HEALTH - Drugs Online: Virus or Cure?

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 12, 1999, 8 a.m.

It was a Sunday morn­ing and Den­nis P. Fitz­gib­bons was check­ing his e-mail at home. A few days earli­er, Fitz­gib­bons’ boss, House Com­merce Com­mit­tee rank­ing Demo­crat, John D. Din­gell of Michigan, had asked the Gen­er­al Ac­count­ing Of­fice to con­duct a study of the in­creas­ing avail­ab­il­ity of pre­scrip­tion drugs over the In­ter­net.

So there Fitz­gib­bons was, scan­ning his e-mail, only to find two mes­sages ad­vert­ising a Web site where any­one could pur­chase the anti-im­pot­ence drug Via­gra without both­er­ing to see a doc­tor. As he clicked through the site, Fitz­gib­bons was hammered with dis­claim­ers and li­ab­il­ity re­leases such as: ”I un­der­stand the side ef­fects of this drug … ” and ”I cer­ti­fy that I will an­swer all ques­tions truth­fully.” Yet nowhere did the Web site dis­close Via­gra’s pos­sible side ef­fects—in­deed, the only real warn­ing is a sug­ges­tion that the con­sumer an­swer ques­tions truth­fully be­cause ”your med­ic­al his­tory in­forms us of any pos­sible med­ic­al con­train­dic­a­tions.”

Fi­nally he was promp­ted to give his name, phone num­ber, and cred­it card num­ber. And though Fitz­gib­bons was told by the Web site that a doc­tor would re­view his ques­tion­naire, the end of the ap­plic­a­tion noted that pro­cessing ”may take up to two minutes.” And, in­deed, with­in a couple of minutes, Fitz­gib­bons re­ceived an OK. Though he didn’t or­der the pills, he was dis­turbed at how eas­ily he could have. ”It was a Sunday morn­ing—I’d be very sur­prised if there was a phys­i­cian sit­ting there” re­view­ing his ap­plic­a­tion, he said. ”It seemed to sug­gest to me that your vir­tu­al phys­i­cian is a vir­tu­al quack.”

Fitz­gib­bons’ ex­per­i­ence un­der­lines the fact that it is get­ting easi­er and easi­er for Amer­ic­ans to buy any kind of medi­cine on the In­ter­net, of­ten without a pre­scrip­tion, and with no one really in charge of reg­u­lat­ing the on­line mar­ket.

”This is the fu­ture,” says Mi­chael Gury, a spokes­man at IMS Health, the world’s lead­ing pro­vider of in­form­a­tion sys­tems to the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry. ”The In­ter­net has just taken every­body by storm.” Jupiter Com­mu­nic­a­tions, a New York City- based re­search com­pany, es­tim­ates that $ 66 mil­lion worth of all health and beauty products will be sold on­line in 1999; by 2002, sales could reach $ 1.2 bil­lion.

Hop­ing to get a handle on on­line drug sales, Fitz­gib­bons was part of a re­cent gov­ern­ment pow­wow con­duc­ted by the House Com­merce Com­mit­tee, where he is minor­ity deputy staff dir­ect­or. Be­cause the Justice De­part­ment, the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion, and the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion have over­lap­ping au­thor­ity over drug sales, of­fi­cials from all three agen­cies at­ten­ded the gath­er­ing to dis­cuss who should reg­u­late the sale of drugs on the In­ter­net. The FDA has primary fed­er­al jur­is­dic­tion, a Justice spokes­man said, but Justice’s Of­fice of Con­sumer Lit­ig­a­tion pro­sec­utes crim­in­al vi­ol­a­tions of the Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ics Act and the de­part­ment’s Drug En­force­ment Ad­min­is­tra­tion has jur­is­dic­tion over vi­ol­a­tions of laws that cov­er con­trolled sub­stances. The FTC has jur­is­dic­tion over In­ter­net drug sales only when de­cep­tion or mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion is in­volved.

Drug sales in cy­ber­space are so new, but grow­ing so fast, that gov­ern­ment and in­dustry rep­res­ent­at­ives are still strug­gling to as­sess the scope of the In­ter­net drug bazaar and its im­plic­a­tions. ”What we want to do is fig­ure out which on­line phar­ma­cies are ques­tion­able and which are ap­pro­pri­ate,” said Jeff Tre­whitt, a spokes­man for the Phar­ma­ceut­ic­al Re­search and Man­u­fac­tur­ers of Amer­ica, which rep­res­ents ma­jor drug com­pan­ies. ”We strongly be­lieve that any­thing that cir­cum­vents the tra­di­tion­al phys­i­cian-pa­tient re­la­tion­ship is dan­ger­ous.”

But there’s noth­ing tra­di­tion­al about the in­creas­ingly ec­lect­ic and luc­rat­ive In­ter­net drug trade. Web sites such as drug­ (partly owned by Inc.’s founder, Jeff Bezos) and re­quire that pre­scrip­tions be faxed or mailed and are re­garded by in­dustry ob­serv­ers as reput­able. But plenty of In­ter­net op­er­a­tions aren’t widely known and are harder to as­sess.

Con­sider, for in­stance, Dir­ect Re­sponse Mar­ket­ing, which has been op­er­at­ing for a year in the Brit­ish Chan­nel Is­lands, selling the anti-bald­ness drug Pro­pe­cia, the anti-obesity drug Xen­ic­al, and Via­gra, mainly to Amer­ic­ans. Man­aging Dir­ect­or Tom O’Bri­en said in an in­ter­view that his com­pany screens pa­tients with on­line ques­tion­naires that are ”scru­tin­ized by com­pany doc­tors,” who fre­quently turn people down, even if they merely sus­pect ”that something isn’t ringing right… . We try to be as con­scien­tious as we can.” He entered this busi­ness be­cause ”the In­ter­net was such an in­ter­est­ing me­di­um with a glob­al mar­ket and low over­head,” O’Bri­en ex­plains.

Cus­tom­ers who use Dir­ect Re­sponse Mar­ket­ing, O’Bri­en says, are know­ledge­able and soph­ist­ic­ated about what they want. ”We don’t so­li­cit any­body. People have to be aware that the drug ex­ists and come to us. We’re not talk­ing about vul­ner­able or gull­ible people. These are people who know how to use a search en­gine and know they want to use a cer­tain drug.”

Car­men Catizone, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Boards of Phar­macy, the trade group for phar­ma­cies, es­tim­ates that there are as many as 200 phar­ma­cies on­line, plus an un­lim­ited num­ber of oth­er kinds of tem­por­ary sites of­fer­ing pre­scrip­tion drugs. ”One site will serve as a shell, and as many as 20 or 30 oth­er sites will feed off of it with a series of hy­per­links. This provides a way of avoid­ing de­tec­tion. There is al­most no ac­count­ab­il­ity, be­cause when you go back, a link that was there may have dis­ap­peared.”

Catizone’s group re­cently an­nounced that it’s de­vel­op­ing a seal of ap­prov­al for on­line phar­ma­cies to help cus­tom­ers de­term­ine which are le­git­im­ate op­er­a­tions. Doc­tors say such a step is ne­ces­sary.

”We have been mon­it­or­ing the situ­ation care­fully,” says Juhana Id­an­paan-Heikkila, the dir­ect­or of drug man­age­ment and policies at the World Health Or­gan­iz­a­tion. ”Be­fore Via­gra was of­fi­cially ap­proved any­where in the world, it was avail­able on the In­ter­net… . No pre­scrip­tions were re­quired.” Pf­izer Inc., which makes Via­gra, found 270,000 Web sites pro­mot­ing or selling the po­tency drug, Id­an­paan-Heikkila said, and ”one of their ex­ec­ut­ives told me that they don’t have the re­sources to con­trol the situ­ation.” WHO has cre­ated an on­line guide with in­struc­tions on find­ing re­li­able med­ic­al in­form­a­tion and as­sist­ance on the World Wide Web.

But at the fed­er­al level, little is be­ing done to curb any ab­uses. FDA spokes­man Brad Stone said the agency is con­cerned about ”any­thing that short-cir­cuits the tra­di­tion­al phys­i­cian- pa­tient re­la­tion­ship,” but the FDA has power only over the drug products and how they are mar­keted, not the doc­tor-pa­tient re­la­tion­ship. ”If you are selling a drug over the In­ter­net, you need to use a leg­al pre­scrip­tion pro­cess, but the de­term­in­a­tion of what qual­i­fies as a leg­al pro­cess rests with the state med­ic­al boards.”

But ask FDA of­fi­cials to guess the scope of the prob­lem and—like every­one else—they’re clue­less. Be­cause the In­ter­net is so sprawl­ing, ”it’s hard for us to have a defin­it­ive num­ber for how many il­leg­al drugs are sold over the Web,” Stone says. ”We just don’t know.”

In the vast­ness of cy­ber­space, an­onym­ity is so easy to achieve that a cer­tain level of an­archy and law­break­ing pre­vails. Add to this the un­cer­tainty about which gov­ern­ment agency is re­spons­ible for the on­line drug trade, and things get even mur­ki­er. And all of the le­git­im­ate dis­pens­ing of pre­scrip­tions that takes place on the Web makes it even harder to isol­ate the trans­ac­tions that are il­le­git­im­ate.

So, who should patrol these on­line drug­stores? Both the FDA and the Amer­ic­an Med­ic­al As­so­ci­ation de­scribe state med­ic­al boards as ”ideal” reg­u­lat­ors. The AMA con­siders the is­sue to be so im­port­ant that its board of trust­ees will is­sue a re­port on the prob­lem at its an­nu­al meet­ing this month. The AMA be­lieves In­ter­net drug­stores are ”a grow­ing con­cern,” one of the trust­ees, Don­ald J. Palmis­ano, said. ”The ex­ist­ence of a pa­tient-phys­i­cian re­la­tion­ship is a pre­requis­ite for pre­scrib­ing. We want to dis­cuss the defin­i­tion of that re­la­tion­ship in light of new tech­no­lo­gies to see if there needs to be any cla­ri­fic­a­tion.”

Din­gell has led the con­gres­sion­al ef­fort to in­vest­ig­ate the In­ter­net drug trade. He has spe­cific­ally asked the GAO to ex­am­ine wheth­er on­line com­pan­ies fall short in veri­fy­ing pre­scrip­tions, and if they do, how of­ten. ”We’ve been con­cerned for a long time about how In­ter­net com­merce would af­fect a num­ber of laws—phar­ma­ceut­ic­als, fire­arms, con­trolled sub­stances,” he says. ”Re­gard­ing phar­ma­ceut­ic­als, we’ve looked at a num­ber of areas—how is the doc­tor-pa­tient re­la­tion­ship be­ing honored? Are the ne­ces­sary steps be­ing taken to en­sure pa­tient safety?” Din­gell men­tioned a fe­male journ­al­ist he knows who ordered Via­gra on­line for her­self and for her cat. She dropped a let­ter from her own name—and ad­ded a sur­name to the cat’s name—so they would seem to be men. ”She didn’t spe­cify her gender,” he notes. ”They nev­er both­er to ask any ques­tions at all. If one per­son can set up that kind of pe­cu­li­ar situ­ation, it’s clear to me that there are oth­er smart people around who can do it too.”

What We're Following See More »
House Committee Calls Mark Zuckerberg To Testify
19 minutes ago

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee will summon Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify, following recent revelations that Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained information on some 50 million Facebook users. 'We believe, as CEO of Facebook, he is the right witness to provide answers to the American people,'" said Reps. Greg Walden and Frank Pallone. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg told CNN that he was open to testifying. "The House panel said it plans to send a formal letter to Facebook in the days ahead."

Tillerson Receives Applause for Farewell Remarks
30 minutes ago
House Passes Omnibus Spending Bill
32 minutes ago
House Intel Officially Votes to End Probe
2 hours ago
"The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday voted in a party-line vote to release its controversial, Republican-authored report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, bringing to a close a contentious chapter defined by committee infighting. The report will not immediately be made public. It must first be sent to the intelligence community for a declassification review."
Trump’s Top Lawyer Resigns
2 hours ago

"The president’s lead lawyer for the special counsel investigation, John Dowd, resigned on Thursday." Dowd, who took over Trump's legal defense last summer, "ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice." Trump has expressed willingness to "sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.