The Innovation Agenda

  • by: |
  • 03/06/2007
My article in the Washington Times of Monday on how some in Congress want to take a good idea -- follow on biologics -- and turn it into a public health threat just to rake in some more cash for social welfare spending....

Nancy Pelosi has a knack for the ironic. In unveiling what she called her party’s “Innovation Agenda”, the Speaker from American Samoa proclaimed: “America (is) the breeding ground for the innovations and inventions that increased our prosperity, enhanced our lives, and protected and advanced our freedoms. That dynamic and virtuous cycle of innovation is what secured our status as world leader, and that status has remained unchallenged – until now. “

Little did we know that the challenge Ms. Pelosi was referring to is the Democrat party itself.

In January, Henry Waxman, touting a Families USA study promised that direct government negotionats with drug companies would save Medicare $190 billion, enough money to pay for every senior’s out of pocket drug costs as well as expanding health insurance for kids and rehab for Britney Spears. The savings disappeared when it became evident they were only achievable if Medicare robbed seniors of access to many lifesaving drugs.

Democrats are still short the money. So they plan to get it by stopping that virtuous cycle of innovation in biotechnology. The Murtha plan for stopping the surge is being peddled as a “support the troops plan.” The Access to Lifesaving Medicines Act offered by Congressman Waxman, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Clinton and termagant Republican Congresswoman Joanne Emerson, creates generic versions of biotech drugs to free up money for social programs, is shrewdly devised as a consumer protection measure. In the process, Waxman and others weaken drug safety and patent protection standards to enrich the generic drug industry.

Ironically (again) in touting the Innovation Agenda, the Speaker from Samoa proclaimed:
“Essential to our pre-eminence is the protection of intellectual property. Our agenda commits to protecting the intellectual property of American innovators worldwide.”

Not when it stands in the way of expanding the welfare state. Recently the military dictatorship running Thailand following the advice of anti-intellectual property activists (who care more for shredding corporate patent rights than protecting human rights in Thailand), said it would use its Government Pharmaceutical Organization to make generic copies of the heart drug, Plavix and two HIV drugs Kaletra, and Stocrin.

It has also threatened to seize the patent of 11 new drugs including Lipitor and Gleevec. Thailand claims it needs to make or import generic drugs to treat everyone with every disease. The junta – which has military monitors in every pressroom – received a warm endorsement from Congressman Waxman. All hail the Revolution!

Waxman and other Democrats cloaked their efforts in the concern that giving generic companies the license to produce these drugs will make medicines affordable for all. In fact, in 2002 Thailand’s GPO failed to meet the WHO’s drug quality standards. Worse, the drugs were so shoddy that they caused drug resistance, forcing patients to take a second regimen of drugs that raised overall infection rates and treatment costs. And even then, most of the $3 million worth of drugs are exported. The percentage of infected Thai people receiving treatment is among the lowest in the developing world.

So what if generics don’t really increase access to effective medicines? That’s not the goal. Weaker IP allows the Thai junta to line their pockets with the proceeds made from copycat products they can sell at huge margins, money they can then turn around and spend to reward cronies and buy political support.

Similarly, the so-called Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act – simply asserts it is scientifically safe to both produce generic clones of biotech drugs and switch people from the biotech products they are using to generic versions. Making similar but not exact versions of biotech drugs or vaccines that have the same clinical benefit without all the early clinical work required for an innovator product will be possible in the near future. But the Waxman/Clinton/Schumer bill is based on 40-year-old science. And it demands no the testing of comparison products before or after there are marketed. Worse, it dictates to the FDA that the products must be approved as interchangeable.

Ironically, the same group of legislators who claim the FDA is unable to maintain the safety of existing drugs is pushing this legislation. Indeed, Waxman claims he is “justifiably skeptical of any effort to weaken the standards which assure that our food is safe and our medicines are safe and effective.”

Out of nowhere and not because someone asked them to, Express Scripts (which manages drug benefits would benefit from cheaper biotech products) did a study estimating the savings from follow on biologics. In what will be news to most biotech firms, tithe ‘study’ assumes many biotech products have already lost patent protection and those most products will immediately lose market share when the rest of the products do. The estimated savings over ten years-- $70 billion – coincidentally add up to the amount required to expand the child’s health insurance program.

I wouldn’t count on it. The FDA approved a comparison human growth hormone product called Omnitrope in 2006 based partially on data from Pfizer’s growth product, Genotropin. But Omnitrope also underwent years of clinical tests. During these tests researchers discovered 60 percent of children developed infections to Omnitrope. The company had to do more studies and adjust its production process before it was approved. Omnitrope was never launched in America. In Europe, it has less than 1 percent of the market.

I don’t think Americans bargained for the Democratic assault on innovation when they took power. The party, (along with mean-spirited Republicans like Ms. Emerson), has become the political vehicle for opposing medical advances against disease. The Access to Lifesaving Medicines Act is the first ironic attack. It won’t be the last.

Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
Better Health
Biotech Blog
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
Envisioning 2.0
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Real Clear Politics
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog