Latest Drugwonks' Blog
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.
Starting with the members of Congress who support price controls and drug reimportation.
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
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
Why would meddling with the non-intereference clause be a calamity for America' seniors?
Why is the VA model really a health care quagmire?
Why is "government negotiations" only a code phrase for "price controls?"
Why do "price controls" = "choice controls?"
What do America's seniors know that Congress has yet to learn?
Good questions! Crucial questions. Questions that deserve accurate answers based on facts rather than rhetoric.
And here they are -- brought to you by many of our nation's top health care thinkers. Just click on the link below -- and pass it on!
Download file
If Speaker Pelosi wants to talk about health care, then it's time to inject some truth serum into the first 100 hours.
Why is the VA model really a health care quagmire?
Why is "government negotiations" only a code phrase for "price controls?"
Why do "price controls" = "choice controls?"
What do America's seniors know that Congress has yet to learn?
Good questions! Crucial questions. Questions that deserve accurate answers based on facts rather than rhetoric.
And here they are -- brought to you by many of our nation's top health care thinkers. Just click on the link below -- and pass it on!
Download file
If Speaker Pelosi wants to talk about health care, then it's time to inject some truth serum into the first 100 hours.
Drugwonks is all in favor of expanding health care coverage by giving people money to choose among competing plans (would it be that the competition was national but that's for another time). The Massachusetts approach makes sense in this respect. Unfortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to cover California's uninsured by dumping them into Medicaid will be a disaster. We already have a recipe for failure: it's the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP. Only 50 percent of all kids are enrolled in that program nationwide and have been since it's inception since 1997. One reason: most parents think of it as welfare. Also, lots of good docs have left the program, particularly in California where reimbursement rates are pathetically low.
Why didn't the governor take a more market driven approach that treats the uninsured like consumers instead of welfare recipients.
Arnold should send his Medicaid plan back for a rewrite.
Why didn't the governor take a more market driven approach that treats the uninsured like consumers instead of welfare recipients.
Arnold should send his Medicaid plan back for a rewrite.
Two more pieces of good news about how markets and competition that will no doubt disappoint Democrats and those who would rather see drug companies die than see more people live from their increased investments...
Articles in the Health Affairs that came in the mail today show that rate of increase in drug spending declined faster than it has in over a decade from 2004-5. Meanwhile healthcare spending in the US essentially remained the same. (All this is happening by that way even as the number of people using meds and the number of prescriptions increases..) Other articles showed that increased spending on medicines for hypertension contributed to a decline in deaths and spending on more costly medical services. Moreover, the studies found that if more people had actually taken the medicines prescribed the cost offset and benefits would have been even greater.
Now what does that tell us class?
First, that from 2004-5 even as seniors began to increase the number of prescriptions they took with the help of prescription drug card, the rate of increase declined. That's because more people took generics and price competition kept prices down. Also, new formulations were more cost effective.
Second, increased drug utilization is associated with a decline in health care spending. As the studies on medicines and cardiovascular disease shows -- studies conducted by Harvard's David Cutler and associates -- drugs that control the progress of chronic illness also control the rate of health care spending. The more they are used, the more they do so
Third, the earlier and more frequently we treat disease with medicine the more likely we prevent disease and control its cost as well as improve life. Therefore drugs are undervalued.
And that class, is the problem. The Left truly hates the drug companies and therefore seeks to devalue its products at every turn. Either they claim they are me-too pieces of crap, poisonous pills that they payoff the FDA to market, or way to expensive cancer drugs that marginally increase survival. They can't think of one drug that truly makes a difference.
The latest research shows, yet again, they are wrong. And they are venal.
Articles in the Health Affairs that came in the mail today show that rate of increase in drug spending declined faster than it has in over a decade from 2004-5. Meanwhile healthcare spending in the US essentially remained the same. (All this is happening by that way even as the number of people using meds and the number of prescriptions increases..) Other articles showed that increased spending on medicines for hypertension contributed to a decline in deaths and spending on more costly medical services. Moreover, the studies found that if more people had actually taken the medicines prescribed the cost offset and benefits would have been even greater.
Now what does that tell us class?
First, that from 2004-5 even as seniors began to increase the number of prescriptions they took with the help of prescription drug card, the rate of increase declined. That's because more people took generics and price competition kept prices down. Also, new formulations were more cost effective.
Second, increased drug utilization is associated with a decline in health care spending. As the studies on medicines and cardiovascular disease shows -- studies conducted by Harvard's David Cutler and associates -- drugs that control the progress of chronic illness also control the rate of health care spending. The more they are used, the more they do so
Third, the earlier and more frequently we treat disease with medicine the more likely we prevent disease and control its cost as well as improve life. Therefore drugs are undervalued.
And that class, is the problem. The Left truly hates the drug companies and therefore seeks to devalue its products at every turn. Either they claim they are me-too pieces of crap, poisonous pills that they payoff the FDA to market, or way to expensive cancer drugs that marginally increase survival. They can't think of one drug that truly makes a difference.
The latest research shows, yet again, they are wrong. And they are venal.
Poor Democrats. They listened to and believed the Families USA half truths about the VA not being price controls and being such an easy to use formulary and saving gazillions. That's what they get for actually buying into those comic books that FUSA passes off as scholarly research.
And now they are trapped like rats, hoisted on their own price control petard. They can't use the VA model because it will allow the GOP to paint them as Dr. Kervorkian. Those there are still some Kool-aid drinkers among them like AARP's David Certner who claims that all the government needs to do is impose co-pays on drugs that don't meet government low, low prices. So I get it David, make seniors pay more out of pocket for drugs they need, make them beg and crawl and fail first for those off-formulary drugs so they wind up paying twice? Are you sure you work for a group that defends the interests of seniors or has the Kool-aid turned you into Dawn of the Dead Democratic Part D defender, devouring the interests of seniors to keep alive their price control scheme at all costs.
What's next: claiming that the Cipro bulk purchase under threat of patent seizure is the model for Medicare drug negotiations?
And now they are trapped like rats, hoisted on their own price control petard. They can't use the VA model because it will allow the GOP to paint them as Dr. Kervorkian. Those there are still some Kool-aid drinkers among them like AARP's David Certner who claims that all the government needs to do is impose co-pays on drugs that don't meet government low, low prices. So I get it David, make seniors pay more out of pocket for drugs they need, make them beg and crawl and fail first for those off-formulary drugs so they wind up paying twice? Are you sure you work for a group that defends the interests of seniors or has the Kool-aid turned you into Dawn of the Dead Democratic Part D defender, devouring the interests of seniors to keep alive their price control scheme at all costs.
What's next: claiming that the Cipro bulk purchase under threat of patent seizure is the model for Medicare drug negotiations?
The New York Times editorial page is certainly entitled to its opinion. But it shouldn't be entitled to excessive hyperbole. (Please note that by "excessive hyperbole," I don't exactly mean "lying" so much as "not telling the whole truth.")
Specifically I refer to their editorial today, "Safe as Milk?" which decries the FDA's assessment that food (especially milk) from cloned animals is safe to eat.
The Gray Lady thinks that's a bad idea. That's their priviledge. It's a contentious topic. What's not appropriate is when they twist the facts to make their point. I take particular umbrage at the Times' statement that the FDA decision was "hurried along in a way that is more sensitive to political and economic pressure than to the long-term welfare of animals, humans and the world they inhabit."
Not so. And I speak from personal, first-hand knowledge. The agency has been studying this issue in great detail for a very long period of time. In fact, many of the world's leading experts on this issue work at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. During my tenure at the FDA (which ended in 2004), this issue was already being deeply investigated and intensely debated. So, when the New York Times deigns to say that the agency's decision was "hurried along" without either due regulatory process or focus on science, I say, where's the beef?
Specifically I refer to their editorial today, "Safe as Milk?" which decries the FDA's assessment that food (especially milk) from cloned animals is safe to eat.
The Gray Lady thinks that's a bad idea. That's their priviledge. It's a contentious topic. What's not appropriate is when they twist the facts to make their point. I take particular umbrage at the Times' statement that the FDA decision was "hurried along in a way that is more sensitive to political and economic pressure than to the long-term welfare of animals, humans and the world they inhabit."
Not so. And I speak from personal, first-hand knowledge. The agency has been studying this issue in great detail for a very long period of time. In fact, many of the world's leading experts on this issue work at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. During my tenure at the FDA (which ended in 2004), this issue was already being deeply investigated and intensely debated. So, when the New York Times deigns to say that the agency's decision was "hurried along" without either due regulatory process or focus on science, I say, where's the beef?
Thought you'd enjoy this profile of DrugWonks from the January edition of Pharmaceutical Executive.
Here's the link:
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=395590&ref=25
Preaching to the choir? Perhaps. But right now that's more crucial than ever since "the choir" isn't singing from the same hymnal.
Here's the link:
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=395590&ref=25
Preaching to the choir? Perhaps. But right now that's more crucial than ever since "the choir" isn't singing from the same hymnal.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
