rostoday, we'll discuss thrhow people who thrivers. on danger help shape our nation. we'll explain why some aren't afraid of anything, and why one local researcher believes we should encourage it in our children. plus, the myth of divorce, the number one cause of a split is not fighting or even cheating. today, we talk about what's driving couples apart and what can keep them together. plus, the price of prescriptions. they can be a burden for many families in our area. critics say the cost may have gone sky high due to a practice called drug hopping. male announcer: "nbc10 @issue" starts now. rosemary: good morning, i'm rosemary connors for "nbc10 @issue." we all know someone who thrives on the excitement of taking risks, either in their personal or professional life. skydivers, storm chasers, even some hedge fund managers, many have what a local psychologist calls a type-t personality, the big t.

and he says it can be the key to success for both the individual and for our society. joining me now is dr. frank farley. dr. farley is a psychologist with temple university. he's a former president of the american psychological association, and he has a special interest in the study of risk-taking. dr. farley, thanks for being with us. frank farley: happy to be here. rosemary: so, you do have a name for risk-takers, they're called type t personalities. explain that to us. frank: well, the t stands for thrill. and a lot of what goes into taking risks is the excitement value, that's not the whole story, but thrill-seeking, risk-taking, and so on. and think of there being big t people to use my terminology, big t people who thrive on risk, living on the edge. we all know somebody like that. their opposite are small t, who are-- rosemary: little t's. frank: little t, yes, and they're risk-averse.

and then, you know, a lot of the world falls in between somewhere, between the big t and the small t. not all risk-taking is positive, or good, or healthy. some of the thrill-seeking and risk-taking is destructive. and this is a very simplified model that i'm-- simplified terminology, i should say. and then i think about there being big t mental and big t physical. so, somebody who is a big t mental, it's mostly ideas, you know, taking risks in their mind. you know, and you'll often find that in creativity and innovation, where it's essentially ideas that you're dealing with. so, albert einstein would be a big t mental. i mean, he was way beyond the bus line, he was way out beyond everybody else in the realm of uncertainty and risk intellectually. rosemary: so, who's big t physical? frank: how about evel knievel, all right?

everybody knows of evel knievel. and so, he was putting his life on the line all the time, and so he was clearly a thrill-seeker. rosemary: is it genetics? what is it? what causes somebody to be such a thrill-seeker and risk-taker? frank: well, the evidence tilts toward there being some what we call heritability for risk-taking. and, but that's not the whole story. for example, you might think that evel knievel and then his son robbie, robbie was another risk-taker, so that does seem to suggest genetics. but also he was raised to be that. rosemary: sure. frank: he told me of his father putting him on little sort of, as i remember, mini motorcycles at a very small age. and so, he was raised to be a risk-taker. and then he may have also had the genetic side of it as well. rosemary: your research also touches on the big picture as it

relates to our society, that these are the kinds of people who may shape the world that we live in. frank: i agree, i happen to think that america, as a nation historically, tilts toward that big t end as opposed to the small t end. rosemary: seems almost like it falls in line with the american dream in some ways. frank: it does. indeed it does. and if you think here in philadelphia, at independence hall, there were a bunch of big t's, there were a bunch of t types. if the british knew what they were plotting, they would have all been executed. it was a huge risk. and i think it kind of set the stage, in many respects, for the american story, you know? and another part of it is immigrants. you know, we've historically been this huge nation of immigrants. and i argue that immigrants tend, on average, to be risk-takers. they're leaving the old world behind, they're coming to the new world. they may have no connections here at all,

but this is the land of opportunity. and so, it's risky, you know? a key ingredient in risk is uncertainty. and so, they're arriving on these shores in a cloud of uncertainty. they don't know if they'll even survive. and so, i think the immigration part of us, our founding, all of those tend to have us tilting in the big t direction. rosemary: you're hearkening back to american revolutionary times, our history, so what about today? are we losing that edge, or is it coming back? frank: i don't know, gosh, i wish i had a good answer to that. but i worry about it because my argument for the american success story, and there's many ingredients in the recipe, but i think a key ingredient in that recipe is taking risks, and pursuing the unknown, being willing to go over the mountain to see what's on the other side, to go to the moon, et cetera.

and i worry that that key ingredient, are we losing it? so, for example, in the last few years, we've become very concerned in education about safe spaces. and this has become a big issue on many college campuses. now, the argument--the thing about safe spaces is where, in a sense, open debate may be getting chilled in some respects. rosemary: because people are too concerned about not being politically--about being politically incorrect, is that part of it? frank: indeed. rosemary: and offending people? frank: offending people. now, i don't know how deep that goes, how widespread it is, but it is definitely on the agenda in american higher education, creating safe spaces. and so, i'm not the only one raising red flags about that in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of discourse, the willingness to entertain a variety of ideas.

you know, if you can't have open discussion and open debate on college campuses, where will you have them? rosemary: talk to us about risk-taking as it relates to politics in america. frank: well, the current president does--you know, has a history of taking risks, you know, entrepreneurial risks. entrepreneurs tend, in my view, to be risk-takers, i mean, it's a key ingredient in entrepreneurship, we know that. and he's had a whole history of that, of startups, of taking--you know, of borrowing lots of money, et cetera, et cetera. so again, many presidents show those qualities, and it makes sense. every day, there's new issues coming up, new things to deal with. rosemary: new risks. frank: that's a perfect venue for a t type. rosemary: and it seems as though people are attracted to it. frank: that's another thing about risk-takers. people who have that fearless quality, they're

willing to tackle anything. we're attracted to that. rosemary: followers, i mean, people who want to follow them are attracted to it. frank: yeah, indeed, and you know, look at the peccadilloes of some of our famous presidents. you know, affairs on the side, et cetera. and so, there's a lot of adoration for a risk-taker, somebody who is forceful, creative, innovative, self-confident, engaged, willing to engage in risky situations, and so on. and that we find very attractive. rosemary: one final thought. in terms of this kind of behavior in children, do we encourage it, do we not encourage it? how do you, you know, maybe push them toward risky but safe behavior? frank: well, i think it's good to--for children to be able to know how to handle risk.

the first thing is if you have a child who is always running away, getting into trouble, getting a little--going off into the woods, seems totally fearless in the presence of strangers, or runs up to, like, a new animal, you know, et cetera, they're probably, not definitely, but they're probably a t type. if they are, it's very important to recognize that and to pay a special attention to it because they could go in the destructive direction in risk-taking. and as they grow older, and some will get involved in drugs and all sorts of destructive things, or they can go in the positive direction if you pay enough attention to them, get them into healthy forms of thrills and risk-taking. so, as they get into teen years, i'm a big fan of extreme sports, which have high, you know, thrill value as opposed to baseball. and so, you know, i don't want to put down america's, you know-- rosemary: favorite pastime?

frank: favorite pastime, yeah, but honestly, it doesn't serve well these kind of risk-taking kids. and so, there's sports, there's family activities. how do you take family vacations? do you sleep under the stars? wow, what a big t adventure. or do you go, you know, to a everything's all taken care of in a hotel, et cetera, et cetera? and so, the vacation life, the school life, we should be teaching i call it the fourth r, risk-taking. we should be teaching kids in the schools how to deal with it because life is risky. every one of us is going to confront risk. and kids need to know how to handle it, how to deal with it. and here we are in the 21st century, which is going to be a century of enormous change. you know, we're going to mars, we've been to the moon, we're probably going to colonize the moon. space travel is just opening up. we've created this internet thing, you know, and social media, and so we're moving at an incredible rate. and so much change, kids need to know how to deal with change.

rosemary: dr. frank farley, thank you so much for being with us. thank you for all of your insight. frank: you're welcome. rosemary: coming up next on "nbc10 @issue," the myths of divorce. the main reason couples break up may not be what you expect. that, plus the top three life factors that up the risk of a split.

rosemary: nearly half of all marriages in the us fail. that's according to the american psychological association, which says you're even less likely to stay hitched the second time around. in our area, you're most likely to split if you live in delaware, where the divorce rate was 3.1 in 2015, followed by new jersey at 2.8, and pennsylvania at 2.6. joining me now to discuss some of the latest research is dr. george james. dr. james is a psychologist with the council for relationships. he specializes in couples therapy and family therapy. thanks for being with us, dr. james. george james: thank you, rosemary. rosemary: okay, so it's not arguing, it's not cheating.

researchers say the number one reason is actually a lack of commitment. and in fact, researchers have found about half of all divorces come from relatively low-conflict relationships. explain this for us. george: so i mean, commitment is a huge part, right? so, we enter into a marriage, and some people have the thought of like, "this is going to be forever, like till the day i die, i'm going to be with this person." rosemary: till death do us part. george: right, and they actually believe that, and that's part of their commitment. they see it as a long-term thing. while other people, they see it as, okay, until a situation happens, or until there's an incident, or until the kids go away to school. and when we talk about commitment, really it's one of the different aspects of commitment. for some people, they'll be committed to the aspects of if we get divorced or not. so, for what i mean by that is what happens to the children, what happens to my partner, what happens to me financially? that's a part of commitment, that's important, that can keep people for a certain period of--within their marriage.

but a deeper commitment is, "i love this person, or i see myself connected to this person, or i know that i can go through tough times with this person, or i know that i only want to be with this person, i don't think about anybody else." so, it's a different form of commitment that is deeper that allows people to last much longer in their marriages than if it's just "what happens to the kids?" because once you solve that problem, you might say, "i don't need to be married anymore." rosemary: "it's time to get divorced." all right, let's talk about risk factors. some of the research suggests that some of the top risk factors include marrying young, less education, less income, living together before marriage. in your practice, what have you found are some risk factors? george: you know, what i've see for people is that when they've--when there's deep emotional hurt and wounds to the place where they don't know if they can really overcome it. and so, you know, i can think of a few couples that i've worked with now that are on the verge of divorce where they just got to this place where, whatever happened, it could have been

one of those issues, one of those risk factors-- rosemary: or cheating. i mean, we're not putting that out there. george: and that's a huge part of my practice that i see. i guess it's this place where people feel like, "i don't know if i can really work this out, or i don't know if i still have it in me to be with you. like, i don't know if we can overcome these obstacles." and it feels so overwhelming and so real that they're unable to do that. and you know, like you know, i think of a person i'm working with now, they're at the place where they don't know if their partner really loves them anymore, cares for them anymore. and they don't--they can't see past that. and so, that's what i mean in terms of like i think there's some other factors that add into, where people say, "it might be better for me to just not be in this marriage." rosemary: mm-hmm, if people are struggling in their relationships, in their marriages, what advice do you give them? what steps can they take to get it back on track? george: you know, i'm a seasoned therapist, i'm going to say you should see a therapist, right? that's what i do, but that's also what i believe in. and i've seen people in all those risk factors, whether it

be abuse, whether that be--i mean, abuse is one of those areas that's a little bit more serious, where someone might need to say, like, "this is better for me not to be married." but when we talk about infidelity, when we talk about maybe even sometimes addiction, or just, as we mentioned, low commitment, sometimes getting help can make the difference. i've seen people go from having a horrible relationship, on the verge of divorce, working through it, and now having the best relationship of their lives. and that's because they did the hard work, they had those conversations, and they talked about things that were really overwhelming and tough. rosemary: of course, communication is essential in a marriage. and as the therapist, sort of the mediator, you're kind of the primary communicator. george: right, and just helping people to realize, what are they not saying to each other? what are the places that they were hurt? and one of the things that often comes up is that we're not mind readers, right? i don't know that what i just did hurt you, or hurt you in that particular way that you don't even want to be with me anymore.

and just being able to talk about that, talk about money, sex, and other parts of relationships that can help people to now say, "we can overcome it." i think that's the main part. the other thing that i've seen is the willingness to invest in your relationship. constantly, couples get to the place where they just stop, they stop dating, they stop having fun, they stop going out, they stop doing things that made them like each other, and now they're maybe filled with responsibility or other things. rosemary: stress. george: stress, right? and it's just overwhelmed, but not feeling the good parts of the relationship. that's the other part that helps the commitment that if i remember that not only do i love this person, but i have fun with this person, i have good times with this person, then i want to stay with this person. but if all i remember is the stress, the last argument, the time that you hurt me, then maybe i don't want to be with you. rosemary: dr. george james, as always, thank you so much for your insight and for your advice. george: thank you, i appreciate it.

rosemary: coming up next on "nbc10 @issue," the climbing cost of your prescriptions. the nbc10 investigators uncover a tactic that may be keeping drug prices too high. ♪

mary wright: it was expensive, but you do what it takes. you're vulnerable. michael carrier: these are real harms that patients are suffering every single day. rosemary: it's what industry watchdogs call drug hopping, and it can lead to subtle changes in some of our most common drugs. investigative reporter george spencer tells us what patients need to know. mary: he just started, he was slipping. george spencer: mary wright says the memory loss in her husband, bob, started slowly. as an athlete who'd suffered head injuries, he began forgetting the basics. within 2 years of the first symptoms-- mary: this is mary wright from senior friends & services. george: this entrepreneur, who co-owns a senior care

service in collingswood, had become a caregiver herself. she was eager when doctors recommended the drug namenda for her husband's dementia. mary: i remember thinking, "i'll do whatever it takes." george: whatever it takes ended up costing between $300 and $400 a month out of pocket. and even as generic drugs similar to namenda came out, wright's husband kept taking the name brand. mary: i didn't think twice about keeping him on namenda xr. george: you just kept paying for it? mary: mm-hmm. george: many others did too. in 2015, a new york appellant court found behind the scenes, the makers of namenda engaged in so-called product hopping, pushing families like wright's to keep paying those brand name prices longer than they had to. michael carrier, professor in the school of law at rutgers camden, says the tactic started raising eyebrows in just the past 5 or 6 years. michael: a price that goes up a lot gets a lot of attention.

what we don't notice is when the price stays high and doesn't come down. george: stays high longer than it has to. michael: exactly. george: the federal trade commission describes product hopping as a brand name company trying to obstruct generic competitors and preserve monopoly profits by making modest reformulations that offer little or no therapeutic advantage. those reformulations could be as minor as switching a twice-a-day drug into a single pill that you break in half. product hopping does not prevent a competitor from actually making a generic drug. what it does do is prevent pharmacists from automatically substituting a generic for a brand name because the two are not technically equivalent. michael: if you switch the form from capsule to tablet, if you switch the dosage by just a little bit, no longer is it the same. george: and so they can't be substituted. michael: can't be substituted, patent holder keep your monopoly. george: and because our region is a pharmaceutical hub, carrier says philadelphia's third circuit has become ground

zero for testing the product hopping tactic in court. two of the five big cases were filed here, with a third filed in delaware. you don't call this product hopping, you call this innovation. george gordon: right, yeah. i call it innovation 'cause i think that's what it is. george spencer: george gordon of dechert llp has advised drug companies on this issue. he believes it's dangerous for judges, not doctors, to decide when a drug change is big enough, as even small changes can make life much easier for a patient. george gordon: i don't know what it means to say technically, you know, little or no benefit, and who gets to make that decision? george spencer: what's more, he says generics do compete, and fda records show in 2015, about 15 new generic drugs were approved for every one brand name. george gordon: and the risk with overzealous enforcement and attack on what's been called product hopping is the fact you increase the cost of innovation. mary: outline what they're going to give you and what--

george spencer: but critics say the impact on caregivers like wright and their patients is pronounced because their knowledge of drug options and pricing is limited. mary: a lot of people don't know, and i'm embarrassed to say i should have known. i should have maybe done more research. george: wright is confident many of her clients are in the same boat. for the investigators, george spencer, nbc10 news. rosemary: watchdogs and drug company advocates alike say the single most important thing patients can do is talk to their doctor and pharmacist about generic options. the company which currently holds the namenda drug patent never responded to our multiple requests for comment.

there's work to be done. it's not going to be easy but there's grit inside of you. and if you need extra motivation the grad fund at strayer university can help push you forward. because up to your last year of classes could be on us. that's right. on us. today is the day. strayer university. let's get it, america.

rosemary: that's it for this edition of "nbc10 @issue." thanks for watching. you can join me every weekend morning beginning at 5 o'clock on saturday, and 5:30 on sunday. have a great day. ♪

watching television that'sis educational and informational. the more you know on nbc. narrator: this is dr. michelle oakley, vet to pretty much everything that moves. on this episode, it's all about animal education and dr. oakley wants to make sure all her clients get an a on their health exams. she'll meet a porcupine with a crooked smile. michelle: i can see her teeth sticking out of her mouth, she needs it done. man: she does have goofy teeth. narrator: an alpaca in dire need of a haircut. michelle: oh that's beautiful fiber, huh? narrator: and some bunnies that have a growing problem. michelle: she's pregnant, this one's pregnant. woman: oh my goodness. narrator: plus, she'll meet a meerkat family that's getting their first checkup. michelle: wow, fantastic.