A recent study published in Health Affairs found that a prior authorization policy implemented by Maine Medicaid to restrict use of atypical antipsychotics (AAs) led to discontinuities in treatment among patients with schizophrenia. Researchers found that patients initiating treatment with AAs after the policy was instituted in Maine were 29% more likely to have treatment discontinuities than patients initiating treatment with AAs before the policy took effect.

In addition, spending only slightly decreased after policy implementation, suggesting minimal total cost savings at the end of the eight month policy period when compared to New Hampshire. The researchers report that prior authorization policies for antipsychotics and other mental health medicines may be problematic due to increases in treatment discontinuation, which often lead to psychotic episodes, hospitalizations, or other hazardous clinical and economic outcomes.

Some people will do anything to shove price controlled drugs from parts unknown down the the throats of unsuspecting Americans...that includes the editors at the San Jose Mercury News (there goes my chances for an oped placement)

From that august body:

"The Food and Drug Administration should be embarrassed by its lack of attention to the ingredients in prescription drugs.

The latest evidence is the 19 deaths and hundreds of allergic reactions reported by Americans using a bad batch of the drug thinner heparin. Some ingredients were contaminated, and the FDA admitted violating its own rules by not inspecting the Chinese factory where they were made.

This at the same time the FDA stubbornly refuses to allow cheaper prescription drugs to be imported. What hypocrisy."

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/040808/opinion_20080408035.shtml

Some truth is in order by way of Andy von Eschenbach, FDA Commish:

"Our records at FDA indicated that we had inspected that facility in China, but that was incorrect. The inspection records we reviewed were on a facility with a very similar name. But having done the inspection in 2004 probably wouldn’t have prevented this problem, because this chemical contaminant cannot be detected using the standard testing methods for heparin. We have now developed new test methods to screen heparin for this new contaminant and regulators around the world are using those tests to protect their citizens. "

http://www.fda.gov/oc/vonEschenbach/andys_take/lifecycle.html

So much for the canard that the FDA "lied". What do you call a paper that calls someone else a liar when it knows that the very statement is not factual?

Now as to "hypocrisy", why would the FDA allow the importation of drugs from companies that are not producing for the US market when it's first priority is to improve the monitoring of the supply and production chain of products that are approved for US sale and distribution? Why indeed given the fact that counterfeit products are a growing problem worldwide and given the fact that importation will, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Commerce Department hardly make a dent in health care spending?

Because some people can't understand that there are benefits to having a free and global market for medicines and that such conditions are not inconsistent with a bi-partisan effort to improve the FDA's ability to track and trace the production of such goods.

Now that's hypocrisy for you.

Pleased to report that the LiveSmarter blog has named Drugwonks one of its 100 top Academic/Medical blogs -- and first in our category (Drugs/Medicine).

The full Top 100 list can be found at:

http://www.ondd.org/the-top-100-academic-medical-blogs/


And, as the man says, thank you for your support.

Two cheers for Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro for holding yesterday’s FDA oversight hearing.

Throughout her career, Representative DeLauro has expressed a brazen disregard for drug safety, continually calling on policymakers to open our borders to an uncontrollable influx of untested, impure, expired, and counterfeit drugs from around the world.

Today, however, drug importation was noticeably absent from the agenda.

Perhaps importation was left off the agenda because of the recent report that contaminated heparin, manufactured in China, is responsible for at least four deaths. Or perhaps she ignored importation because today’s hearing comes just one year after dozens of cats and dogs died of kidney failure after ingesting contaminated pet food -- and only one year after counterfeit Colgate toothpaste containing diethylene glycol infiltrated the U.S. market.

Regardless of her reasoning, it seems grossly irresponsible to grandstand for drug safety on one day and call for the importation of foreign drugs on another.

Let’s look at the facts. The World Health Organization estimates that eight to 10 percent of today’s global medicine supply chain is counterfeit. According to the Food and Drug Administration, that figure jumps to 50 percent or higher in some countries.

Without legalized prescription drug importation, the number of counterfeit drug investigations has increased four-fold since the late 1990s. Just imagine what will happen if such a thoughtless policy were codified.

Perhaps Representative DeLauro will take this opportunity to publicly denounce drug importation and take action to keep counterfeit drugs out of the U.S. medicine supply.

Perhaps not.

Like they say, everything you read in the newspaper is true – except for those things you know about personally.

Case in point: the Wall Street Journal reporting that, regardless of which of the remaining three amigos gets elected in November, “drugs from Canada” is a done deal.

Nope. Here’s why not:

(1) It won’t save any money. Let’s not forget the non-partisan CBO study that showed that such policy would reduce our nation’s spending on prescription medicines a whopping 0.1% -- and that’s not including the millions of dollars the FDA would need to set up a monitoring system.

(2) The drugs being sent to U.S. customers from Canadian internet pharmacies are not “the same drugs Canadians get.” That bit of rhetoric is just plain wrong. Canadian internet pharmacies – by their own admission – are sourcing their drugs from the European Union. And while they may say their drugs come from the United Kingdom, let’s not conveniently forget that 20% of all the medicines sold in the UK are parallel imported from other nations in the EU – like Spain, Greece, Portugal, and Lithuania.

And the important political point here is that when Americans are asked if they want drugs from nations other than Canada – the answer is a resounding “no thank you.”

(3) The state experience has been dismal and politically embarrassing. Remember the high profile “I-Save-RX”program? Over 19 months of operation, a grand total of 3,689 Illinois residents used the program -- which equals approximately .02% of the population. They don’t call him “Wrong Way” Rod Blagojevich for nothing.

And what of Minnesota and Governor Tim Pawlenty’s RxConnect program? According to its latest statistics, Minnesota RxConnect fills about 138 prescriptions a month. That's for the whole state. Minnesota population: 5,167,101.

And remember Springfield, MA and “the New Boston Tea Party?” Well the city of Springfield is now out of the drugs from Canada business.

(4) National Security concerns. According to a recent report from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, a global terrorist ring with ties to Hezbollah, is importing counterfeit drugs into America by way of Canada. They are doing so for profit today - but could just as easily do so for more nefarious and deadly purposes. And legalizing importation would only facilitate such actions.

So while the candidates may opt for “drugs from Canada” as a useful political talking point – a way to say “look how tough I can be on those bad drug companies. The real issue lies elsewhere.

When it comes to health care reform, there’s one major policy difference that sets Senator McCain apart from Senators Obama and Clinton – Senator McCain believes in the strengths of a market economy. He sees drug importation as an access issue. The other side sees it as a way to import price controls and a first step towards government-run health care.

Don’t get fooled by the importation rhetoric. It’s nothing but a side-show. And it ain’t gonna happen. It's more dangerous as a smoke screen.

By way of Forbes, a real "call it like I see it" piece by Paul H. Rubin, Professor of Law and Economics at Emory University and former Chief Advertising Economist at the Federal Trade Commission and Chief Economist at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The topic is the important role of drug reps and, more broady, drug marketing> Rubin's article is both important and timely -- and should serve as an education for those who opt for soundbites rather than sound public health policy.

On My Mind: A Free Lunch
Paul H. Rubin

There's nothing wrong with letting drug reps schmooze with doctors. What's the matter with Americans? They think there is something incestuous about the connection between drug companies and doctors.

Politicians tell them that the drugmakers wine and dine physicians while pushing the latest antibiotic or statin. Utterly corrupted, doctors impose those medications on patients, whether or not the drugs are better than cheaper alternatives.

A pending U.S. Senate bill would require drug companies to report gifts to doctors of more than $25; the House is investigating marketing practices. New York State's legislature plans to hold hearings this year on the relationship between doctors and drug companies. One congressional critic has even compared the drug industry with the tobacco industry, and Senator John McCain has called drugmakers the "bad guys."

What drugs are these legislators taking? Drug company reps offer overworked doctors useful, lifesaving information in an efficient manner. The drug companies are of course motivated by profit, but economists have known since Adam Smith that the profit motive is the best way to induce someone to do something useful. (Disclosure: I consult for the drug industry from time to time, most recently for Pfizer.)

Marketing and research are both information activities; they work together to get effective drugs to patients. The two activities are not in competition for resources. The denouncers of drug companies don't understand this. One of the senators sponsoring the bill suggests that "the millions of dollars these companies spend on marketing ... could be put into research." In fact, drug companies would not switch money from marketing to research. If they cannot market drugs in the best way, they will reduce spending on research. What's the point of inventing a new drug if doctors and patients don't know about it?

Academic physicians think that doctors should obtain information by reading medical journals. Practicing doctors do not have time to comb through the International Journal of Medical Sciences or the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meal with a pharmaceutical salesperson is a time-efficient way for a busy doctor to learn about new drugs, or perhaps a better therapeutic alternative, or a drug with easier dosing or fewer side effects than the old drug. Physicians interact with more than one drug rep, so they have competing sources of information.

Another argument made by supporters of the Senate bill is that promotion leads physicians "to prescribe the expensive new drugs that are being marketed to them when a more affordable generic would do," in the words of one senator. There are three things wrong with this argument. First, manufacturers of generics do not promote those drugs, so it might be
difficult for the physician to learn about generics at all. Second, new drugs lead to better health outcomes. They keep people out of the hospital. A 2007 study by business professor Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University estimated that a prescription for a new drug (5 years from FDA approval) costs an average $18 more than an older one (15 years on the market) but reduces other medical costs, including hospital and office visits, by $129. Finally, by leading consumers to purchase newer drugs, marketing increases investment in innovation and thus makes research more likely.

A widely cited 2000 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association summarized 29 published studies critiquing the interaction between doctors and drug reps. Notable feature of these articles, as quoted in the summary paper: "No study used patient outcome measures."
That is, in all of the medical literature on drug sales, there was no evidence of harm to patients caused by doctors and drug reps breaking bread. These articles were written by physicians who by their oaths put patient welfare at the top of the list, but they were critical of the industry based on analyses that totally ignore this measure.

A recent report shows that the life expectancy of Americans is at its highest level ever and will continue to increase. It is truly amazing that this society keeps coming up with ways to demonize and penalize an industry that has provided us with so many benefits.

On the Presidential election and drug importation as a "hickory stick" to beat the pharmaceutical industry.

Download file

The article's conclusion says it all:

"The facts are not important. This is all about rhetoric. The facts against drug importation as sound health care policy are enormous. The argument for drug importation are political and rhetorical."

Fromt today's edition of the Wall Street Journal ...

A Health-Insurance Solution
By MERRILL MATHEWS

Why can't people living in New Jersey buy health insurance available to residents of, say, Pennsylvania?

Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, thinks they should -- and today will reintroduce legislation to make that possible.

The Health Care Choice Act would allow residents in one state to buy health insurance that is available in and regulated by another state. If enacted, the law would create a competitive, 50-state market for health insurance, likely making it cheaper. It would do this without imposing a large cost on taxpayers and without creating a new government bureaucracy.

This should be a no-brainer for Congress. But a few years ago, Mr. Shadegg went looking for a Democratic cosponsor for his bill. He found one who initially signed on, then withdrew under pressure from Democratic House leaders who wanted to dismiss the Shadegg bill with the excuse that it lacked bipartisan support.

The health-insurance market can be divided into three segments. The first consists of mostly large employers, with self-funded plans, and are regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and thus not subject to state regulation. The two remaining segments of the health-insurance market are heavily regulated by states: those that serve small-group plans (typically covering two to 50 people), and individuals who pay for their own insurance. Mr. Shadegg's bill only applies to the individual market.

Because regulations vary from state to state, the cost of health insurance for these last two segments of the insurance market vary widely. Some states ensure that residents have access to a wide range of affordable policies. Others -- New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, for instance -- have all but destroyed their individual health-insurance markets with over-regulation.

One of the most expensive state-level regulations is "guaranteed issue," which requires insurers to sell insurance to anyone willing to buy it, regardless of their health, or other factors that may make it much more expensive to cover them. New Jersey, for example, enacted guaranteed issue in 1994. At the time, a family policy could be purchased in the state for as little as $463 a month or as much as $1,076, depending on which of the 14 participating insurers a family chose. Now there are just 10 insurance companies offering plans in the state and the cost has soared to $1,726 per month on the low end and $14,062 on the high end.

In New Jersey then, residents who buy their own insurance have to pay at least $20,000 a year for the cheapest family policy. Meanwhile, in neighboring Pennsylvania similar health-insurance policies cost a third of what they cost in New Jersey. What Mr. Shadegg wants to do is to let New Jersey residents buy what's now for sale in Pennsylvania.

Mandates are another reason the cost of health insurance varies from state to state. States impose those mandates on what an insurance plan must cover -- such as chiropractic care or mental-health services. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, which tracks mandates, estimates that there are more than 1,900 state mandates nationwide. These mandates can increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 50%, which can then force residents in many states to decide between "Cadillac coverage" -- insurance that covers nearly everything and costs a mini fortune -- or no coverage at all.

Typically, state mandates are justified by the belief that they make health insurance more comprehensive. But consider this: Idaho has just 14 state mandates, the fewest in the nation, while Minnesota, with 63, has the most. Yet, the people of Idaho aren't dying in the streets for lack of mandates.

Critics of the Health Care Choice Act claim that it would limit the ability of states to protect their residents. The assertion is that cross-state health-insurance purchases are a risky experiment. In truth, millions of people already have access to health insurance across state lines. Employees of large companies with plans covered by ERISA are one example.

But there are others. Some small businesses cover employees working across state lines. And, because people are mobile, some people buy individual insurance in one state and then end up moving to another. In many cases, they can take their health-insurance policies with them. A person living in Pennsylvania with an individual policy now could retain that policy even if he moved to New Jersey. Premiums would likely increase, but they would be cheaper than if he had started out with a New Jersey policy.

If states are worried about losing regulatory control over health insurance, they might try making their regulations competitive with other states. Health insurers would likely respond by returning and offering a wide range of affordable policies. As it stands, many states are "protecting" their residents right into the uninsured camp.

The Health Care Choice Act won't solve every problem. But it would increase competition and consumer choices currently denied to residents in many states.

Mr. Matthews is executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.

From today's edition of the Wall Street Journal ...

The Media on Drugs

By SIDNEY TAUREL

When it comes to describing the benefits and risks of prescription drugs, the hyper-competitive, around-the-clock media is rarely at its best. Call the following a case study in the challenge of doing right by doctors and patients -- in spite of the need to feed the media beast with copy.

Our story starts Oct. 24, when several media outlets reported that Eli Lilly and Company had halted two clinical trials for the drug prasugrel -- a possible new therapy for heart-attack patients that Lilly is developing with Daiichi Sankyo. The speculation that followed these reports was that the drug must have failed its initial trials. Within a few days the market capitalization of Eli Lilly fell by about $6 billion.

This speculation was unfounded and, incidentally, false. In early November, the academic TIMI Study Group announced the results of a massive clinical trial showing that prasugrel produced significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with current treatments.

Specifically, the trial, known as TRITON, showed that prasugrel produced a 19% reduction in relative risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal heart attack, or nonfatal stroke when compared with the drug clopidogrel -- today's standard of care -- and had a favorable benefit-risk profile in a large majority of patients.

Statistical data can be interpreted in different ways. Some experts will reach more nuanced or skeptical conclusions about TRITON. But a Duke University cardiologist told this newspaper, after seeing the trial's results, "If you can't get a drug on the market with that kind of data, we should stop developing drugs."

So what happened in those days after Oct. 24? Lilly's goal was to turn over our prasugrel findings to doctors in a manner that left no doubt as to their scientific rigor and completeness. This meant publishing the findings in a highly respected journal and discussing them directly with top cardiologists, ahead of mass-media reporting. We decided to present these findings to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association (AHA) on Nov. 4.

NEJM and AHA asked for promises from Lilly and its partners, and we agreed, not to disclose any of the results of TRITON prior to Nov. 4. Such guarantees of exclusivity are not only common, but also appropriate, in focusing expert attention on important research. A definitive source and a "zero hour" of first-hand disclosure for complex scientific data help to limit misinformation.

Doctors and scientists at Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo, of course, had begun to analyze the results of TRITON in the weeks leading up to the AHA meeting. In addition to showing strong efficacy, the data also showed that in three small subgroups of patients, the drug at its current dosage raised the risk of major bleeding relative to its effect on preventing heart attacks.

Lilly had two small clinical trials of prasugrel underway for different research purposes, and we had received no reports of safety concerns from them. But when we saw the TRITON results, we put patients first. Based on the small chance that patients in the three identified subgroups might be given prasugrel and experience serious bleeding, we advised our researchers to suspend the two trials pending a review.

Enter the beast. Ten days before our "zero hour," word leaked out, causing us to confirm that the two prasugrel trials had been suspended, although our promises to NEJM and AHA prevented us from explaining why. The media entered a feeding frenzy, catered by commentators on Wall Street and elsewhere who speculated that prasugrel posed broad risks and had probably failed its major trial. Our stock began its trip south and, more seriously, some doctors and patients were left with false impressions.

Unveiling the data at AHA brought some relief. Still swimming against the tide of rumor, a few stories distorted the TRITON results, but most were balanced. In the end, the Food and Drug Administration will not rely on media reports to reach approval decisions. Lilly is confident that prasugrel will be given a chance to help patients on a large scale.

There are a few lessons here that need to be learned. For the pharmaceutical industry: Preserving the integrity of scientific data and protecting the safety of patients are always the right choices. Stock prices recover but trust is much harder to regain. Trust hinges on our openness in sharing everything we know about who should use our products -- along with when, how and at what dose -- and who should not.

For the media, if I may be so bold: Don't trade in leaks and rumors where scientific data are concerned. Damage to public understanding is hard to repair after it's been done. Wait for real numbers, and take the time to explain statistics and benefit-risk analysis, which cannot be conveyed in sound bites alone. And for would-be pundits: If you have not had firsthand exposure to the scientific results or specialized knowledge under discussion, then qualify your comments if you must make them at all.

We all have a stake in taming this beast -- not for the sake of any company or individual discovery, but for the sake of those who ultimately rely on accurate information for the care of patients.

Mr. Taurel is chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company.

MRSA slowing spreading to the community. No drugs in the pipeline in large part to Congressman Waxman's jihad against using clinical trial designs that have brought HIV drugs to market to accelerate approval of medicines for MRSA that kill more people than HIV. Waxman's response? Read his sanctimonious speech on infectious disease control which essentially urges everyone to wash their hands.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1606

Read this article on how Waxman's attack has helped kill investment and scared the FDA into inferior antibiotic drug approval rates.

http://www.morgenthaler.com/.../Ventures/Articles/