ice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told senior s in Florida last month that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh.
But Gore, the master of many policy details, mangled the facts, and late last week his aides could not say with certainty that Shiloh or Margaret Ann Aitcheson actually takes the brand-name drug, Lodine, that Gore said they do.
Even if they take the drug, Gore's assertion that his black Labrador retriever's monthly bill is $37.80 and Aitcheson's is $108 is wrong. The Gore campaign admitted that it lifted those costs not from his family's bills, but from a House Democratic study, and that Gore misused even those numbers: They represent the manufacturer's price to wholesalers, not the retail price of the brand-name product.
What's more, the costs Gore cited presume that his dog and mother-in-law take the same dosage - which could put 14-year-old Shiloh at risk for stomach ulcers.
Those facts aside, Gore's overall message was accurate - that many brand-name drugs that have both human and animal applications are much more expensive for people than for pets.
But in the often bewildering debate over how to ease the national pain caused by escalating drug prices, Gore may have focused on the wrong drug. Eighty-five percent of Americans who are prescribed the popular arthritis drug now rely on a generic alternative that can be had at a quarter of the retail price of Lodine.
When they were asked last Thursday whether Aitcheson and Shiloh actually take the brand name of the drug, two of the vice president's aides were unable to say whether that was the case or how much the family pays for each.
Doug Hattaway, a campaign spokesman, said he did not know whether Aitcheson, who lives with her daughter and the vice president, has insurance coverage that protects her from paying the full price cited by Gore.
On Friday, Hattaway did not respond to several telephone calls and an e-mail asking for responses to those questions and for evidence that would support Gore's assertions about Lodine.
For Gore, who has a history of embellishing facts about himself and his family, the remarks he made in Florida are a blend of erroneous family detail and questionable statistics on an election issue of growing significance.
In raising the issue during an Aug. 28 speech in Tallahassee, Gore was reading from a party script, joining Democratic congressional candidates in a populist assault on drug companies that relies in part on the Democratic House study. It concludes that a range of brand-name drugs, Lodine among them, are more costly for humans than for animals.
Jeff Trewhett, the spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America, said the higher costs for the human version of patented drugs is justified because the research, development, and approval costs can surpass $500 million per drug. But once the drug is approved for humans, the cost to test and approve it for animals is minimal, he said.
Ironically, Gore is a champion of generic drugs. And their availability clouds the argument Democrats are making.
Kathleen D. Jaeger, a Washington lawyer and pharmacist who represents pharmaceutical manufacturers before the Food and Drug Administration, said, after reviewing the study's claims and FDA records, that 10 of the 14 brand-name drugs cited in the study have generic equivalents for humans.
That means that while prescriptions for brand-name versions of the drugs do cost more - often substantially more - than the same brand-name drugs for animals, generic drug costs for many of those same drugs reverse the equation: For savvy consumers, or those whose insurers insist that generics be prescribed, the masters pay less than their pets.
As for the arthritis medicine Gore said is used by two members of his household, a typical month's supply of the generic version can be had for less than $40. The version used for dogs, which is still under patent, costs at least $70 a month for comparable doses, and often much more when it is obtained from a veterinarian, according to pharmaceutical industry officials.
If Aitcheson pays full price for a month's supply of the brand name - 90 300-milligram tablets - that cost typically ranges from $140 to $174 a month, according to a Globe review of prices offered by walk-in and online pharmacies.
As recently as last week, the Gore campaign has touted the vice president's longtime support for increasing the availability of low-cost generic drugs. Hattaway, however, said he did not know whether Gore knew there was a generic version of Lodine when he made his Aug. 28 speech.
''You would have a hard time finding anyone foolish enough to pay full price for Lodine,'' said Jake Hansen, the vice president for governmental relations for Barr Laboratories, a leading manufacuturer of other generic drugs.
But the author of the House study, while acknowledging the availability of less costly generic alternatives, cited one study in Pennsylvania that showed that almost half the uninsured seniors who use Lodine end up getting the brand-name version.
In Tallahasse, Gore's audience of seniors applauded his condemnation of drug companies. After citing his household's experience with Lodine, Gore declared, ''That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break.''
Yet, given the complexities of the marketplace, and the steps people take to get a better deal, it can work the other way around: Pets ''pretending'' to be humans.
Dr. Martha Smith, a veterinarian at the animal shelter with the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said veterinarians will sometimes write prescriptions for their four-legged patients that can be filled with the less costly generic drugs for humans at pharmacies.
Given that option, Gore could get the generic drug for both Aitcheson and Shiloh.
