive.
- Health news is often based on press releases, not rigorous analysis of the actual research.
- Headlines like “Grapes Reverse Aging” or “Coffee Prevents Dementia” often come from small, early studies—if they’re based on science at all.
- The healthcare system profits more from long-term treatment than from cures or prevention.
- Seniors are routinely prescribed medications that weren’t adequately tested in older populations with multiple conditions.
- Polypharmacy—taking many medications at once—is common and raises the risk of falls, confusion, and hospitalization.
- Side effects are often mistaken for new illnesses, creating a cycle of more symptoms and more drugs.
- Some treatments are approved based on small changes in lab numbers, not meaningful improvements in how people feel or function.
- Exploring functional, holistic, naturopathic, and nutritional care may offer safer, more personalized approaches to healing and prevention.
- Asking questions, reassessing medications, and staying informed are essential steps to staying healthy—and not just medicated.
Introduction: The Prescription You Didn’t See Coming
Imagine taking a little white pill every morning. Your doctor said it would help lift your mood, maybe give you more energy. You trust them—they’ve always looked out for you. The pharmacy prints a long list of side effects, but you figure, if this drug made it to market, it must have passed all the right tests.
But what if the research that convinced your doctor to prescribe it wasn’t written by scientists or independent researchers—but by the drug company that profits every time you refill it?
Let’s say you’re one of the millions of older adults prescribed a popular antidepressant. The published studies make it sound effective, even essential. But years later, a deeper investigation reveals a disturbing truth: only half of the trials showed any real benefit. The rest? Never published. Or worse—rewritten to sound positive when they weren’t.
This isn’t a rare story. It’s the way the system works.
In today’s healthcare landscape, especially for seniors, the truth is harder to see than ever. The science we depend on is often shaped by hidden forces—pharmaceutical companies driven by profits, media outlets hungry for catchy headlines, and a research environment that rewards flashy results over careful, honest inquiry.
This article is about pulling back the curtain. It’s about understanding how the medications we’re prescribed, the treatments we undergo, and the health news we consume are often influenced more by money and media than by medical reality.
Because if we don’t ask who benefits—and how—we may end up trusting the wrong people with our most valuable asset: our health.
The Hidden Hands of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Most people assume that the medical research behind their prescriptions is objective, careful, and transparent. After all, lives are at stake—shouldn’t the science be pure? In reality, the system is often built not for truth, but for sales.
Ghostwritten Science and Hidden Authors
Many drug studies aren’t written by the doctors listed as authors. They’re written by the pharmaceutical companies that make the drug.
This practice, known as ghostwriting, allows companies to control the story while lending the illusion of academic credibility. A respected university researcher’s name may appear on the paper, but they may have had little more than an editorial role—if that. The real authors are often medical writers paid by the drug company, working from behind the scenes to shape the language, the framing, and the message.
Why does this matter? Because when the same company that stands to make billions from a drug also writes the research about it, objectivity goes out the window.
Rigged Trials, Predictable Results
Even the design of clinical trials can be manipulated to favor a positive outcome.
For example:
- Trials may exclude older adults, people with multiple chronic conditions, or anyone who might complicate the results. That means the people taking the drug in real life—often seniors with complex health needs—weren’t part of the study in the first place.
- Researchers may test the drug against a weaker treatment or even a placebo, rather than the current gold standard, making the new drug look better than it is.
- Sometimes, companies will focus on surrogate outcomes—like a small drop in blood pressure or a lab value—rather than actual improvements in how a person feels or functions.
These tactics aren’t necessarily illegal, but they are misleading. The result is research that meets the technical requirements for publication, while hiding critical weaknesses that should give doctors—and patients—pause.
In the end, many medications are approved and promoted not because they’re the best option, but because they’ve passed a test that was written with the answers already in mind.
The Antidepressant Scandal: A Case Study in Manipulated Evidence
Let’s take a closer look at how pharmaceutical influence can distort not just one study—but an entire class of medications.
Between the late 1980s and early 2000s, drug companies conducted 74 clinical trials on 12 different antidepressant drugs. These were trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which means the results—good or bad—had to be reported.
Here’s what the FDA actually saw:
- 38 trials showed the drug worked better than a placebo.
- 36 trials showed it didn’t.
A 50/50 split. Barely better than a coin toss.
But here’s what the public—and doctors—saw:
- Of the 38 positive studies, 37 were published in medical journals.
- Of the 36 negative or inconclusive studies, only 3 were published—and many were spun to sound more positive than they were.
So while only 51% of the trials showed benefit, 94% of the published literature made it look like the drugs worked.
If you were a doctor reading the medical journals—and not digging through obscure FDA reports—you’d believe antidepressants were highly effective, based on what appeared to be overwhelming evidence. That illusion was manufactured.
Why Does This Matter for Seniors?
Older adults are frequently prescribed antidepressants, often for long-term use. Yet these drugs:
- May not have been properly tested on people over 65.
- Can cause side effects like drowsiness, falls, or confusion.
- Might not be more effective than non-drug treatments like therapy, social support, or exercise.
And yet, because of distorted data and selective reporting, these medications became the standard of care—even when they may not have been the best or safest choice for older adults.
This isn’t just about antidepressants. It’s a case study in how selective publication, ghostwriting, and buried data combine to shape medical decisions that affect real people—often without their knowledge.
TIP BOX
What to Watch For: Reading Between the Headlines
Not all “breakthroughs“ are created equal. Before you get excited—or worried—about a new medication or health study, ask yourself:
Who paid for the study?
If it was funded by the company selling the drug, be extra skeptical.
Was it tested on people like me?
Many trials exclude seniors, even though we’re the ones most likely to take the medication.
What are the real-world benefits?
Does it help people feel better or live longer—or just change a number on a lab test?
What’s missing?
If all the studies you hear about sound too good to be true, remember: the negative ones may never have been published at all.
Media’s Role: Clickbait Health
Turn on the TV or open your favorite news app and chances are you’ll see a headline like:
“Coffee Cures Cancer”
“Grapes Reverse Aging”
“One Glass of Red Wine a Day Keeps Alzheimer’s Away”
Sounds exciting, right? Unfortunately, most of these stories are based on exaggerated or misunderstood science—and sometimes no real science at all.
From Press Release to Prime Time
Here’s how it works:
A university or pharmaceutical company publishes a new study. Before the ink is dry, a public relations team writes a press release designed to grab attention. It highlights the most exciting (and often least reliable) part of the research.
Most reporters, especially those on deadline, don’t read the full study—which can be dozens of pages long and filled with complex statistics. Instead, they copy from the press release and turn it into a headline. The result? The public hears a simplified version of a story that may be misleading, incomplete, or even totally wrong.
Sensationalism Sells
The more surprising or emotional the story, the more likely it is to go viral on social media. But that popularity has nothing to do with whether the science is strong.
In fact, the weaker the study, the more likely it is to produce dramatic, misleading headlines.
Researchers know this. So do the media. And so do the pharmaceutical companies that quietly fund or influence the research behind the scenes.
Seniors in the Crosshairs
This media cycle matters especially for older adults, who are often the most engaged health consumers—and the most vulnerable to false hope or fear.
A headline promising a cure for memory loss can lead someone to demand an unproven treatment. A news report on a so-called “miracle diet“ can encourage risky weight loss in already frail individuals.
The sad truth is, media hype distorts our understanding of what’s actually safe, helpful, or worth pursuing.
Spot the Hype: How to Read Health Headlines Like a Pro
Before you get excited—or worried—about a health story, ask yourself:
Does it sound too good to be true?
If grapes could reverse aging, we’d all be young again. Be skeptical of miracle claims.
Is it based on a small or early study?
Animal studies or tiny human trials are not proof. Always look for large, long-term research in real people.
Does it mention risks or only benefits?
Real science always talks about both. If a headline skips the downsides, it’s likely one-sided.
Was the study done in people my age?
If it was based on healthy 30-year-olds, it may not apply to older adults with multiple health issues.
Who is telling the story?
Is it a journalist quoting doctors, or a press release from a company selling the product?
Look for words like “may,” “linked,“ or “associated.”
These don’t mean the treatment works. They just suggest a possible connection—not a proven result.
The Dark Incentive: Chronic Disease Is Good Business
Here’s the twist in the story that most people never see coming:
In modern healthcare, there’s more money to be made treating disease than preventing it—especially when that disease is chronic and lifelong.
It’s not that pharmaceutical companies are “evil.” It’s that they’re businesses. And like any business, they’re built to grow profits—not necessarily to make people well.
Prevention Doesn’t Pay
Think about it: there’s no billion-dollar industry built around leafy greens, fresh air, daily walks, or strong family connections. These things are proven to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, depression, and even dementia. But they don’t come with a price tag.
Compare that to:
- A pill that lowers cholesterol (but not always your risk of heart attack).
- A drug that improves blood sugar numbers (but may cause dizziness and falls).
- A medication that claims to “slow memory loss”—but doesn’t restore the memory or stop the decline.
These treatments are often prescribed for decades. They generate steady income for pharmaceutical companies, insurance plans, pharmacy chains, and healthcare systems.
Meanwhile, actual cures or root-cause treatments—if they exist—get far less attention or funding. One-and-done solutions don’t feed the machine.
A System That Rewards Lifelong Customers
Here’s a real-world example:
Imagine a new therapy is developed that reverses mild memory loss in older adults. It’s safe, simple, and only needs to be used once or twice. That would be incredible for patients—but financially? It’s a nightmare for companies selling long-term dementia drugs. A one-time fix doesn’t bring in repeat prescriptions. It doesn’t get stockholders excited.
So, the system doesn’t promote it. It buries it. Or never funds it to begin with.
This is the natural conflict of interest baked into modern Medicine:
- Long-term treatment = long-term revenue.
- Cure or prevention = profit loss.
Until this changes, patients—especially seniors—will continue to receive treatments that manage symptoms rather than address causes.
How to Push Back: Choose Prevention Over Prescriptions
You don’t need to be a doctor—or a billionaire—to make smarter health choices. Here’s how seniors and their families can gently push back against a system built for profits, not prevention:
Feed your body like it matters.
Simple foods—fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grains—can do more for your heart and brain than any pill. And they’re side-effect free.
Move every day.
Even a short daily walk can improve circulation, reduce blood sugar, and lift your mood. Movement is Medicine.
Focus on sleep, stress, and social connection.
These “soft“ factors are powerful. Poor sleep and loneliness raise the risk for disease just like smoking or obesity.
Ask your doctor: Do I really need this?
Bring a list of all your medications to every visit. Ask what each one is for, and whether any can be stopped or replaced with lifestyle changes.
Be curious, not passive.
Read. Ask questions. Learn what treatments actually do—and what they don’t. Don’t assume “new“ means “better.”
Remember: You are not a lifelong customer.
Your goal isn’t to manage disease. It’s to live well. The system may want you dependent, but that’s not the same as being healthy.
Why This Matters for Seniors
If you’re a senior—or caring for one—you already know the routine.
A new diagnosis, a new prescription. Then another. And another. Before long, the pillbox is full, the side effects are confusing, and the doctor says, “Well, let’s try something else.”
This isn’t a coincidence. It’s the result of a system that sees older adults not just as patients, but as lifelong customers.
Seniors: The Prime Market for Chronic Treatment
Older adults are the biggest consumers of prescription drugs. It’s not uncommon for a senior to be taking 5, 10, or even 15 medications every day—a phenomenon known as polypharmacy.
But here’s the troubling part:
Many of these medications were never properly tested in people over 65. The clinical trials that justify their use often exclude older adults, especially those with multiple health conditions—exactly the kinds of patients taking these drugs in the real world.
As a result, seniors are often prescribed medications that:
- Haven’t been proven safe or effective for their age group.
- Cause side effects like confusion, dizziness, or falls.
- Interact with each other in unpredictable ways.
And once these medications are started, they’re rarely reassessed. Years can go by without anyone asking, “Do we still need this?”
The Vicious Cycle of Overmedication
Here’s how the cycle works:
- A senior is prescribed a drug for one condition.
- The drug causes side effects—fatigue, balance problems, and brain fog.
- These symptoms are mistaken for new illnesses.
- More medications are added to manage the new symptoms.
- The patient becomes more frail, more dependent—and more medicated.
This cycle doesn’t just diminish the quality of life. It increases the risk of hospitalization, falls, memory loss, and premature death.
What’s worse, many of these medications were promoted based on flawed or manipulated research—the very kind we’ve been exposing in this article.
What You Can Do
Let’s be honest—changing the entire healthcare system is a big job. But changing how you move through it? That’s something you can start today.
You don’t have to be a doctor to ask good questions, advocate for yourself, and make better decisions. Here’s how:
Ask, “Was this tested on people my age?”
If your doctor recommends a new medication or treatment, ask whether it’s been studied in older adults—especially those with other health conditions. If it hasn’t, the benefits may be unclear, and the risks may be higher than advertised.
Reassess your medications regularly
Bring all your medications (prescription, over-the-counter, even vitamins) to your next doctor visit. Ask:
- “Do I still need this?“
- “Is this treating the cause or just a symptom?“
- “Could lifestyle changes reduce my need for this?”
Sometimes stopping a medication is just as important as starting one.
Be cautious with media hype
If a news story says something “cures” Alzheimer’s or “prevents“ cancer, take a deep breath. Then ask:
- “Is this based on a real clinical study?”
- “Who paid for it?“
- “How big was the study—and how long did it last?“ When in doubt, ask your doctor—or get a second opinion from a source with no financial interest in the treatment.
Focus on what’s proven to work
Good nutrition, gentle movement, sleep, stress management, and staying socially connected have consistently been shown to improve health and longevity. They’re not fancy—but they work.
Remember: Your life is not a research experiment
If something doesn’t feel right, speak up. If you’re overwhelmed by your medications or unsure about a treatment, ask for a simpler plan. Your comfort, clarity, and quality of life matter.
This system may not always have your best interest at heart. But you can still take care of your heart, your mind, and your future—with a little curiosity, a lot of questions, and the courage to say, “Hold on—let’s talk about this.“
Expanding the Conversation: Other Ways to Heal
Pulling back the curtain on conventional (Allopathic) Medicine also gives us the chance to look beyond it—to explore healing traditions and philosophies that approach health in different ways.
Many seniors around the world are turning to practitioners in fields like:
- Functional Medicine, which seeks to identify and treat the root causes of illness, not just the symptoms.
- Naturopathy and Homeopathy, which use natural remedies and a more individualized approach to healing.
- Holistic and Integrative Medicine, which treat the whole person—body, mind, and spirit—not just a diagnosis.
- Dietetic and Nutritional Therapy, which focuses on food as Medicine and supports healing through what we eat.
These perspectives don’t always “replace“ conventional care—but they can complement it. They can offer more time, more listening, and more tools for managing chronic conditions, reducing medications, and restoring vitality in ways traditional systems often overlook.
But just like with pharmaceuticals, it’s important to ask questions:
- Is the practitioner qualified?
- What’s the evidence behind this treatment?
- Is it safe for someone my age and health status?
Exploring these options doesn’t mean rejecting science. It means expanding your definition of it—and reclaiming your role in the healing process.
Conclusion: Pulling Back the Curtain
For most of our lives, we’ve been taught to trust the doctor, take the pill, and believe the science.
But now we know the truth: sometimes the science is shaped by sales. The pill was pushed by a company with profits in mind. The doctor—well-intentioned as they may be—was working with incomplete or misleading information.
This isn’t about blame. It’s about awareness.
Because when we pull back the curtain, we don’t just see a broken system—we see why it’s broken. We see how pharmaceutical companies ghostwrite studies. How media turns half-truths into headlines. How seniors are left out of research but loaded up with prescriptions. And how long-term treatment—not prevention or cure—has quietly become the business model.
That doesn’t mean we should give up on modern Medicine. It means we should be more thoughtful about how we use it. We should be willing to ask harder questions, seek second opinions, and focus on what truly improves quality of life—not just what keeps the machine running.
At Cielito Lindo, we believe that aging with dignity includes access to honest information, not just medication. In fact, we practice “slow medicine” and, therefore, are much less inclined to prescribe and much more willing to reassess and potentially depresribe when the benefit does not far outweigh the negative impacts. It means giving our residents, our families, and our community the tools to navigate healthcare with open eyes and strong voices.
So the next time a treatment is offered, a new drug is advertised, or a health story goes viral—pause. Ask who’s behind it. Ask who benefits.
Because when we know the truth, we are better informed and more able to choose what’s best for us—not just what’s most profitable for them.
Disclaimer: As a Senior Health Advocacy Journalist, I strive to conduct thorough research and bring complex topics to the forefront of public awareness. However, I am not a licensed legal, medical, or financial professional. Therefore, it is important to seek advice from qualified professionals before making any significant decisions based on the information I provide.
Copyright: All text © 2025 James M. Sims and all images exclusive rights belong to James M. Sims and Midjourney unless otherwise noted.
References
Related Cielito Lindo Articles
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Reducing prescription dependency in seniors with adaptogenic mushrooms. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/reducing-prescription-dependency-in-seniors-with-adaptogenic-mushrooms/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Improving healthcare to address the unique challenges of aging patients. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/improving-healthcare-to-address-the-unique-challenges-of-aging-patients/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Transforming senior healthcare with patient-centered AI solutions. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/transforming-senior-healthcare-with-patient-centered-ai-solutions/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). The law of unintended consequences: How RVUs and financial incentives shape modern Medicine. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-how-rvus-and-financial-incentives-shape-modern-medicine/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Underserved: Addressing the unique healthcare needs of seniors. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/underserved-addressing-the-unique-healthcare-needs-of-seniors/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Empowering seniors: AI tools for effective healthcare advocacy. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/empowering-seniors-ai-tools-for-effective-healthcare-advocacy/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Ensuring quality care: The crucial role of self-advocacy in a flawed healthcare system. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/ensuring-quality-care-the-crucial-role-of-self-advocacy-in-a-flawed-healthcare-system/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Health care inequalities for our elderly. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/health-care-inequalities-for-our-elderly/
Sims, J. M. (n.d.). Precision medicine: A more effective approach for comorbidities and polypharmacology for the elderly. Cielito Lindo Senior Living. https://cielitolindoseniorliving.com/precision-medicine-a-more-effective-approach-for-comorbidities-and-polypharmacology-for-the-elderly/
Articles and Guides
Angell, M. (2004, January 15). The truth about the drug companies. The New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/01/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/
Goldacre, B. (2008). Doctoring the data. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/26/medicalresearch.health
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Websites
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (n.d.). Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What’s in a name? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name
Cochrane Library. (n.d.). Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
ProPublica. (n.d.). Dollars for Docs. https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/
Research Papers
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ, 326(7400), 1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
Sultana, J., Cutroneo, P., & Trifirò, G. (2013). Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 4(S1), S73–S77. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.120957
Maher, R. L., Hanlon, J., & Hajjar, E. R. (2014). Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 13(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2013.827660
Books
Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House. ISBN: 9780375760945
Goldacre, B. (2012). Bad pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Faber & Faber. ISBN: 9780865478008
Gøtzsche, P. C. (2013). Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. Radcliffe Publishing. ISBN: 9781846198847
Ioannidis, J. P. (2022). The Ioannidis Report: Medical Research and the Crisis of Modern Science. Independent release. ISBN: 9798985582006
Additional Resources:
Video: Polypharmacy in Geriatrics
0:21 – Polypharmacy is defined as the use of five or more prescribed medications daily.
1:12 – 37% of elderly Americans use five or more prescription medications.
1:27 – Inappropriate medication use occurs in 11.5% to 62.5% of the elderly population.
1:45 – One in six hospital visits in the elderly is due to adverse drug events.
2:07 – Case example of patient SJ, a 74-year-old man with multiple health issues and medications.
3:21 – Prescribing cascades occur when adverse drug events are misinterpreted as new diseases.
4:20 – Lack of adherence to medications increases with the number prescribed.
5:11 – Drug interactions can be pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic, complicating treatment.
7:11 – Omeprazole can increase side effects of citalopram, highlighting drug interaction risks.
10:15 – Guidelines like STOPP criteria can help manage polypharmacy in elderly patients.
10:28 – Discusses tools for managing prescriptions in elderly patients, organized by body systems.
10:57 – Introduces the Beers Criteria, which lists medications to avoid in older adults.
11:31 – Highlights high-alert medications that require caution, including anticholinergics and NSAIDs.
12:16 – Emphasizes the dangers of malnutrition in elderly patients on multiple medications.
12:20 – Introduces CancelRx, a tool for prescribers to electronically discontinue unnecessary prescriptions.
13:10 – Discusses the pharmacist’s role in managing polypharmacy and preventing medication errors.
14:19 – Suggests proactive measures pharmacists can take, including medication reconciliation.
15:03 – Highlights the importance of counseling patients on OTC medications and supplements.
18:21 – Recommends using pill boxes and lists to help patients stay organized with their medications.
20:23 – Stresses the importance of communication among caregivers and healthcare providers.
Video: Big Pharma – How much power do drug companies have? | DW Documentary
0:06 – Pharmaceutical companies are hiking drug prices significantly.
0:30 – The drug ecosystem is described as completely money-driven.
1:00 – The pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying heavily influences Congress.
1:24 – The industry’s main concern is profit, prioritizing shareholders over patients.
2:29 – Martin Shkreli raised the price of Daraprim by 5,000%.
4:10 – Shkreli’s congressional testimony highlights the ethical dilemmas in drug pricing.
5:02 – Shkreli becomes a symbol of the excesses and cynicism of the pharmaceutical industry.
7:30 – Large laboratories are accused of hiding negative results from clinical trials.
10:01 – Victims of drug side effects seek justice against pharmaceutical companies.
15:41 – A warning about the risks of the drug Depakine was added almost 50 years after its launch.
20:22 – The results of a study showed that Avastin improved visual acuity, unlike previous treatments.
21:37 – Lucentis was introduced, priced significantly higher than Avastin, despite similar efficacy.
23:14 – The cost of preparing Avastin for eye treatment was 20 times less than Lucentis.
26:15 – Legal battles ensued as Avastin was eventually authorized for use in France, but too late for many.
30:11 – Gilead’s hepatitis C treatment, Sovaldi, was priced at $84,000 for a three-month course.
32:02 – The high price of hepatitis C treatment sparked outrage among patients in France.
35:12 – Generic drugs significantly reduced the price of hepatitis C treatment to less than $80.
36:14 – Novartis marketed a new cancer gene therapy, Kim Raya, at an exorbitant price of €320,000.
39:35 – The high cost of cancer treatments raises concerns about accessibility for patients.
42:00 – The FDA’s funding model creates a conflict of interest in drug approvals.
Video: Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medicines (PIMs) in Older Adults
Highlights:
0:00 – Introduction by Susan Elliott, nurse practitioner at St. Louis University, discussing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults.
0:27 – Objectives of the talk: defining polypharmacy and PIMs, listing tools for identifying PIMs, and correlating them with the four M’s of age-friendly healthcare.
1:01 – Importance of understanding lifespan and prognosis in older adults, particularly in nursing home residents.
2:14 – Overview of the American Geriatric Society’s guiding principles for care in older adults, emphasizing patient preferences and risk versus harm.
3:32 – Definition of polypharmacy: five or more medications; severe polypharmacy: ten or more.
4:09 – CDC study findings: 36.8% of older adults had polypharmacy, and 70% had a potentially inappropriate medication.
5:02 – Detection rates of PIMs: Beers Criteria (38.5%) vs. STOPP/START criteria (60.4%).
6:04 – Discussion of various tools for identifying PIMs, including the Beers Criteria and STOPP/START criteria.
7:21 – Update on the Beers Criteria in March 2023, including the addition of an anticoagulation table.
8:21 – New recommendations advise avoiding rivaroxaban and caution with dabigatran due to major bleeding risks.
9:13 – Aspirin is now on the avoid list for primary prevention because of bleeding risks.
9:27 – Baclofen is added to the avoid list for patients with decreased renal function due to encephalopathy risks.
10:14 – Anticholinergic bladder medications can cause severe side effects, including confusion and UTIs.
12:00 – Cumulative anticholinergic burden increases risks of falls, delirium, and dementia in older adults.
13:06 – 40% of medications for geriatric patients are associated with geriatric syndromes.
14:01 – Case study of a 78-year-old woman highlights the need to review medications for appropriateness.
15:21 – Aspirin is not indicated for primary prevention in older adults without active heart disease.
15:48 – Oxybutynin is identified as an inappropriate medication for the patient discussed.
16:09 – Resources for deep prescribing and geriatric education are available for further learning.
Book Review: Deprescribing and Polypharmacy in an Aging Population by Ali Elbeddini (Kindle Edition)
Overview
Ali Elbeddini’s Deprescribing and Polypharmacy in an Aging Population is a deeply relevant and timely exploration of one of the most pressing challenges in geriatric healthcare: the overuse of medications in older adults. Written for healthcare professionals, caregivers, and those engaged in patient safety and aging policy, this guide presents a strategic and research-informed approach to mitigating the risks of polypharmacy through deprescribing.
Synopsis
This practical and academically grounded book focuses on the global health issue of polypharmacy—where aging individuals are prescribed multiple medications simultaneously, often without proper coordination. Elbeddini provides evidence-based methods for deprescribing, which involves safely reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or could be harmful. He emphasizes the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, engaging patients, caregivers, pharmacists, and physicians in a collaborative process.
The book breaks down the complex factors contributing to polypharmacy, such as mental health comorbidities, fragmented healthcare systems, and lack of continuity in care. Elbeddini then offers real-world strategies to overcome institutional and systemic barriers, making it an indispensable resource for clinicians looking to implement deprescribing protocols.
Key Themes
Polypharmacy and its Risks: The book underscores how multiple medications can lead to adverse drug reactions, diminished quality of life, and even hospitalization among seniors.
Deprescribing as a Clinical Strategy: It advocates for a structured, patient-centered approach to reevaluating medication regimens.
Multidisciplinary Collaboration: Emphasizes the role of pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and caregivers in building effective deprescribing programs.
Barriers and Enablers: The text identifies institutional, cultural, and practical challenges to deprescribing, offering strategies to address these issues.
Patient Engagement and Education: Stresses the need for educating both patients and healthcare providers on the benefits of minimizing unnecessary medication.
Writing Style
Elbeddini writes with a balance of clinical authority and accessibility. While the content is rooted in evidence-based practice and would best suit healthcare professionals, the language is clear enough for engaged lay readers—particularly caregivers or advocates for elderly patients—to gain useful insights. The structure is logical, with each chapter building upon the last, and case examples help ground the theory in practice.
Conclusion
Deprescribing and Polypharmacy in an Aging Population is a vital contribution to the field of geriatric medicine and healthcare policy. With the aging global population and the rise in chronic conditions necessitating multiple medications, this book provides a roadmap for safer, more thoughtful prescribing practices. It offers actionable solutions that could be transformative in improving elder care, reducing healthcare costs, and enhancing patient well-being.
This is an essential read for anyone involved in the care of older adults—from primary care physicians and pharmacists to policymakers and caregivers.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5 stars)
A must-read for healthcare providers working with aging populations—comprehensive, practical, and profoundly important.
Note: While it is good to know that books like this are published, this is very expensive ($175) and hardly any cheaper on Ebay. I read the first 30 or so pages on google books and it seems like it is incredible informative.
About Us - Cielito Lindo Senior Living
Thanks for letting us share this content with you. If you would like to see other articles like this one, they can be found here.
We are Cielito Lindo – a senior care facility in beautiful San Miguel de Allende and we serve as the assisted living and memory care component of Rancho los Labradores, which is a truly incredible one-of-a-kind country club resort-like gated community. Rancho los Labradores consists of individual villas, man made lakes, cobblestone streets, and a rich array of wonderful amenities (e.g., tennis, club house, pools, cafe, long and short term hotel suites, theater, Cielito Lindo, a la carte assisted living services).
What makes this place so amazing is not only the beauty and sense of community, but also the fact that you can have the lifestyle you desire with the care that you need as those needs arise… and all of this at a cost of living that is less than half of what it would cost comparably in the US.
Learn more about Cielito Lindo here
Download the Expatriate Guide for Senior Living in Mexico – For your convenience, the entire 50-page guide is available for download as a PDF. Send us an email us at information.cielitolindo@gmail.com or give us a call for any other information you might want
English speaking: 1.888.406.7990 (in US & CDN) 00.1.881.406.7990 (in MX)
Spanish speaking: 011.52.415.101.0201 (in US & CDN) 1.415.101.0201 (in MX)
We would love to hear from you and we are here to serve you with lots of helpful information, support, and zero-pressure sales.