DrugWonks on Twitter
Tweets by @PeterPittsDrugWonks on Facebook
CMPI Videos
Video Montage of Third Annual Odyssey Awards Gala Featuring Governor Mitch Daniels, Montel Williams, Dr. Paul Offit and CMPI president Peter Pitts
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Montel Williams, Emmy Award-Winning Talk Show Host
Paul Offit, M.D., Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for Leadership in Transformational Medicine
CMPI president Peter J. Pitts
CMPI Web Video: "Science or Celebrity"
Tabloid Medicine
Check Out CMPI's Book
Physician Disempowerment:
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
CMPI Events
Donate
CMPI Reports
Blog Roll
Alliance for Patient Access
Alternative Health Practice
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
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
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
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
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
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
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
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
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog
DrugWonks Blog
01/17/2007 08:44 AM |
House-passed drug price bill has very little clout
By David Nicklaus
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
In any negotiation, the power lies with the person who's willing to walk away. That simple truth is obvious to anyone who's ever bought a car or a house, but somehow it escapes a majority of members of the House of Representatives.
When the House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act last week, it ordered the government to lean on the big, bad pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices. But it also prohibited Medicare from establishing a formulary that would pay for some drugs and not others.
In other words, Medicare would have to ask drug companies to cut their prices, but it would have no leverage. It would have to cover all drugs, regardless of price. This is a change from current law, which bars the government from negotiating prices, but it's a change without substance.
You don't have to take my word for it. You can read a letter that the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It says that the Price Negotiation Act "would have a negligible effect" and predicts that the government "would be unable to negotiate prices … more favorable than those obtained by prescription drug plans under current law."
Why would Congress ask Medicare to dicker with drug companies while banning the one tool that would really give Medicare some clout? The politicians apparently want to curry favor with elderly voters and with lobbying groups like AARP.
Senior citizens may worry about high prescription costs, but they certainly don't want any bureaucrat telling them which medications they can or cannot take.
A truly low-cost drug plan would have to look something like the one available to military veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs formulary covers only 1,300 drugs, compared with 4,300 available in the typical Medicare Part D plan, says Peter Pitts, director of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. Thirty percent of veterans, he says, would like to switch to Part D, but they're not eligible because they already have VA coverage.
Part D plans are offered by private insurance companies, which have the option of using restrictive formularies. Most of them keep their coverage broad in order to attract customers, but just having the right to drop a drug — like threatening to walk away even though you really like the car — gives the insurers clout.
The Congressional Budget Office says insurance companies have "both the incentives and the tools to negotiate drug prices that the government, under the legislation, would not have."
If Congress really wants to reduce health care costs, it's looking in the wrong place. Prescription drugs account for just 11 cents of each health care dollar, compared with 32 cents spent at hospitals. By giving senior citizens easier access to the drugs that help manage chronic conditions, one could argue that Medicare Part D has kept many people out of hospitals.
Pitts, a former associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, says Part D has surprised critics by becoming enormously popular with the over-65 crowd.
"The premiums are coming in below expectations, the cost to government is below expectations and the coverage is very good. That sounds to me like a program that is working," he said.
Congress, unfortunately, has never shied away from fixing things that are not broken. Read More & Comment...
By David Nicklaus
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
In any negotiation, the power lies with the person who's willing to walk away. That simple truth is obvious to anyone who's ever bought a car or a house, but somehow it escapes a majority of members of the House of Representatives.
When the House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act last week, it ordered the government to lean on the big, bad pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices. But it also prohibited Medicare from establishing a formulary that would pay for some drugs and not others.
In other words, Medicare would have to ask drug companies to cut their prices, but it would have no leverage. It would have to cover all drugs, regardless of price. This is a change from current law, which bars the government from negotiating prices, but it's a change without substance.
You don't have to take my word for it. You can read a letter that the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It says that the Price Negotiation Act "would have a negligible effect" and predicts that the government "would be unable to negotiate prices … more favorable than those obtained by prescription drug plans under current law."
Why would Congress ask Medicare to dicker with drug companies while banning the one tool that would really give Medicare some clout? The politicians apparently want to curry favor with elderly voters and with lobbying groups like AARP.
Senior citizens may worry about high prescription costs, but they certainly don't want any bureaucrat telling them which medications they can or cannot take.
A truly low-cost drug plan would have to look something like the one available to military veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs formulary covers only 1,300 drugs, compared with 4,300 available in the typical Medicare Part D plan, says Peter Pitts, director of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. Thirty percent of veterans, he says, would like to switch to Part D, but they're not eligible because they already have VA coverage.
Part D plans are offered by private insurance companies, which have the option of using restrictive formularies. Most of them keep their coverage broad in order to attract customers, but just having the right to drop a drug — like threatening to walk away even though you really like the car — gives the insurers clout.
The Congressional Budget Office says insurance companies have "both the incentives and the tools to negotiate drug prices that the government, under the legislation, would not have."
If Congress really wants to reduce health care costs, it's looking in the wrong place. Prescription drugs account for just 11 cents of each health care dollar, compared with 32 cents spent at hospitals. By giving senior citizens easier access to the drugs that help manage chronic conditions, one could argue that Medicare Part D has kept many people out of hospitals.
Pitts, a former associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, says Part D has surprised critics by becoming enormously popular with the over-65 crowd.
"The premiums are coming in below expectations, the cost to government is below expectations and the coverage is very good. That sounds to me like a program that is working," he said.
Congress, unfortunately, has never shied away from fixing things that are not broken. Read More & Comment...
01/17/2007 06:03 AM |
Remember when we suggested that polls showing the American public strongly in favor of "government pricing" for Part D might be, er, influenced by the way the questions were posed("The Big Muscle," drugwonks.com, December 8, 2006)?
Well according to Mark Penn (aka: Hillary's new chief campaign strategist), that's precisely the case.
And the "Her" is Speaker Pelosi.
Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and The Tarrance Group recently conducted a joint national poll measuring public opinion on the current legislative proposal that would require Congress to negotiate Medicare prescription drugs prices with pharmaceutical companies.
The summary below is really a summary judgement against "government pricing."
When Downsides are Understood, Voters Oppose Government Negotiation
While voters offer initial support for the current proposal that would require Congress to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, once voters are educated about the potential implications of the proposal, the public overwhelmingly opposes it.
* Initially, 76% of voters support government negotiation and 24% oppose it. However, when this question is asked, voters have received no details about the proposal or its possible consequences.
* After being asked about the negative implications of the proposal, opinion flips – only 35% support government negotiation and 65% oppose it. There is majority opposition across Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Fear of the Government Limiting Access to Prescription Drugs Shifts Public Opinion
Learning that the proposal could limit access to prescription drugs dramatically erodes support for government negotiation.
* 89% oppose the proposal when they learn it could limit access to new prescription drugs.
* 87% oppose the proposal when they learn it could restrict choice of prescription drugs.
* 86% oppose the proposal when they learn similar proposals in other countries like Great Britain and Australia have restricted access to prescription drugs.
* 77% oppose the proposal when they learn that it give the government the right to create a single list of government-approved prescription drugs.
* 80% of voters judge the proposal as “not worth it†after learning that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that granting the federal government the power to negotiate drug prices will not save enough money to fill gaps in coverage.
Voters Have Clear Reservations about Government Negotiation
Voters were asked a series of questions about their opinions of government negotiation, which collectively suggest deep reservations about the proposal.
* 81% agree that the government is not a good price negotiator
* 78% agree that government negotiation would limit access to prescription drugs
* 75% agree that the market should set prescription drug prices, not the government
* 66% agree that government negotiation gives the federal government too much authority and is a dangerous precedent
Medicare Part D is Currently Well Received
Currently, opinion on the Medicare Part D prescription Drug program is very positive and improving.
* 55% of voters nationally have a favorable opinion of the program
* 61% of voters nationally say enrollees are saving money
* 68% of voters nationally say the program a step in the right direction
Other public surveys have repeatedly reported that satisfaction levels among enrollees are much higher; roughly eight-in-ten enrollees expressing satisfaction with their plans.
In conclusion, any legislation that jeopardizes the success of the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program would likely have a negative impact on the general public’s opinion of Congress.
Methodology
Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and The Tarrance Group conducted 1,098 national interviews between December 19 - 22, 2006.
Interviews were conducted among Americans who voted in the 2006 midterm elections.
The overall margin of sampling error is +/-2.96% and larger among subgroups. Read More & Comment...
Well according to Mark Penn (aka: Hillary's new chief campaign strategist), that's precisely the case.
And the "Her" is Speaker Pelosi.
Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and The Tarrance Group recently conducted a joint national poll measuring public opinion on the current legislative proposal that would require Congress to negotiate Medicare prescription drugs prices with pharmaceutical companies.
The summary below is really a summary judgement against "government pricing."
When Downsides are Understood, Voters Oppose Government Negotiation
While voters offer initial support for the current proposal that would require Congress to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, once voters are educated about the potential implications of the proposal, the public overwhelmingly opposes it.
* Initially, 76% of voters support government negotiation and 24% oppose it. However, when this question is asked, voters have received no details about the proposal or its possible consequences.
* After being asked about the negative implications of the proposal, opinion flips – only 35% support government negotiation and 65% oppose it. There is majority opposition across Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Fear of the Government Limiting Access to Prescription Drugs Shifts Public Opinion
Learning that the proposal could limit access to prescription drugs dramatically erodes support for government negotiation.
* 89% oppose the proposal when they learn it could limit access to new prescription drugs.
* 87% oppose the proposal when they learn it could restrict choice of prescription drugs.
* 86% oppose the proposal when they learn similar proposals in other countries like Great Britain and Australia have restricted access to prescription drugs.
* 77% oppose the proposal when they learn that it give the government the right to create a single list of government-approved prescription drugs.
* 80% of voters judge the proposal as “not worth it†after learning that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that granting the federal government the power to negotiate drug prices will not save enough money to fill gaps in coverage.
Voters Have Clear Reservations about Government Negotiation
Voters were asked a series of questions about their opinions of government negotiation, which collectively suggest deep reservations about the proposal.
* 81% agree that the government is not a good price negotiator
* 78% agree that government negotiation would limit access to prescription drugs
* 75% agree that the market should set prescription drug prices, not the government
* 66% agree that government negotiation gives the federal government too much authority and is a dangerous precedent
Medicare Part D is Currently Well Received
Currently, opinion on the Medicare Part D prescription Drug program is very positive and improving.
* 55% of voters nationally have a favorable opinion of the program
* 61% of voters nationally say enrollees are saving money
* 68% of voters nationally say the program a step in the right direction
Other public surveys have repeatedly reported that satisfaction levels among enrollees are much higher; roughly eight-in-ten enrollees expressing satisfaction with their plans.
In conclusion, any legislation that jeopardizes the success of the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program would likely have a negative impact on the general public’s opinion of Congress.
Methodology
Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and The Tarrance Group conducted 1,098 national interviews between December 19 - 22, 2006.
Interviews were conducted among Americans who voted in the 2006 midterm elections.
The overall margin of sampling error is +/-2.96% and larger among subgroups. Read More & Comment...
01/16/2007 04:37 PM |
We are often criticized for being too critical of people in the public eye. So I will try and be extra careful in my remarks about Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. She stood with Democrats to sponsor HR 4 the bill that would have required price controls for prescription drugs in the Medicare program. And she is a co-sponsor of a bill that would require reimportation of drug from foreign countries, a bill that would make it a criminal activity for companies to determine which wholesalers they want to sell to and would turn the FDA into a parcel service for European middlemen. Ms. Emerson has been vocal, indeed eloquent in her support for price controls on drugs and for allowing the importation of drugs that are cheaper from other countries due to government price controls and not because of any ingenious production method or competitive practice of another company.
Ms. Emerson says "The high cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. demands that we improve Americans' market access to safe, affordable supplies of medicines."
One of the medicines Ms. Emerson is so concerned about?
"Prilosec, they use it for gas and that sort of thing..."
Setting aside Ms. Emerson's deep knowledge of phamacotherapy, it appears her concern about the high cost of products and free trade does not extend to steel or wheat or . fertilizer from Mother Russia...
She, supported American steel companies seeking duties up to 40 percent on imported metal products and sought to ban the importation of low priced Canadian wheat. At the same time. she has opposed an International Trade Commission ruling that Russia was dumping fertilizers into America at predatory prices, because the resulting tariffs would hurt farmers.
So she opposes the importation of low priced products when it comes to wheat and steel, supports the importation of fertilizers because it helps farmers.
And she supports signficant increases in agricultural subsidies, most of which go to large corporate farms on grounds of national security....
"Re-authorizing the farm bill is the best thing to do right now," she said. "Because if we want to be dependent on countries in the world who hate us for our nation's food, then we might as well fold up shop."
But being depending on countries who hate us for our medicines is ok? Does she know who works at most of the major ports in Europe and Canada by the way?
If you find no logic or consistency to this voting -- if you smell rank opportunism as opposed to intellect driving these decisions you are not alone. For more evidence, I offer the following quote from Ms. Emerson herself explaining why she is voting with the Democrats, now that they’re in the majority, rather than with her leadership (from the NY Times):
"You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.), who received an 88 percent voting record from the American Conservative Union in 2005 but has so far sided with Democrats on new budget rules, Medicare prescription-drug negotiations, raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research. "Or, really, I feel free to represent my constituents exactly as they want me to be."
Translation: My principles. They use it for gas and that sort of thing. Read More & Comment...
Ms. Emerson says "The high cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. demands that we improve Americans' market access to safe, affordable supplies of medicines."
One of the medicines Ms. Emerson is so concerned about?
"Prilosec, they use it for gas and that sort of thing..."
Setting aside Ms. Emerson's deep knowledge of phamacotherapy, it appears her concern about the high cost of products and free trade does not extend to steel or wheat or . fertilizer from Mother Russia...
She, supported American steel companies seeking duties up to 40 percent on imported metal products and sought to ban the importation of low priced Canadian wheat. At the same time. she has opposed an International Trade Commission ruling that Russia was dumping fertilizers into America at predatory prices, because the resulting tariffs would hurt farmers.
So she opposes the importation of low priced products when it comes to wheat and steel, supports the importation of fertilizers because it helps farmers.
And she supports signficant increases in agricultural subsidies, most of which go to large corporate farms on grounds of national security....
"Re-authorizing the farm bill is the best thing to do right now," she said. "Because if we want to be dependent on countries in the world who hate us for our nation's food, then we might as well fold up shop."
But being depending on countries who hate us for our medicines is ok? Does she know who works at most of the major ports in Europe and Canada by the way?
If you find no logic or consistency to this voting -- if you smell rank opportunism as opposed to intellect driving these decisions you are not alone. For more evidence, I offer the following quote from Ms. Emerson herself explaining why she is voting with the Democrats, now that they’re in the majority, rather than with her leadership (from the NY Times):
"You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.), who received an 88 percent voting record from the American Conservative Union in 2005 but has so far sided with Democrats on new budget rules, Medicare prescription-drug negotiations, raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research. "Or, really, I feel free to represent my constituents exactly as they want me to be."
Translation: My principles. They use it for gas and that sort of thing. Read More & Comment...
01/16/2007 08:00 AM |
Rahm Emanuel has probably never been called an "imperialist." But that's about to change. Now that he (along with Representative Emerson and Senators Snowe and Dorgan) are calling for legalizing "drugs from Canada," the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, the Best Medicines Coalition and the Canadian Association for Pharmacy Distribution have called on Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement to implement "an immediate ban on the export, both bulk and retail, of prescription drugs from Canada."
Here's the story from today's Toronto Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070115.PHARMACY15/TPStory/?query=pharmacists
In short, they're saying "hands off our medicines, imperalist American." Read More & Comment...
Here's the story from today's Toronto Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070115.PHARMACY15/TPStory/?query=pharmacists
In short, they're saying "hands off our medicines, imperalist American." Read More & Comment...
01/15/2007 03:57 PM |
Want to know how the health care system operates...read Vanessa Furhman's article in Friday's Wall Street Journal " A Novel Plan Helps Hospital Wean Itself Off Pricey Tests" (The headline is a bit misleading) which describes how health care financing discourages ways to pay doctors and use technologies that prevent disease and keep people healthy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116857143155174786-search.html
In a perfect world we shouldn't expand access to health care in ways that sustain this stupidity. We should give the money to providers and plans that actually will demonstrate they will improve health. That means expanding SCHIP or access to adult health care through Medicaid or Medicare is just flushing money down the toilet... Read More & Comment...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116857143155174786-search.html
In a perfect world we shouldn't expand access to health care in ways that sustain this stupidity. We should give the money to providers and plans that actually will demonstrate they will improve health. That means expanding SCHIP or access to adult health care through Medicaid or Medicare is just flushing money down the toilet... Read More & Comment...
01/14/2007 08:57 AM |
Merrill Goozner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (not to be confused with us) is in meltdown mode over the Washington Post editorial warning about government run medicine.
Here's his post on Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/merrill-goozner/the-right-prescription_b_38579.html
Fun to watch, but let try to make a couple of serious points here to demonstrate the faulty logic of the left...Clearly a case of their rhetoric on pharma jumping the shark.
Gooz claims that the VA is restrictive because is it not tainted by prescribing guidelines shaped by industry. All the guidelines are written by industry? Let's say that's the case. Fact is, the VA docs follow EVERY specialty association guideline in terms of treatment steps. So I guess that the industry should be given credit for something.. Then again the VA only differs in terms of drug selection and therapeutic approach.
Then again, not all government guidelines meet the Goozner standard. Hypertension guidelines and ALLHAT yes. Cholesterol guidelines that encourage earlier use of statins no. The latter were the tainted in his opinion because the doctors on the committee had industry ties. But so did everyone on the ALLHAT steering committee. What's the the difference? Gooz likes the fact that an ALLHAT rump section spun the results as generic drugs worked just as well as newer meds.
He claims that the VA does a great job weeding out pricey me too drugs...Again, he should thank the industry for creating competition among therapeutic choices based on value otherwise there would only be one in a class drugs which the VA keeps off formulary for at least 1-3 years. What will the VA do in an era of personalized medicine?
I won't even respond to the claim that the VA is doing all this great research. Sorry, it's all process measures.(Who get's what test and when) There are no studies compariing outcomes by drug and other variables. It has the ability to do that research but it never does...instead it supports studies that claim that the likelihood of suffering permanent nerve damage from older schizophhrenia drugs is ok and that old drugs are just as good as new. The fact is comparative effectiveness studies wind up showing that some people always do better on drug A than on drug B or vice versa. So the question is: how do get the right drug to the right patient first time every time? Goozner does not care and neither does the VA for that matter because it restricts formularies to save money on drugs not to improve outcomes.
Meanwhile, the real problem is that consumers are just too stupid or brainwashed to know any better. Or at least they are not as smart as Gooz. Consumers are being reprogrammed into new drug zombies that march into physician offices under the spell of pharmaceutical TV ads demanding inferior and expensive drugs which is why they want open formularies instead of the narrow ones offered by the wise and all-seeing pharmacy boards.
Here is the Gooz, oozing at his most hyperbolic:
"Consumers are going to police the system through their individual choices? Are these the same consumers who are bombarded daily with direct-to-consumer ads touting the latest me-too drug on television, in the pages of their daily newspapers and in weekly magazines? Such poorly informed consumers will likely gravitate over time to the least restrictive formularies precisely because they include drugs that are no better than generics." (Meanwhile consumers in these open formularies are stampeding over to generics.)
Yeah, we are just too stupid and too brainwashed. Teach us Merrill. Show us the light, the truth and the way. Read More & Comment...
Here's his post on Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/merrill-goozner/the-right-prescription_b_38579.html
Fun to watch, but let try to make a couple of serious points here to demonstrate the faulty logic of the left...Clearly a case of their rhetoric on pharma jumping the shark.
Gooz claims that the VA is restrictive because is it not tainted by prescribing guidelines shaped by industry. All the guidelines are written by industry? Let's say that's the case. Fact is, the VA docs follow EVERY specialty association guideline in terms of treatment steps. So I guess that the industry should be given credit for something.. Then again the VA only differs in terms of drug selection and therapeutic approach.
Then again, not all government guidelines meet the Goozner standard. Hypertension guidelines and ALLHAT yes. Cholesterol guidelines that encourage earlier use of statins no. The latter were the tainted in his opinion because the doctors on the committee had industry ties. But so did everyone on the ALLHAT steering committee. What's the the difference? Gooz likes the fact that an ALLHAT rump section spun the results as generic drugs worked just as well as newer meds.
He claims that the VA does a great job weeding out pricey me too drugs...Again, he should thank the industry for creating competition among therapeutic choices based on value otherwise there would only be one in a class drugs which the VA keeps off formulary for at least 1-3 years. What will the VA do in an era of personalized medicine?
I won't even respond to the claim that the VA is doing all this great research. Sorry, it's all process measures.(Who get's what test and when) There are no studies compariing outcomes by drug and other variables. It has the ability to do that research but it never does...instead it supports studies that claim that the likelihood of suffering permanent nerve damage from older schizophhrenia drugs is ok and that old drugs are just as good as new. The fact is comparative effectiveness studies wind up showing that some people always do better on drug A than on drug B or vice versa. So the question is: how do get the right drug to the right patient first time every time? Goozner does not care and neither does the VA for that matter because it restricts formularies to save money on drugs not to improve outcomes.
Meanwhile, the real problem is that consumers are just too stupid or brainwashed to know any better. Or at least they are not as smart as Gooz. Consumers are being reprogrammed into new drug zombies that march into physician offices under the spell of pharmaceutical TV ads demanding inferior and expensive drugs which is why they want open formularies instead of the narrow ones offered by the wise and all-seeing pharmacy boards.
Here is the Gooz, oozing at his most hyperbolic:
"Consumers are going to police the system through their individual choices? Are these the same consumers who are bombarded daily with direct-to-consumer ads touting the latest me-too drug on television, in the pages of their daily newspapers and in weekly magazines? Such poorly informed consumers will likely gravitate over time to the least restrictive formularies precisely because they include drugs that are no better than generics." (Meanwhile consumers in these open formularies are stampeding over to generics.)
Yeah, we are just too stupid and too brainwashed. Teach us Merrill. Show us the light, the truth and the way. Read More & Comment...
01/13/2007 01:35 PM |
Yesterday's vote on "government pricing" of prescription medicines garnered the fewest votes of Speaker Pelosi's "First 100 Hour" pieces of legislation. Legislators are seeing the light.
As Everett Dirkson was fond of saying, "When I feel the heat, I see the light."
And the heat is from America's seniors who are pleased with the Part D drug benefit.
And the heat is from, among other places, the Washington Post. Here is what America's lawmakers woke up to find in their own Newspaper of Record:
The Wrong Prescription
Government should not negotiate drug prices in Medicare.
HOUSE Democrats delivered on a campaign promise yesterday, passing a bill that would require the government to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals covered by the new Medicare drug benefit. The idea is that government negotiators could force prices down, generating savings that could be used to make the benefit more generous. But the measure is misguided.
Here's a link to the complete editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201885_pf.html
And the most unhappy fella in DC today is Rahm Emanuel -- sponsor of the Newspeak-named "Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act which demands "world pricing" as well as drug importation.
If only 24 Republicans voted for HR 4, the chances for Mr. Emanuel's legislation are about as good as Nancy Pelosi calling for a statue of Charlie the Tuna in Dupont Circle.
Here's what Mr. Emanuel's constituents woke up in today's Chicago Sun-Times:
Cheaper drugs would come at a steep price
BY PETER J. PITTS
U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has announced legislation "aimed at driving down the price of prescription drugs." But the only thing such legislation would actually drive down is pharmaceutical innovation.
And here's the link to that article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/209130,CST-EDT-REF13A.article
Even the New York Times is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study on "government pricing" shows that direct negotiations wouldn't save America's seniors any money.
America's legislators are beginning to feel the heat of truth and see the light of day -- that "government pricing" and quick fixes like drug importation are false promises -- and that the American people know it. Read More & Comment...
As Everett Dirkson was fond of saying, "When I feel the heat, I see the light."
And the heat is from America's seniors who are pleased with the Part D drug benefit.
And the heat is from, among other places, the Washington Post. Here is what America's lawmakers woke up to find in their own Newspaper of Record:
The Wrong Prescription
Government should not negotiate drug prices in Medicare.
HOUSE Democrats delivered on a campaign promise yesterday, passing a bill that would require the government to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals covered by the new Medicare drug benefit. The idea is that government negotiators could force prices down, generating savings that could be used to make the benefit more generous. But the measure is misguided.
Here's a link to the complete editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201885_pf.html
And the most unhappy fella in DC today is Rahm Emanuel -- sponsor of the Newspeak-named "Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act which demands "world pricing" as well as drug importation.
If only 24 Republicans voted for HR 4, the chances for Mr. Emanuel's legislation are about as good as Nancy Pelosi calling for a statue of Charlie the Tuna in Dupont Circle.
Here's what Mr. Emanuel's constituents woke up in today's Chicago Sun-Times:
Cheaper drugs would come at a steep price
BY PETER J. PITTS
U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has announced legislation "aimed at driving down the price of prescription drugs." But the only thing such legislation would actually drive down is pharmaceutical innovation.
And here's the link to that article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/209130,CST-EDT-REF13A.article
Even the New York Times is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study on "government pricing" shows that direct negotiations wouldn't save America's seniors any money.
America's legislators are beginning to feel the heat of truth and see the light of day -- that "government pricing" and quick fixes like drug importation are false promises -- and that the American people know it. Read More & Comment...
01/12/2007 04:11 PM |
The good news is that the House passed the price control bill by the slimmest margin of any of the pieces of legislation introduced by Democrats during the 100 horrors campaign. Not enough votes to override an expected presidential veto. Which puts pressure on the Senate.
The bad news -- or at least the takeaway from all this -- is that opponents of price controls did not stress enough just how many seniors and disabled people (40 million and counting) now have coverage where they did not have it before. And combined with patient assistance programs, it means that America has gone a long way to making medicines affordable for those who need and use them most.
This has gotten lost in the debate about prices...always does. And so it is important to hammer home the point that more people are getting their drugs paid for -- at $200 billion less than expected -- with more choices than ever before. This will prevent disease and save money in Medicare overall. People are suffering less and living better as a result. Every dollar of new drug consumption reduces spending for other services by about seven or eight dollars.. We need to make that investment and we need more valuable ad effective drugs to make a greater difference.
Which is what should be emphasized. Disease still is more expensive than any drug. And making people pay for the most cost-effective and valuable part of health care makes no sense at all. We need to spend more on medicines, not less and we need to find ways to encourage that spending and ensuring that people are using medicines right for them, the first time. Now that's one way to fill the donut hole: personalizing prescribing to reduce side effects and provide more timely feedback. Read More & Comment...
The bad news -- or at least the takeaway from all this -- is that opponents of price controls did not stress enough just how many seniors and disabled people (40 million and counting) now have coverage where they did not have it before. And combined with patient assistance programs, it means that America has gone a long way to making medicines affordable for those who need and use them most.
This has gotten lost in the debate about prices...always does. And so it is important to hammer home the point that more people are getting their drugs paid for -- at $200 billion less than expected -- with more choices than ever before. This will prevent disease and save money in Medicare overall. People are suffering less and living better as a result. Every dollar of new drug consumption reduces spending for other services by about seven or eight dollars.. We need to make that investment and we need more valuable ad effective drugs to make a greater difference.
Which is what should be emphasized. Disease still is more expensive than any drug. And making people pay for the most cost-effective and valuable part of health care makes no sense at all. We need to spend more on medicines, not less and we need to find ways to encourage that spending and ensuring that people are using medicines right for them, the first time. Now that's one way to fill the donut hole: personalizing prescribing to reduce side effects and provide more timely feedback. Read More & Comment...
01/12/2007 08:11 AM |
Peter and I have op-eds today in Newsday and The Washington Times respectively on the Pelosi Prescription Price Club proposal to be voted on today.
Here are links to both ...
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opfri125048767jan12,0,1225572.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070111-084554-5979r.htm
And a Washington Times editorial on Medicare part D:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/ Read More & Comment...
Here are links to both ...
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opfri125048767jan12,0,1225572.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070111-084554-5979r.htm
And a Washington Times editorial on Medicare part D:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/ Read More & Comment...
01/12/2007 06:34 AM |
Here we go again.
Remember the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act? That’s the ill considered Emanuel/Emerson/Snowe/Dorgan bill that wants the US to import “world prices†along foreign drugs.
Well, the AARP has come out strongly in favor – particularly on the drug importation provision.
It seems that the AARP is getting old and a bit forgetful. Wasn’t is just recently that they pointed to Part D and said that it was a better deal than drugs “from Canada.†Short-term memory loss I suppose.
For more on this silly bill and the dangerous implications of drug importation, please see my December 22nd blog (“The John Grishams of Drug Importationâ€). Read More & Comment...
Remember the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act? That’s the ill considered Emanuel/Emerson/Snowe/Dorgan bill that wants the US to import “world prices†along foreign drugs.
Well, the AARP has come out strongly in favor – particularly on the drug importation provision.
It seems that the AARP is getting old and a bit forgetful. Wasn’t is just recently that they pointed to Part D and said that it was a better deal than drugs “from Canada.†Short-term memory loss I suppose.
For more on this silly bill and the dangerous implications of drug importation, please see my December 22nd blog (“The John Grishams of Drug Importationâ€). Read More & Comment...
01/11/2007 04:44 PM |
In retreat Democrats still want to control drug prices. Now the target are breakthrough drugs or one of a kind medicines as they were called in congressional testimony today. That means an attack on the most vulnerable...biotech companies -- who spend billions on research with hardly a hope of breaking even in the near time -- on breakthrough drugs for dying or severely ill patients.
We have be there before with disastrous consequences.....
We are back to the future when it comes to what
proponents of price control supporters want. They are
proposing special negotiating authority for new,
unique drugs.
Under the Clinton health plan, (and my thanks to the Heallthcare Blog for tracking this history down) because new drugs often initially have very high
prices, the Secretary was to have the authority to
negotiate special prices for breakthrough drugs
considered overpriced and could exclude these new
drugs from coverage if a rebate agreement could not be
reached. The Act also would have created an Advisory
Council on Breakthrough Drugs, which would advise the
Secretary on the reasonableness of launch prices of
new drugs representing significant advances over
existing therapies. Although the findings of the
council would not be binding, they would influence the
Secretary and the drug payments of other entities with
purchasing power.
The Advisory Council would have had the power to hold
hearings, supeona records publicly reprimand companies
whose prices are deemed excessive, and recommend to
the HHS secretary that it deny such companies the R&D
tax credit, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement, or full
patent terms. This proposal caused the stock prices
for biotech companies plunge 40 percent.
Back then leading Democrats caved in....
From a 1994 biotech news roundup
DRUG PRICE REVIEWS PROPOSAL DROPPED
In a move seen as a concession to the biotechnology industry,
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) announced last week that his
Energy and Commerce Committee is dropping a proposal to review
drug prices. The announcement apparently came in response to
pressure by Representative Lynn Schenk (D-CA), whose legislative
district contains 100 biotechnology companies. The Clinton proposal
would have established an Advisory Council on Breakthrough Drugs
to review charges of pharmaceutical price gouging. Schenk said, "The
proposal has already panicked financial markets and forced cutbacks
on research and development in the biotechnology industry." Carl
Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO), said, "Ms. Schenk has exercised extraordinary influence for a
freshman member of Congress. The ultimate winners will be the
people suffering from diseases that have no treatment or cure."
If Democrats want to repeat this part of history, they will get hammered even harder than they are now on their mangling of Part D. Read More & Comment...
We have be there before with disastrous consequences.....
We are back to the future when it comes to what
proponents of price control supporters want. They are
proposing special negotiating authority for new,
unique drugs.
Under the Clinton health plan, (and my thanks to the Heallthcare Blog for tracking this history down) because new drugs often initially have very high
prices, the Secretary was to have the authority to
negotiate special prices for breakthrough drugs
considered overpriced and could exclude these new
drugs from coverage if a rebate agreement could not be
reached. The Act also would have created an Advisory
Council on Breakthrough Drugs, which would advise the
Secretary on the reasonableness of launch prices of
new drugs representing significant advances over
existing therapies. Although the findings of the
council would not be binding, they would influence the
Secretary and the drug payments of other entities with
purchasing power.
The Advisory Council would have had the power to hold
hearings, supeona records publicly reprimand companies
whose prices are deemed excessive, and recommend to
the HHS secretary that it deny such companies the R&D
tax credit, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement, or full
patent terms. This proposal caused the stock prices
for biotech companies plunge 40 percent.
Back then leading Democrats caved in....
From a 1994 biotech news roundup
DRUG PRICE REVIEWS PROPOSAL DROPPED
In a move seen as a concession to the biotechnology industry,
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) announced last week that his
Energy and Commerce Committee is dropping a proposal to review
drug prices. The announcement apparently came in response to
pressure by Representative Lynn Schenk (D-CA), whose legislative
district contains 100 biotechnology companies. The Clinton proposal
would have established an Advisory Council on Breakthrough Drugs
to review charges of pharmaceutical price gouging. Schenk said, "The
proposal has already panicked financial markets and forced cutbacks
on research and development in the biotechnology industry." Carl
Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO), said, "Ms. Schenk has exercised extraordinary influence for a
freshman member of Congress. The ultimate winners will be the
people suffering from diseases that have no treatment or cure."
If Democrats want to repeat this part of history, they will get hammered even harder than they are now on their mangling of Part D. Read More & Comment...
01/11/2007 04:41 PM |
My attempt to help people parse out Nancy Pelosi's health care Newspeak...from The American Spectator
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10863 Read More & Comment...
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10863 Read More & Comment...
01/11/2007 04:09 PM |
As any regular drugwonks reader knows, we have our differences with Senator Grassley on many issues. Significant differences.
But we all share the belief that the Part D benefit is working -- and working well ... and that Congress shouldn't start to monkey around with it for political purposes.
Here's what Senator Grassley had to say on the floor of the Senate:
Download file
We here at drugwonks hope that Senator Grassley will take similarly fact-based positions during the upcoming PDUFA debate. Read More & Comment...
But we all share the belief that the Part D benefit is working -- and working well ... and that Congress shouldn't start to monkey around with it for political purposes.
Here's what Senator Grassley had to say on the floor of the Senate:
Download file
We here at drugwonks hope that Senator Grassley will take similarly fact-based positions during the upcoming PDUFA debate. Read More & Comment...
01/11/2007 12:09 PM |
I gobbled a handful of reimported Xanax from Rahm Emanuel's Reimported Drug Emporium (Same Taste. None of the Ingredients) and strapped myself into my office chair to watch the Senate Finance Committee hearings on Medicare price control proposals.
Four major takeaway points:
1. Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe are clueless about the impact their bill would have on biotechnology and breakthrough drug investment. It would allow any plan pissed off about the price of the unique products for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or innovative medicines to run to the government and demand 'negotiation' using such tools as seizure of all records and receipts and other data to see if the price was justified. Certain prices and certain drugs would set off an automatic trigger for direct government negotiation. That's called punishing success and a recipe for destroying partnerships between NIH, academia and private companies -- most of which yield information but no commercially successful products. Wyden's bill will kill off innovation and lead to influence peddling.
2. Most Senators are clueless about what drug development is and what drug companies do with respect to science. That is the drug industry's fault. And it's NIH's fault for not having the guts to say we rise and fall together instead of offering Senators this self-serving garbage that it is somehow the only wellspring of biomedical innovation. Companies had better get to work explaining their scientific enterprise, risks and all.
3. Senator Baucus made a throwaway comment as he was leaving about giving NIH more power to conduct more comparative effectiveness studies like ALLHAT and CATIE and information on what goes into drug pricing. This endorsement of evidence based medicine is misguided. Again, companies need to bring scientists and clinicians to explain why it is misguided and offer a patient-centered and personalized approach to prescribing. Like the Borg, the price control and formulary advocates will recalibrate their arguments to talk about cost-effectiveness as the benchmark for such decisions. That Commonwealth Fund lackey Gerard Anderson who is at Johns Hopkins (maybe he is the affirmative action hire for the intellectually mediocre) actually endorsed the Australian C-E guidelines as a backup for how drugs should be rationed at the hearing.
4. The community pharmacy lobby had better stay far, far away from Charles Grassley who did a great job defending Part D today... I disagree strongly with Grassley's grandstanding on drug safety but he had the opposition for lunch today. And he had the Democrats who were promising the community pharmacists higher dispensing fees in exchange for their support of their bill dead to rights. Grassley wanted to know how pharmacy lobby leadership could support a bill that would lead to the elimination of community drugstores.....
Oh, no one wants price controls and formularies...except Shameless Schumer. As I said in my previous post he should put his money where he mouth is..if there's room. If he thinks the VA exception process is so liberal let him follow the same procedures VA members go through.... Read More & Comment...
Four major takeaway points:
1. Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe are clueless about the impact their bill would have on biotechnology and breakthrough drug investment. It would allow any plan pissed off about the price of the unique products for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or innovative medicines to run to the government and demand 'negotiation' using such tools as seizure of all records and receipts and other data to see if the price was justified. Certain prices and certain drugs would set off an automatic trigger for direct government negotiation. That's called punishing success and a recipe for destroying partnerships between NIH, academia and private companies -- most of which yield information but no commercially successful products. Wyden's bill will kill off innovation and lead to influence peddling.
2. Most Senators are clueless about what drug development is and what drug companies do with respect to science. That is the drug industry's fault. And it's NIH's fault for not having the guts to say we rise and fall together instead of offering Senators this self-serving garbage that it is somehow the only wellspring of biomedical innovation. Companies had better get to work explaining their scientific enterprise, risks and all.
3. Senator Baucus made a throwaway comment as he was leaving about giving NIH more power to conduct more comparative effectiveness studies like ALLHAT and CATIE and information on what goes into drug pricing. This endorsement of evidence based medicine is misguided. Again, companies need to bring scientists and clinicians to explain why it is misguided and offer a patient-centered and personalized approach to prescribing. Like the Borg, the price control and formulary advocates will recalibrate their arguments to talk about cost-effectiveness as the benchmark for such decisions. That Commonwealth Fund lackey Gerard Anderson who is at Johns Hopkins (maybe he is the affirmative action hire for the intellectually mediocre) actually endorsed the Australian C-E guidelines as a backup for how drugs should be rationed at the hearing.
4. The community pharmacy lobby had better stay far, far away from Charles Grassley who did a great job defending Part D today... I disagree strongly with Grassley's grandstanding on drug safety but he had the opposition for lunch today. And he had the Democrats who were promising the community pharmacists higher dispensing fees in exchange for their support of their bill dead to rights. Grassley wanted to know how pharmacy lobby leadership could support a bill that would lead to the elimination of community drugstores.....
Oh, no one wants price controls and formularies...except Shameless Schumer. As I said in my previous post he should put his money where he mouth is..if there's room. If he thinks the VA exception process is so liberal let him follow the same procedures VA members go through.... Read More & Comment...
01/11/2007 06:27 AM |
More of America's top economists and health care scholars decry the lunacy of government negotiated prices for prescription medicines.
This time it's a letter in The Hill.
Here's the link. Read More & Comment...
This time it's a letter in The Hill.
Here's the link. Read More & Comment...
01/10/2007 07:28 PM |
That's Sutent. It's a new cancer drug used to treat stomach cancer in place of interferon and in patients who don't respond to Gleevec.
It's not on the VA formulary. And I guess it will stay that way under the pending Medicare bill so that Pete Stark can squeeze drug prices enough to pay off the pharmacy lobby for its support of the price control bill. Read More & Comment...
It's not on the VA formulary. And I guess it will stay that way under the pending Medicare bill so that Pete Stark can squeeze drug prices enough to pay off the pharmacy lobby for its support of the price control bill. Read More & Comment...
01/10/2007 02:21 PM |
Those who support price controls and restrictive formularies should have the consistency, if not the courage, of their convictions. Limit themselves to the drugs on the VA formula. Restrict themselves in the same way the VA does. Delay use of all new medicines for the same amount of time. Jump through the same hoops others have to in order to get permission to try or use a new drug.
Starting with the members of Congress who support price controls and drug reimportation. Read More & Comment...
Starting with the members of Congress who support price controls and drug reimportation. Read More & Comment...
01/10/2007 02:11 PM |
More lies from Families USA...what a surprise.
I could build a whole business around catching Ron Pollack and his family in their lies, distortions, contradictions, etc. Maybe one day members of the media will wise up and do some of their own fact checking...they are being scammed big time by one of the best public policy grifters in the game.
FYI. Families USA put out a report stating that the
20 most commonly used drugs by seniors are cheaper on
the FSS or VA price list than on medicare part D.
Nice try.
The fact is, while those drugs might be cheaper
because of price controls and restrictive formularies,
many of the drugs on the list are NOT available on the
VA formulary or have a step therapy requirement
meaning patients must fail first on a drug before they
get the drug on the VA formulary
Here is the list with the VA restrictions and
omissions. Nine of the 20 drugs on FUSA's list are not
on VA formulary or have restrictions placed on access but are available on Medicare Part D formularies. That's nearly 50 percent fewer drugs available
to seniors.
Drug VA Availabiliy
Actonel Available
Aricept Available
Celebrex fail first
Fosamax available
furosemide generic
Lipitor 10 mg NA
Lipitor 20 mg NA
metoprolol tartrate generic
Nexium NA
Norvasc 5 mg fail first
Norvasc 10 mg fail first
Plavix 75 mg available
Prevacid NA
Toprol XL restricted to certain patients
Xalatan NA
Zocor 20 mg Now generic
Zocor 40 mg Now generic
Zoloft 50 mg available Read More & Comment...
I could build a whole business around catching Ron Pollack and his family in their lies, distortions, contradictions, etc. Maybe one day members of the media will wise up and do some of their own fact checking...they are being scammed big time by one of the best public policy grifters in the game.
FYI. Families USA put out a report stating that the
20 most commonly used drugs by seniors are cheaper on
the FSS or VA price list than on medicare part D.
Nice try.
The fact is, while those drugs might be cheaper
because of price controls and restrictive formularies,
many of the drugs on the list are NOT available on the
VA formulary or have a step therapy requirement
meaning patients must fail first on a drug before they
get the drug on the VA formulary
Here is the list with the VA restrictions and
omissions. Nine of the 20 drugs on FUSA's list are not
on VA formulary or have restrictions placed on access but are available on Medicare Part D formularies. That's nearly 50 percent fewer drugs available
to seniors.
Drug VA Availabiliy
Actonel Available
Aricept Available
Celebrex fail first
Fosamax available
furosemide generic
Lipitor 10 mg NA
Lipitor 20 mg NA
metoprolol tartrate generic
Nexium NA
Norvasc 5 mg fail first
Norvasc 10 mg fail first
Plavix 75 mg available
Prevacid NA
Toprol XL restricted to certain patients
Xalatan NA
Zocor 20 mg Now generic
Zocor 40 mg Now generic
Zoloft 50 mg available Read More & Comment...
01/10/2007 09:59 AM |
Someone sent me California PIRG's letter in support of price controls.
They claim that most R&D is not needed because two-thirds of all drugs developed are me-too drugs. That means the rest are novel therapies.
Let's break this logic down. We know that different drugs attacking a different target in somewhat different ways is therapeutically important. That the meta-analysis of a variety fo RTCs, all with different exclusion criteria, seem to suggest no different in drugs really only proves statistically what we know is going on mechanistically....different people responding to a variety or combination of meds due to genetic polymorphisms. So density of therapeutic space is associated with improved health and well-being.
But even if these drugs were ALL the same -- and they are not -- that leaves 30 percent of all drugs and biologics -- that are truly novel or unique. PIRG seems to think companies can focus research on truly breakthrough products alone. Well that's biotech my friends as you can see how risky that is and the prices and returns they need invest in novel and unvalidated targets. (Note to pharma companies: explaining THIS part of drug development might be useful...) Multiply the failure of the Pfizer drug a hundred fold and exclude work on every well-know drug target and that's what pharma would look like. Heck, that's what pharma is today...both within and as a function its JVs with biotech.
So what PIRG, FUSA and others are claiming is that we should impose price controls at the point when pharma is becoming more innovative... Read More & Comment...
They claim that most R&D is not needed because two-thirds of all drugs developed are me-too drugs. That means the rest are novel therapies.
Let's break this logic down. We know that different drugs attacking a different target in somewhat different ways is therapeutically important. That the meta-analysis of a variety fo RTCs, all with different exclusion criteria, seem to suggest no different in drugs really only proves statistically what we know is going on mechanistically....different people responding to a variety or combination of meds due to genetic polymorphisms. So density of therapeutic space is associated with improved health and well-being.
But even if these drugs were ALL the same -- and they are not -- that leaves 30 percent of all drugs and biologics -- that are truly novel or unique. PIRG seems to think companies can focus research on truly breakthrough products alone. Well that's biotech my friends as you can see how risky that is and the prices and returns they need invest in novel and unvalidated targets. (Note to pharma companies: explaining THIS part of drug development might be useful...) Multiply the failure of the Pfizer drug a hundred fold and exclude work on every well-know drug target and that's what pharma would look like. Heck, that's what pharma is today...both within and as a function its JVs with biotech.
So what PIRG, FUSA and others are claiming is that we should impose price controls at the point when pharma is becoming more innovative... Read More & Comment...
01/10/2007 09:05 AM |
Poor Ron Pollack and FUSA.
First they put out a bunch of reports claiming that if we shove seniors into the VA system Medicare would save tons of money.
Soros funded Families USA Godfather Ron Pollack never told his Democrat supporters or the media that the VA used price controls, restrictive formularies and rationing of new medicines.
(We did and have for months if not years, going back to my time at the Manhattan Institute.)
Either they knew and were politically venal or just stupid. Either way, Democrats and Republicans are now stuck trying to prove that you drive down prices without restricting choice.
Now FUSA has come out with yet another report claiming that VA prices are lower than Medicare prices. Tell us something we don't know.
Except now Ron thinks he has outsmarted those who opposed price controls.
To wit (or to witless in this case) :
“Opponents of Medicare bargaining make two contradictory claims. First, they claim that private market competition under Part D is more effective in reducing prices than Medicare bargaining; and second, they claim that Medicare bargaining would reduce prices so significantly it would harm research and development,†said Pollack. “These arguments cannot both be true—and, indeed, neither is true.â€
Here's some math even Ron can understand. Big difference between price X and price X less 50 percent minus 3 years sales (due to limited access to the market) or price X minus no sales at all because of a restrictive formula. If Ron or anyone else wants to see my computations on this they can email directly at bobgoldberg@yahoo.com
Then Ron claims that all drug companies spend more on sales, marketing and administration than on R&D.
That's true. But misleading. And dishonest
Ron takes all the sale's, marketing, AND administrative expensives of a corporation worldwide (and administration includes the toner for the copier as well as the toilet paper for the men's room) and uses that as the denominator for R&D for the pharmaceutical firm alone. If FUSA and Ron were honest he would
1. Use the GAO numbers that show companies spend about $11 billion on marketing to consumers and docs compared to $31 billion on R&D. Companies might be able to spend less, but some education and advertising in needed. In any event, to zero it out would not lower drug prices low enough to "fill the doughnut hole." Once again Ron is hoping anger over drug prices will cause people to glide past his deception.
2. Add in biotech. That's another $20 billion in R&D will less spent on marketing. And most of these companies lose money and depend in drug companies for funding. They would be hurt twice by FUSA's proposal. They would lose pharma funding and then find their products barred from government formularies.
FUSA is a desperate organization seeking to restore badly damaged credibility created by their own lies and distortions.
They tried to scare seniors away from Medicare Part D and failed. They claimed it would be a failure. They were wrong. They claim it's still a failure. No one takes them seriously. They mislead the public on price controls and its impact on the lives of seniors. And now they are trying to mislead again on the impact they would have on medical progress.
At least Ron and FUSA are consistent. Read More & Comment...
First they put out a bunch of reports claiming that if we shove seniors into the VA system Medicare would save tons of money.
Soros funded Families USA Godfather Ron Pollack never told his Democrat supporters or the media that the VA used price controls, restrictive formularies and rationing of new medicines.
(We did and have for months if not years, going back to my time at the Manhattan Institute.)
Either they knew and were politically venal or just stupid. Either way, Democrats and Republicans are now stuck trying to prove that you drive down prices without restricting choice.
Now FUSA has come out with yet another report claiming that VA prices are lower than Medicare prices. Tell us something we don't know.
Except now Ron thinks he has outsmarted those who opposed price controls.
To wit (or to witless in this case) :
“Opponents of Medicare bargaining make two contradictory claims. First, they claim that private market competition under Part D is more effective in reducing prices than Medicare bargaining; and second, they claim that Medicare bargaining would reduce prices so significantly it would harm research and development,†said Pollack. “These arguments cannot both be true—and, indeed, neither is true.â€
Here's some math even Ron can understand. Big difference between price X and price X less 50 percent minus 3 years sales (due to limited access to the market) or price X minus no sales at all because of a restrictive formula. If Ron or anyone else wants to see my computations on this they can email directly at bobgoldberg@yahoo.com
Then Ron claims that all drug companies spend more on sales, marketing and administration than on R&D.
That's true. But misleading. And dishonest
Ron takes all the sale's, marketing, AND administrative expensives of a corporation worldwide (and administration includes the toner for the copier as well as the toilet paper for the men's room) and uses that as the denominator for R&D for the pharmaceutical firm alone. If FUSA and Ron were honest he would
1. Use the GAO numbers that show companies spend about $11 billion on marketing to consumers and docs compared to $31 billion on R&D. Companies might be able to spend less, but some education and advertising in needed. In any event, to zero it out would not lower drug prices low enough to "fill the doughnut hole." Once again Ron is hoping anger over drug prices will cause people to glide past his deception.
2. Add in biotech. That's another $20 billion in R&D will less spent on marketing. And most of these companies lose money and depend in drug companies for funding. They would be hurt twice by FUSA's proposal. They would lose pharma funding and then find their products barred from government formularies.
FUSA is a desperate organization seeking to restore badly damaged credibility created by their own lies and distortions.
They tried to scare seniors away from Medicare Part D and failed. They claimed it would be a failure. They were wrong. They claim it's still a failure. No one takes them seriously. They mislead the public on price controls and its impact on the lives of seniors. And now they are trying to mislead again on the impact they would have on medical progress.
At least Ron and FUSA are consistent. Read More & Comment...
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites