| Back to Carole |
| Procter & Gamble Denies Patient Assistance
Cites Medicare as Cause Huge setback for needy Americans even as profits rise |
| Posted April 20, 2008. Procter & Gamble Profit Up 8%. Price increases and cost controls helped offset higher commodity costs as its third quarter profit rose 8 percent, their stinginess duly noted, see article below.
Posted April 28, 2008 3 April 2008. I'm just off the phone with a patient assistance rep from the P & G pharmaceutical division, and learned that my request for medicine was denied because I have Medicare. SSDI, yes, it is true, I do have Medicare. I am disabled, gutless quite literally, having had 96% of my large intestine removed. Yet, even though I am physically without guts, I'm no weenie, and P & G, you deserve my wrath. I told you the story, wrote it down. "I have Medicare except that this year I can't get through the GAP. Last year my husband earned very little, and is now back in school, embarking on a whole career at age of 55 — information technology — gotta give him credit for that. From marketing software to the hardware side, networking and programming ... we'll be paying off student loans until we die." "Too bad," P & G said. "Tsk, Tsk, you were rejected on March 31 because you have Medicare." P & G's Asacol jumps from $30.00 to $550.00 The Gap is actually an abyss — the $4,000* out-of-pocket expense for medicines. Pure trickery the term donut hole, sugary and contrived, the actual cost to get through it is solid, like a brick. Whack! I'm down and out by February, my meds are that costly. The first two months of the year are doable, but in March the P & G medicine, Asacol, jumps from $30.00 to $550.00. Whoa, you do the math! No other US company makes the drug, and P & G has stopped anyone from trying. On their patient assistant page and elsewhere they boastfully splash a news release: 'P & G Wins a Patent Infringement Lawsuit,' a step that squashes competition. A superb accomplishment by their standards. Those of us without pockets view things differently. For P & G, compassion sinks to a new low as it proudly announces a recent court victory: winning a lawsuit against another drug company who could make a generic medicine at a lower price. There is no generic for Asacol, either. * Disabled people under the age of 65 cannot purchase GAP insurance, we are too risky!! |
|
April 30, 2008 CINCINNATI (AP) -- Consumer products maker Procter & Gamble Co. said Wednesday price increases and cost controls helped offset higher commodity costs as its third quarter profit rose 8 percent. P&G also lifted its full-year outlook, and its shares rose almost 3 percent in morning tradiung. The maker of Pampers diapers and Gillette razors reported profit of $2.71 billion, or 82 cents per share, for the January-March period compared with $2.51 billion, or 74 cents per share, a year ago. Revenue rose 9 percent to $20.46 billion from $18.69 billion last year. Analysts predicted profit of 81 cents per share on revenue of $20.43 billion, according to Thomson Financial. The company now expects fiscal 2008 earnings to be between $3.48 and $3.50, from previous guidance of $3.46 to $3.50 per share. Analysts expect $3.49 per share. For the first nine months of its fiscal year, the company earned $9.06 billion, or $2.72 a share, up from $8.07 billion, or $2.37 a share, a year earlier. Nine-month revenue rose to $62.2 billion from $57.2 billion a year ago. The company cited continued double-digit volume growth in developing markets and strong growth among key brands such as Pampers diapers, Gillette Fusion razors and Head & Shoulders shampoo. P&G projected that Fusion, the five-blade razor system introduced two years ago, will top $1 billion in sales for the fiscal year, making it P&G's 24th billion-dollar brand and the fastest ever to reach that level. ''This quarter is yet another demonstration of the power of P&G's product category and geographic diversification and disciplined focus on cash and cost productivity,'' A.G. Lafley, chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement, adding that P&G delivered strong results ''in a challenging economic and competitive environment.'' Its shares rose $1.72, or 2.6 percent, to $67.62 in morning trading. |
February 28, 2008 Procter and Gamble Wins Case
CINCINNATI February 28, 2008 — Today the United States District Court of Delaware ruled in favor of The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) in the patent infringement lawsuit filed by P&G against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The positive ruling protects P & G Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The positive ruling protects P & G 's rights in the US to exclusively market .... |
|
|||||||||
|
Related News: Read the New York Times article: |
|||||||||||
|
Direct from the New York Times: Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield. We the people are getting royally shafterd, our Supreme Court is once gain favoring industry, even as Johnson and Johnson lied about its product! In short, Johnson & Johnson obscured evidence, ie., they LIED, knowing that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes. Now women are suing, and J & J is hiding behind the FDA, saying since the FDA approved the drug, the company is free from harm! Our Supreme Court is ruling in J & J's favor —caving in, to hell wit the people, it's all about big companies. My unpublished letter to the editor is below Dear Editor: In 2001 the FDA pulled Lotronex, a drug for bowel disorders, from the market after having approved it. The drug was later reissued, but during the interim period, I was among those known to Dr Janet Woodcock as having suffered "dire and dangerous consequences" by its removal. Deprived of it, I developed toxic megacolon and had 96% of my colon removed. The FDA had approved the drug, rescinded it, then re-approved it. Since they had approved it, may I now sue the FDA for denying me its benefits? According to your article, Johnson and Johnson is claming that even though they lied about the amount of estrogen in their patch, they are protected because the FDA approved the drug. Since the FDA deprived me of a necessary medicine, can I now sue the FDA? |