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
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
CMPI Events
Donate
CMPI Reports
Blog Roll
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
According to Alan Ashworth, head of the Institute of Cancer Research in London, "Today, despite the best efforts of the drug companies, we still use medieval methods to attack most cancers: cutting [surgery], burning [radiotherapy] and poisoning [non-specific chemotherapy]." But, says Ashworth, "Once we understand the Darwinian process by which cancer cells evolve in the body, we should be able to control even advanced disease through combinations of specific drugs."
Read More & Comment...Last week in Boston I was honored to give a presentation at the 10th Biosimilars America conference. But, as is often the case at good events, it was more about what I learned than what I had the chance to say.
Or, as my father used to remind me, “Listening is not just waiting for your turn to talk.”
Of the many fine presentations, I refer specifically to the talk given by John Pakulski, head of US Biopharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs at Sandoz, and the current chair of the GPhA Biologics Task Force.
John made many interesting and important points, but the one that resonated the most was that, in an age of technology, we must use technical data more and rely on clinical trials less. In short – when it comes to understanding the complicated concept of biosimilarity (from both regulatory as well as clinical perspectives) it’s a brave new world. But will we have the courage to move beyond “the gold standard.” Perhaps we should say, “the 20th century gold standard.”
Claude Debussy said, “Music is between the notes.” And the same can be said for biosimilarity. We now have many thoughtful guidance documents but, in many respects, it’s just theory. And just like with music theory, the words on the page are one thing – but when talented performers sit down at different pianos in disparate venues the result is both similarity and uniqueness.
In other words – creativity happens.
Another difference between biosimilars and small molecule generics is that the developers of biosimilars are very much in the innovation business.
Innovation happens.
Read More & Comment...
A couple of weeks ago I posted on the 'statin scare', and referred to a study that discussed the increase risk of diabetes for people taking cholesterol lowering meds in primary prevention.
I was skeptical of a single study as the basis for concern (and certainly panic). Eric Topol's recent videoblog on the issue is underscores the need for careful review of all data, tailoring treatment to patients to maximize benefits and the urgent need for whole genome research on response and metabolism of all statins.I am on a low dose statin. I monitor my liver enzymes pretty regularly (normal for someone who works out as regularly as I claim to!). It never occured to me that the slight elevation in my glucose levels -- something my doctor has always kept an eye on -- was a 'side effect' of statin use. Since we have a family history of high cholesterol and heart attacks statins are indicated and my risk of a heart attack were probably greater if I didn't take statins compared to taking them and getting diabetes. But a more precise and individualized measure of risk and benefit would be greatly appreciated!
Dr. Topol raises important questions about the risks and benefits of using statin in primary prevention absent other risk factors. And he again makes a persuasive case about the value of genomic testing. As he notes in his excellent book The creative destruction of medicine: How the digital revolution will create better healthcare 30 percent of people being treated for diabetes are non-responders to metformin, which is pushed as first line therapy. Why not a test that measures response and reaction to statins and diabetes meds. Why not make that test available to consumers in the most convenient way possible?
The impact on compliance and health outcomes would be significant in my opinion. And as for my use of statins, I will be a bit more careful going forward.
Thanks Dr. Topol.
http://blogs.theheart.org/topolog
Read More & Comment...
Many tough questions. No easy answers.
From the latest edition of the British Medical Journal ...
Speeding up access to new drugs
Nigel Hawkes
The prime minister promised at the end of last year to give some patients quicker access to new drugs. Was this just an empty aspiration?
No. A lot of thought has been given to a faster access scheme since David Cooksey recommended it in his review of UK health research funding in December 2006. A working group from industry and government produced a plan by November 2009. It sat on a shelf until resurrected two years later.
How would it work?
Medicines that have completed phase III trials (or in exceptional circumstances phase II) and that will treat or prevent life threatening, chronic, or seriously debilitating conditions that lack adequate existing treatments would qualify. Manufacturers would have to apply, and a decision would be promised in 75 days.
How would that be any quicker than licensing, if phase III trials have already been completed?
It usually takes a year or more to get licensing approval after a successful phase III trial. The new process is expected to get these medicines to patients a year earlier than otherwise would be the case.
But doesn't it mean that proper risk assessment will be skimped?
There's a danger of that. The burden of risk will be shifted towards the doctor and the patient and away from the manufacturer. Good information will be vital; patients will need to be fully informed and give active consent. Legally, the position will be the same as that for any unlicensed medicine, and the working group believes-but cannot guarantee-that primary care trusts or clinical commissioning groups will not be liable should anything go wrong. And it says that if the decision by a doctor to treat a patient was reasonable in all the circumstances and all relevant information was provided, a successful claim for negligence is unlikely.
If unlicensed medicines can be marketed and sold, what's the point of licensing?
The medicines under this scheme would be exceptional and few in number, perhaps only one or two a year. The NHS already uses unlicensed or off-label medicines in some cases, on the authority of the prescribing doctor (for example, bevacizumab for age related macular degeneration). Patients consulted by the working group were confident that they were competent to make a proper assessment of the risks. Doctors were not so sure.
What happens when the medicine is licensed?
The approval will last a year and can be renewed if necessary. When the medicine gets a licence it will become part of the normal process and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) will examine its cost effectiveness. Arrangements for continued funding of early access patients will need to be agreed for each medicine in advance.
So these fast access medicines will bypass NICE?
Yes. NICE deals with licensed medicines; these are unlicensed, so NICE does not have a role.
So how can we tell if manufacturers are overcharging?
We can't. They will set the price. It will be up to commissioning organisations, without NICE input, to decide if it's a price they want to pay.
Where's the money coming from?
An important question, the answer to which could yet put a spanner in the works. Since these medicines will not be approved by NICE, there will be no obligation for primary care trusts or clinical commissioning groups to pay for them. There will be no additional money available, unless the Department of Health or the drug companies provide it. Commissioning bodies will have to fund the drugs out of their normal allocations and in hard times may be reluctant to do so. This could lead to "postcode prescribing," as the working group conceded. But it hoped that if the process were applied only to medicines providing "significant clinical benefit in areas of current unmet need" the variation could be minimised.
Has anybody else attempted a similar scheme?
Yes, the French Temporary Authorisation for Use (ATU) scheme is quite similar and has operated for 15 years. To qualify for this, the medicine must have no satisfactory alternative and patients cannot access the scheme if they could become part of a clinical trial of the same medicine. The scheme is restricted to hospital specialists, and companies must agree to submit an application for a full licence, usually within a year, of the temporary authorisation being granted.
Experience shows that companies usually set high prices, but if the price fixed after market authorisation is lower they can be asked to refund the difference.
What about surveillance of side effects?
Applications for faster access would have to include plans for drug surveillance. "Collecting safety data is essential to protecting patients receiving the medicine," the working group concluded and is also an important way of developing a better understanding of the medicine. But the demands should not be so burdensome as to discourage companies from applying; nor should data gathering be seen as a clinical trial.
What's next?
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency plans to launch a consultation on the scheme at the end of March. It will allow 12 weeks for responses.
Read More & Comment...Russia: Russian Companies Receive Lowest Number of Permits for Clinical Research in Seven Years
Russian companies have received the lowest number of permits for clinical research in seven years, according to a report from Remedium. In 2011, the Ministry of Public Health issued 571 permits for clinical studies, of which 369 were for multicenter studies (an increase of 49% from 2010), and 117 for local studies (a decrease of 27% from 2010).
The share of research by Russian sponsors was below average for the last seven years, with domestic producers receiving 14.1% of permissions for drugs research testing—against the seven-year average of 20.6%. According to the report, the number of local studies has fallen following the 1 September 2010 "law on treatment of drugs", which specified that local studies be included in the registration of medicines, meaning that Russian companies must apply for a drug's registration and pay a state fee before testing. There is no such requirement for foreign companies in Russia.
The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) is currently preparing an amendment to the law proposing that the requirement to register be cancelled. They are also proposing to cancel the obligation for foreign companies in Russia to conduct local research if not including the country in a multi-center trial.
Significance: Russia's healthcare and pharmaceutical industry is currently going through regulatory changes that aim to simplify the registration process and speed market entry for drugs, among other goals. The report will come as a setback to Russia's efforts to expand the pharmaceutical industry and stimulate domestic manufacturers. The changes proposed by the FAS are likely to form a part of the regulatory reforms that are currently being formulated.
Read More & Comment...
PCORI has devoted 9 million taxpayer dollars and nearly two years focusing exclusively on figuring out what patient-centered outcomes research is. That's like the Department of Homeland Security or Defense Department doing nothing but trying to define what "security" and "defense" is.
Here's the full defintion of patient-centered outcomes research:
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Working Definition
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) helps people and their caregivers communicate
and make informed health care decisions, allowing their voices to be heard in assessing the
value of health care options. This research answers patient-centered questions such as:
1. “Given my personal characteristics, conditions and preferences, what should I expect
will happen to me?”
2. “What are my options and what are the potential benefits and harms of those options?”
3. “What can I do to improve the outcomes that are most important to me?”
4. “How can clinicians and the care delivery systems they work in help me make the best
decisions about my health and healthcare?”
(Note that for all the hot air about personalized medicine, there is no specific mention of genetic characteristics)
By way of comparison, it took less time to draft and ratify the Constitution of the United States. The excuse given for this over-cost and over-due delivery of a definition that leaves everyone more confused than ever is the following: " the difficulty in managing large numbers of healthcare providers with busy schedules and divergent interests." You see, these board members are much, much busier than Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson ever were.
And patient centered outcomes research is supposed to timely and scientifically up to date? If it took all this time just to agree on a definition, what can we expect about the effort to develop a research agenda that meets the definition?
As I have noted before, it will take less time to commercialize whole genome sequencing systems that produce same day results for clinical use then it will for PCORI, AHRQ, etc to decide what to study and to pay the groups who control the PCORI and AHRQ apparatus to do the research for the very same organizations. Did I forget to mention the incredible amount of cronyism involved in the entire CER process? But more on that in a future post.
A couple oversight hearings on what PCORI is really doing, how it's being done and whether it should be abolished would be beneficial. I mean, what's a couple more meetings and two days on the Hill when you spend two years defining what your organization should do. And I bet all those busy providers could clear their calendars pretty quick if called to testify. Read More & Comment...
Last November, the Center for Medicine in the Public held a confab entitled, “PDUFA without the Politics.” Many of the predictions from the event’s expert panelists seem to be coming true.
AS PREDICTED, the current conversation surrounding the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) must focus on (among other things) the First Principle of Predictability as well as ensuring that the FDA can fulfill its role as an important ally in advancing healthcare in America.
The draft bill extends FDA's mission to include: advancing medical innovation; promoting economic growth and job creation; promoting predictability and allowing flexibility; identifying and using the most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends; and incorporating a "patient-focused benefit-risk framework that accounts for varying degrees of risk tolerance, including for people living with a life-impacting chronic disease or disability."
AS PREDICTED, the House Republican discussion draft incorporates the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act, which would extend market exclusivity by five years for drugs that treat antibiotic-resistant pathogens
AS PREDICTED, by Representative Michael Burgess at the CMPI conference, the bill also completely removes limits on issuance of conflict-of-interest waivers for FDA advisory committee participation that were enacted as part of the FDA Amendments Act.
The discussion draft also includes language intended to expand accelerated approval. The accelerated approval provisions are similar to those in the FAST and TREAT acts.
Is there still room for a few more Christmas Tree ornaments? Perhaps permanent renewal of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children’s Act and PREA?
In this regard, the final rule regulating the establishment of "Affordable Health Exchanges" does not disappoint.
Most of the regs deal with how to qualify people living on Indian reservations and setting up systems to determine eligibility and award tax credits to the 9 percent of Americans who might actually get them. But there are some interesting discussions that crop up which might surprise those who regard exchanges as another step towards utopia:
1. If your income changes after you buy a health plan with some tax credits, your costs will go up or down without warning. And you may have the IRS knocking at your door asking for repayment of the tax credits you planned on having but no longer do as your income changes.
2. If your income changes so does your cost sharing. Even a few bucks a month can make a huge difference. Hence: A five percent decrease in income
from $47,018 is $44,667 (190 percent of the FPL), would correspond to a total premium, after advance payments, of $217 per month, for a total difference in premium of around $360 per year. And there's more "... based on the same figures cited above, the difference in cost-sharing between a family at 190
percent FPL and a family at 200 percent FPL is $1,000 per year, due to the change in eligibility for cost-sharing reductions at 200 percent FPL. The difference is $2,000 around 250 percent FPL, which is the upper limit for cost-sharing reductions based solely on household income.
So if your pre-tax income goes up by $2351 you wind up paying an additional $1360. That's an effective marginal tax rate of 68 percent.
3. And since such changes do not keep up with tax information, exchanges will be required to create a system to monitor what we make in other ways. To wit: "the Exchange must use information other than tax data to verify income in cases in which an applicant attests that a change has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur..." What might that information be? Bank accounts? Pay stubs from employers? Undercover informants?
4. If you or I decide to stop paying premiums for three months. Under Obamacare, we still are able to receive health care services. Coverage is terminated retroactively after three months and health plans don't have to pay doctors and other professionals for services rendered. In otherwords, health providers are on the hook for the cost of providing free care if we stop paying premiums. Or as the regs state: Qualified health plan (QHP) issuers.. must notify providers who submit claims for services rendered during the second and third months of the grace period that any such claims will be pended, and potentially not reimbursed by the QHP issuer if the individual does not settle outstanding premium payments."
5. There is other mind-numbing stupidity too. HHS still hasn't figured out how to get accurate information about income and family size without tax information. And it will take the word of people that they are poor enough to get tax credits without checking first.
I am not making any of this up. I wish I were.
Read More & Comment...
'Personalized Medicine' Hits a Bump
Wall Street Journal -
Tumor Evolution More Complex than Imagined
MedPage Today
Personalized cancer treatment: Genetic differences abound in tumors Los Angeles Times
The source of this pessimism? A study in the NEJM: Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1113205?query=featured_home
Here's Ron Winslow of the WSJ passing sentence on why the study is a blog to targeting treatments:
"Tumor's genetic makeup can vary significantly even within the same tumor sample, researchers said, a finding that poses new challenges to the personalized-medicine movement in cancer.
One big implication of the new research, being published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is that analyzing only a single sample of a patient's tumor—the current practice—may miss important genetic mutations that affect the course of the disease.
That, in turn, could hinder emerging efforts to match patients with drugs that target the mutations affecting their tumors, a basic strategy of personalized medicine.The findings don't diminish enthusiasm for the idea that genetic knowledge about tumors can transform cancer care, the researchers said. But it could make personalized treatment more complex—and more costly."
Winslow and others -- following the bias of the researchers who did the study -- overstate the novelty of finding differences in tumor progression because of differences in mutations identified by exome sequencing and appear to suggest that such subtle changes always mislead.
First, exome sequencing is becoming commonplace, as is deep sequencing of the type provided by Life Technologies and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. The costs and speed of such analysis is dropping rapidly. So cost is not a factor. Second, such sequencing will become commonplace precisely because clinicians know that every cancer progresses differently. Mutations are not always associated with changes in tumor progression. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
Winslow and others present personalized medicine as a single gene-single step process of individualizing treatment. No one who knows anything about the clinical and functional application of sequencing believes that. Hence, the media -- where many 'thought leaders' still get the primary source material on health and science -- perpetuates both an outdated view of personalized medicine and artificially overstates the costs and barriers of the same.
Read More & Comment...
When the Supreme Court's ruling comes down, probably in June, whoever wins will try to make it sound like the final word on the ACA. But everyone knows that just isn't the case. For Republicans, a win would validate their two-year fight against "Obamacare." For Democrats, a win means the ultimate stamp of approval on Obama's signature policy achievement and the chance to accuse Republicans of wasting the past two years fighting a law that's constitutional. If the court strikes the individual mandate but leaves the rest of the law in place, that would leave policymakers in a tough situation. Or, even if the mandate stays, it does nothing to erase the provision's unpopularity. Read More & Comment...
Those who opposed the health care bill are debating whether “repeal and replace” should be the clarion call in the coming election. Regardless of how this debate turns out, those in favor of doing better should focus their immediate attention on identifying and fixing the most harmful parts of the bill. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, should be a top target.
Sometimes dreams do come true.
IPAB needs to go, but the goal of reigning in Medicare expenses is a worthy one. As is, the program’s costs are spiraling out of control: Medicare is projected to accumulate a $38 trillion budget shortfall during the next 75 years.
Not only does IPAB further grease the slippery slope towards government price controls and rationing -- it doesn’t even have any authority over the biggest cost-drivers in Medicare.
Medicare Part A, for instance, is so expensive its reserves will be empty by 2017, according to the Medicare Trustees. Part A covers in-patient hospitals stays. By 2035, the program’s revenues will only finance about half of promised benefits.
Medicare Part B, which covers out-patient services, has similar cost problems. Administrators just raised Part B premiums on nearly a quarter of beneficiaries because expenses have gotten so high. And an analysis from the Congressional Research Service found that without substantial hikes in Part B premiums, the program’s finances are “at risk of exhaustion.”
Yet the IPAB has no power over Part A or Part B.
If left unaltered, Medicare could literally bankrupt this country.
Last June, HHS launched two important new health care cost-saving initiatives.
First, the HHS announced it would make $42 million available to enhance coordination efforts between primary care physicians and other health care providers treating Medicare patients. The potential savings are estimated at $125 billion over the next 10 years.
Second, the HHS launched a $40 million effort to help states combat chronic disease. Chronic diseases are responsible for 75 percent of our health care costs—diabetes, heart disease and strokes alone account for nearly $1 trillion in medical spending annually.
Both initiatives have the promise to save money and lives. Unfortunately, they represent the opposite approach to Medicare cost control set forth in the Affordable Care Act.
On one hand, the two new HHS initiatives show that the Obama administration is making credible efforts to target the areas of the health care system that could produce the most savings. On the other hand, the Affordable Care Act through IPAB seeks to devalue efforts such as these in favor of squeezing doctors and other providers.
The right way forward is to get rid of IPAB and substitute for it a Medicare cost-savings plan that encourages long-term strategic thinking along the lines of these HHS studies.
Support for IPAB is rapidly and rightly collapsing as citizens become better informed about the danger this all-powerful panel of unelected bureaucrats poses to their health care. It’s time to urge Congress to get rid of IPAB and stand up for real Medicare reform.
Read More & Comment...In 2004 I was a member of the FDA’s inaugural counterfeit drug taskforce. Our draft report called for stiffer criminal penalties for the purveyors of false profits – but we were told to remove that particular codicil because it was “outside of our jurisdiction.”
Now? Well, better late than never. Here’s the press release from Senator Grassley’s office:
Senate Approves Leahy-Grassley Bill To Increase Penalties For Counterfeit Drugs
WASHINGTON – The Senate Tuesday night unanimously approved a bill authored by U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to increase penalties for trafficking counterfeit drugs. The legislation responds to recommendations made by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and the administration’s Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Inter-agency Working Group.
The Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act will increase penalties for the trafficking of counterfeit drugs to reflect the severity of the crime and the harm to the public. While it is currently illegal to introduce counterfeit drugs into interstate commerce, the penalties are no different than those for the trafficking of other products, such as electronics or clothing. The Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act will target violators that knowingly manufacture, sell or traffic counterfeit medicines to the United States.
“We cannot allow the counterfeiting of life-saving medicine to be just one more low-risk venture from which international organized criminals can profit,” said Leahy. “While we should not expect that enactment of this or any legislation will completely deter the serious problem of counterfeit medication entering the American supply chain, it is an important step in the fight. I urge the House of Representatives to act quickly on this legislation.”
“Worldwide counterfeit medicines are a multi-billion dollar industry, and growing at an alarming pace, especially over the internet. These medicines pose a serious threat to the health and safety of unsuspecting Americans,” Grassley said. “The House should act as quickly as possible to ensure that counterfeit drug traffickers are punished accordingly for putting people’s lives at risk with this serious crime.”
The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Robert Casey (D-Pa.). Companion legislation in the House of Representatives was introduced last year by Representatives Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) and Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.).
It has been reported that counterfeit drugs result in 100,000 fatalities globally each year, and account for an estimated $75 billion in annual revenue for criminal enterprises Read More & Comment...
Its old news that expanded access to healthcare doesn’t correlate to broader (or wider) use of services. This lesson from (among other places) the United Kingdom hasn’t gotten a lot of attention on this side of the pond. In fact, the reverse is true. Government-mandated access results in a reduction in usage.
Why? The reason is the role of the gatekeeper – otherwise known as the physician. As Nadine Reibling and Claus Wendt (University of Mannheim) write in their paper, Access Regulation and Utilization of Healthcare Services:
“Since cost containment is at the top of the political agenda, efficiency considerations dominate the political discussions on instruments that regulate access to care. This, however, neglects the fact that such measures also have implications regarding equity of access (Saltman and Busse 2002).”
In other words, equity of access isn’t the same as availability of access. What happens, for example, when physicians choose not to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients? What value is equity when there is a physician shortage? And what does this say about how we value – and compensate – our healthcare providers. What unintended consequences arise when we ignore the growing gap between equity and access?
In November 2010, the Physician Foundation released the results of a national survey of physicians intended to gauge American physicians’ initial reaction to the passage of health reform and to learn the ways in which they plan to respond to it.
Key research findings include:
* The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
* 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
* The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
* While over half of physicians said health reform will cause patient volumes in their practices to increase, 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care.
A brand new study from the Health Research and Educational Trust brings the matter to our own shores via a study of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Objective
To compare the effects of a coverage expansion versus a Medicaid physician fee increase on children's utilization of physician services.
Primary Data Source
National Health Interview Survey (1997–2009).
Study Design
We use the Children's Health Insurance Program, enacted in 1997, as a natural experiment, and we performed a panel data regression analysis using the state-year as the unit of observation. Outcomes include physician visits per child per year and the following indicators of access to primary care: whether the child saw a physician, pediatrician, or visited an ER in the last year, and whether the parents reported experiencing a non-cost-related access problem. We analyzed these outcomes among all children, and separately among socioeconomic status (SES) quartiles defined based on family income and parents' education.
Principal Findings
Children's Health Insurance Program had a major impact on the extent and nature of children's insurance coverage. However, it is not associated with any change in the aggregate quantity of physician services, and its associations with indicators of access are mixed. Increases in physician fees are associated with broad-based improvements in indicators of access.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that (1) coverage expansions, even if they substantially reduce patient cost sharing, do not necessarily increase physician utilization, and (2) increasing the generosity of provider payments in public programs can improve access among low-SES children, and, through spillover effects, increase higher-SES children as well.
With all the discussions of equity, perhaps it’s time we asked “Who lost access?” And, more importantly, what can we do about it? Otherwise we’re just (Doc) fixing a hole in the ocean.
Net/Net? If you want more access you have to pay for it.
Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it.
-- de Montaigne
Read More & Comment...This time it's soda, or as we call it in Rochester NY: pop.
Add soda to the list of other things CSPI believes are dangerous including prescription drugs, french fries, Chinese food, plastic, food coloring and transfat (the latter was something CSPI pushed to get introduced in the food supply during the 1980s.)
What CSPI does is find things that sound scary, link them to cancer and other ills in RATs. It then raises money through newsletters and lawsuits.
There is no evidence, but for the CSPI study, that any of the above cause cancer or heart disease or anything else. As one FDA official said about the soda scare study:
"A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents," said Doug Karas, an FDA spokesman, in a statement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-us-regulators-dispute-idUSTRE8250W620120306
Meanwhile, little infants can swallow dozens of magnets and, thankfully, survive:
PORTLAND — A 3-year-old girl was recovering Monday at Legacy Emanuel Hospital after doctors removed 37 'Buckyballs' magnets from her intestines.
Payton Bushnell complained to her parents of symptoms that resembled the flu, Legacy spokeswoman Maegan Vidal told KGW. Then, they took her in to get checked.
Doctors took an X-ray and found the balls, clustered in her stomach. She was expected to fully recover and was listed in good condition Monday morning. She has been in the hospital since Feb. 21.
The Oregon toddler was fortunate. In 2006 the government warned about risks from magnets used in toys after at least one child died and almost 19 were injured. As a result, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled almost 4 million Magnetix building sets and magnets were included in holiday warnings about dangerous toys. The risk occurs when a child swallows one or more small magnets, which can link together in the digestive tract and perforate the intestines.
http://today.com
Could it be that swallowing buckeyballs is less toxic than swallowing junk science from CSPI?
I wouldn't even try that experiment on rats.
Read More & Comment...
BioCentury reports:
PCORI board votes on research definition
The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) board voted 17-2, with one abstention, to adopt a definition of patient-centered outcomes research that begins with a broad summary followed by a list of characteristics. According to the definition, such research "helps people and their caregivers communicate and make informed health care decisions, allowing their voices to be heard in assessing the value of health care options." The research evaluates preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, palliative or health delivery system interventions; focuses on outcomes such as survival, function, symptoms and quality of life; incorporates a variety of settings and diversity of participants; and "investigates optimizing outcomes while addressing burden to individuals, resource availability, and other stakeholder perspectives."
The definition does not mention "comparative effectiveness research." PCORI's methodology committee, which drafted the definition, said the research includes many components of comparative effectiveness but is intended to be "broader."
Several board members voiced concerns about the definition's focus on communication and decision-making. NIH Director Francis Collins said the definition does not emphasize research, which he called the "primary function" of patient-centered outcomes research. However, the members also expressed a desire to adopt the definition to allow PCORI to focus on other goals such as developing research priorities and launching an annual research conference. Created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PCORI expects to have about $112 million in funding for 2012, of which $90 million will be used for grants.
Dr. Collins’ concern isn’t new. At past meetings, when the discussion of what PCORI’s “legacy should be, the NIH Director said that if the Institute was looking for a unique and non-duplicative research agenda, it would be “a null set.”
PCORI should not forget about outcomes data. Perhaps the institute should lead the way in coordinating the many large data sets of outcomes data held by both Uncle Sam and private payers. The use of outcomes data needs to go beyond (well beyond) well-intentioned (but relatively small) CMS pilot projects. The United Kingdom has such a nationwide system – but hasn’t been particularly creative or aggressive in using it. PCORI should take the lead. After all, what’s more patient-centered than real world outcomes data?
PCORI should create a program on educating patients, physicians and payers on the use and importance of molecular diagnostics. After all, what’s more patient-centric than early diagnosis and advancing the “four rights” of the right medicine in the right dose to the right patient at the right time?
PCORI should help to advance the nascent science of adaptive clinical trials. After all, what’s more patient-centric than adaptive clinical trial information?
PCORI should stay as far away as possible from discussions of CER as a method for cost controls – as this is a slippery slope to price controls. And price controls equal choice controls. Moreover, PCORI is officially tasked not to pursue comparative effectiveness but comparative clinical effectiveness. Comparative means which treatment (or healthcare technology if you prefer) is “better” (subjective) versus data on real world clinical outcomes. To put it bluntly, “comparative” is subjective. “Clinical” is outcomes-driven. It’s important to remember both the letter and the spirit of the stature.
(In fact, Francis Collins warned the board to “beware of the tension between CER and personalized medicine.)
PCORI should be careful in creating a databank of CER studies because (and particularly when you consider programs such as CATIE and ALLHAT) garbage in, garbage out.
PCORI should beware of information sharing via academic detailing. (Note: 20% of the PCORI budget is ear-marked to AHRQ for “information dissemination.) ‘Nuff said.
PCORI should (indeed must!) define “patient-centered” as care first and cost second – otherwise the “PC” in its acronym will only mean “politically correct.”
In May 2011, PCORI Chairman Eugene Washington introduced Joe Selby as the institute’s first executive director. To which Dr. Selby commented, “For those of you participating in this meeting via webcast, I’m the one who looks like a deer in the headlights.”
Joe – It might be time for those night vision goggles.
Read More & Comment...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/
His blog is a textbook case of how most health care policy research is a combination of liberal bias and mythic numbers that support a point of view.
Here's the reason medical procedures cost more in the US. The cost per procedure does not reflect the government subsidy that artificially reduces prices and drive up demand. Second, the cost per procedure is not the only thing that's controlled. Waiting is part of the cost per procedure in Europe, Canada and elsehwere. Ask someone who has to wait for cancer surgery if the lower cost per procedure is worth it. Would people pay more to get care faster? They do quite often. Yeah, neonatal intensive care in the UK or Canada is cheaper. So if infusion of biologics. But there's a reason people come to the US from Canada to get neonatal care. There's more of it when you need. You see Ezra, if price doesn't reflect both the true cost - and value -- of a product, people won't produce it. Unless you are Solyndra or GM's Chevy Volt. Both are -- or were heavily subsidized -- products that no one wanted.
Which is sort of like health care around the world. And medical innovation. Government controls also skew what will be produced. Innovation and its diffusion is stifled by things like price controls and comparative effectiveness reviews. Both raise the risk and cost of development and CER delays and reduces market access. So the way to make a buck is to pump out marginally better products that will get you a slightly higher launch price.
The US still leads in the number of new drug launches compared to other nations because we reward biomedical innovation, at least for now. Meanwhile, medical device adoption is faster in Europe. Cycle times matter more in medical devices and Europe is not as anal-retentive about follow on devices as is our FDA. Add a medical device tax to the equation and the decline in innovation will accelerate.
Klein rehashes the 'research' of Gerard Andersen, a hack who makes a living producing memos for congressional Democrats that confirm their belief that price controls would work just fine. Andersen pushed having Medicare 'negotiate' drug prices like the Veteran's Administration. ( Here's a link to a Frank Lichtenberg study I sponsored a few years ago. http://democrats.veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=59775&Newsid=470&Name=%20Frank%20R.%20Lichtenberg,%20Ph.D. ) And the association between controls on innovation and reduced health care well established. Lichtenberg has looked at access to new cancer drugs in Europe and Australia and concluded that for most types of cancer, newer drugs save lives and displace most costly care.
That's the same VA whose formulary and price controls reduce access to new drugs and reduce the life span of seniors. Which I guess saves money too.
I don't mean to single out Klein. It's just that his blog -- a blog! -- is an example of the confirmation bias that passes for policy analysis. Blogs are thought experiments, not science. And when they rely upon leftwing ideologues with tenure -- like Gerard Andersen -- to prove a point they reduce the sum of human knowledge each time they are read or written.
Read More & Comment...
Generic Drugs' Effect on Health Costs Unclear, GAO Says
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
WASHINGTON -- Generic drugs were substituted for brand-name drugs 93% of the time in 2010, but whether increased use of generics is actually saving money is up for debate, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Studies looking at cost savings from use of generic drugs "had mixed results regarding the effect of using these generics, in that some found they raised healthcare costs, while others found they led to cost savings," wrote the authors of a GAO report released Thursday.
The GAO report was requested by Sen. Orrin Hatch, co-author of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act, which paved the way for a major increase in the number of generic drugs. In the early 1980s, there were generic versions of just 35% of the top-selling drugs with expired patents; by the late 1990s, almost all of them had generic versions.
Prescription drug spending more than tripled from 2001 and topped $307 billion in 2010, making up 12% of all healthcare spending in the country, the GAO researchers wrote.
However, the growth has slowed markedly since the early 2000s when an increasing number of generic versions of brand-name drugs hit the market. On average, the retail price of a generic drug is 75% less than the retail price of its brand-name equivalent.
The report summarized the findings of peer-reviewed articles, government reports, and studies by national organizations -- including trade and nonprofit organizations -- on the cost effects of increased utilization of generic drugs.
The report authors identified three general groups of studies. The first group estimated the cost savings from relying more on generic drugs. One group of studies in that pool -- sponsored by the generic drug lobby -- estimated the use of generics to have saved the U.S. healthcare system $1 trillion from 1999 through 2010.
Another report, by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), found that dispensing generic drugs rather than their brand-name counterparts reduced total Part D prescription drug costs in 2007 by about $33 billion.
A second group of reports focused on the potential to save even more through greater use of generics. For instance, the CBO estimated that if generics had always been substituted for brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D, $900 million would have been saved in 2007.
A third group of studies estimated the effect on healthcare costs of using certain generic drugs in cases where questions have been raised about how medically similar they are to the brand-name version. That group of studies compared the lower cost of the drug with the higher cost of increased hospitalizations from using a potentially less effective generic drug.
One study in that group found that depressed patients on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) who started on a brand-name SSRI and switched to a generic ended up experiencing an increase of $881 in total healthcare costs because of increased hospitalization rates and emergency department visits.
However, another study found those who began treatment on generic SSRI's had significantly lower costs than patients using brand-name antidepressants.
Another study in that group, done among renal transplant patients, found that total healthcare costs one year following transplantation were about $4,000 higher for patients who started therapy with generic immunosuppressants compared with those using brand-name drugs. That difference was attributed to "the cost associated with needing higher doses of the generic drug or additional immunosuppressants needed to maintain the transplanted kidney in patients using the generic," the report said.
Overall, the studies on whether generic drugs save money were a mixed bag, the GAO said.
Generic drugs must have the same active ingredients, route of administration, strength, and intended use as their brand-name counterparts. They also must be absorbed into the bloodstream at the same rate. Generic drugs are allowed to have different inactive ingredients, such as binding materials, dyes, preservatives, or flavoring agents compared with brand-name drugs.
At the end of the GAO report to Hatch, which was dated Jan. 31, the agency mentioned that it agreed not to publish the results of the report for 30 days. In the meantime, Hatch could have publicized the results, but did not. Requests for comment from Hatch's office did not bring a response.
Read More & Comment...
Dear Colleagues,
I am thrilled to announce the permanent appointment of Elizabeth Dickinson as the Chief Counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, effective Monday, March 12, 2012.
As many of you know, Liz has had a long and distinguished history at the Agency; she joined the Office of the Chief Counsel in 1994. Over the years, Liz has served as legal counsel to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Office of the Commissioner on innovator and generic drug review issues, orphan drug development, and biosimilars; has implemented pediatric exclusivity and pediatric drug development programs; has worked closely with the Department of Justice on dozens of cases addressing Waxman-Hatch issues and preemption; and has coordinated the development of the Office of the Chief Counsel’s flexible workplace program.
A graduate of the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University School of Law, Liz is highly regarded by both her internal colleagues and those across the food and drug bar. Over the years, Liz has received numerous awards for distinguished service, leadership and her outstanding legal skills.
Liz has been serving as Acting Chief Counsel since August 2011, and we have been grateful for her hard work and dedication each day that she has been on the job. It is terrific to know that she will be serving the Agency in this role permanently as we move forward. Please join me in congratulating Liz.
Sincerely,
Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs
Read More & Comment...
Two important stories from BioCentury:
FDA to hold hearing on biosimilars guidance
FDA will hold a public hearing on May 11 to discuss three recently published draft guidance documents on biosimilars. FDA said the hearing's purpose is to obtain public comment on the drafts, as well as receive input on topics to be included in the development of future biosimilar policies. The guidance documents, released early last month, indicate the agency hasn't settled some important biosimilars policy questions, including requirements for demonstrating interchangeability of a biosimilar with a reference product and terms for establishing the exclusivity period for pioneer biologics.
EC seeks to reduce duration of reimbursement decisions
The European Commission proposed a Transparency Directive that would reduce the time limits for member states to make pricing and reimbursement decisions for medicinal products. States would be required to issue a decision within 120 days of approval for an innovative drug and within 30 days for a generic. Current regulations require a decision for all drugs within 180 days. Member states that review the relative efficacy of a product via a health technology assessment would still be subject to the 180-day limit.
Under the proposal, member states would be required to designate an enforcement body with the power to award damages and impose penalties for delayed pricing decisions. Member states would also be required to regularly report to the EC on the time required for individual pricing decisions. The new directive is slated to begin implementation in 2014. EC said pricing and reimbursement decisions can take as long as 700 days for new drugs and up to 250 days for generics. The EC began public consultation on the proposed changes last year.
On March 12th, the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee will meet and discuss the anti-nerve growth factor (Anti-NGF), a drug class that is currently under clinical hold because of the threat of joint damage. Clinical trials for Pfizer’s tanezumab were suspended in 2010, at the FDA’s request, when some patients’ arthritis worsened to the point of needing joint replacement – and a class-wide clinical hold followed. (Similar treatments are in early stage development at Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, Sanofi, Abbott, and AstraZeneca.
Anti-NGF therapies are being developed for the treatment of a variety of chronic painful conditions including osteoarthritis, chronic lower back pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, chronic pancreatitis, endometriosis, interstitial cystitis, vertebral fracture, thermal injury, and cancer pain. And if the fact that, according to Professor Thomas Schnitzer of Northwestern University, “We’ve had over a hundred years without having a major new pain drug,” isn’t enough – Anti-NGF’s are non-opioids.
FDA has tasked the adcomm to determine whether reports of joint destruction represent a safety signal related to the Anti-NGF class of drugs and whether the risk/benefit balance for these drugs favors continued development as analgesics.
Why a clinical hold? While a Phase II, 450-patient proof-of-concept study showed that tanezumab relieved knee pain when compared to a placebo, a Phase III study (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) showed 16 patients experienced progressively worsening osteoarthritis associated with a form of bone damage known as necrosis, which required total joint replacements.
In an accompanying NEJM editorial, John Wood a researcher at University College, London and a visiting professor at Baylor College of Medicine (a post funded by Pfizer), wrote the joint failure “was most likely caused by excessive wear and tear in the absence of joint pain. Pain has an important role in the avoidance of self-harm, but chronic inflammatory pain has generally been considered to be wholly undesirable.” The tanezumab study “suggests that a complete quenching of pain in patients with osteoarthritis may not necessarily be a good thing.”
In other words, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal:
“Some researchers are suggesting that an experimental Pfizer drug may have liberated arthritis sufferers to such a degree that they became more physically active — and that the subsequent wear and tear on their joints led to joint replacement surgery.”
The drug made people feel “better than [they] ever felt before, and I have a feeling they just overused their joints,” Nancy Lane, a rheumatologist and bone-health specialist at UC Davis Health System in Sacramento. She suggests the drug could still play a role as long as doctors “counsel patients not to overuse their joints.”
What happens when a drug … works too well? Lane says she has seen this pain-masking situation before, including with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) indomethacin. “Because this is a new chapter in controlling pain, we didn’t realize we needed to counsel our patients in using their joints that were still diseased. Now we need to figure out how to use it so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits.”
And so the issue of patient education becomes crucial. What happens when a class of drugs is so effective, patients forget they have the underlying condition and behave contrary to their best medical interests? (In plain English – what happens when a therapy is so effective patients over do it and then suffer the consequences?) Hopefully the 3/12 adcomm will spend some quality time discussing this important social science question. Perhaps this issue should be taken up, um, jointly with the agency’s Risk Communications Advisory Committee? Anti-NGF drugs require not only a discussion of benefit/risk – but also the risk of benefit.
Those are, after all, precisely the kind of thorny scientific propositions FDA advisory committees are held to address.
Welcome to 21st century medicine.
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines.
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites