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.
CMPI Interviews Gov. Pataki
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn
Drugwonks
Drugwonks.com is the web log of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI), a forum offering rigorous and compelling research on the most critical issues affecting current drug policy.
Read CMPI Press Release: Survey of Police and Teachers:
Alcohol and Marijuana Most Serious Substance Abuse Facing Teens Upcoming FDA Hearing on Abuse of Cough and Cold Medications Misses the Mark
IQWiG presents a method for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit
Method guarantees medically necessary services to all patients and can slow down costs
After nearly two years of development and extensive discussion in the scientific community, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) presents its methods for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit. The Institute can now apply these methods when working on certain commissions awarded by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The method developed by IQWiG is suitable for passing on recommendations to the GKV-Spitzenverband [National Association of Health Insurance Funds] for establishing maximum reimbursable prices. Moreover, in line with legislation, it ensures that medically necessary interventions will not be withheld from patients for financial reasons.
As the Institute's director, Peter Sawicki, explains, "The 'analysis of the efficiency frontier' is the most suitable method for the German system. During the various submission of comments procedures, no participants came up with a better alternative proposal. Contrary to what some critics maintain, we are not following a different course to other countries. While our procedure is quite different to that in the UK, there are a lot of similarities with Australia."
The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) has officially launched its “second call” for proposals. The public-private partnership between the European Commission (EC) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) is inviting research consortia to submit proposals for nine scientific topics.
Similar to the FDA’s Critical Path program, the aim of the IMI is to speed up the discovery and development of new medicines for diseases such as cancer and inflammatory and infectious diseases. IMI will also fund projects to improve data exchange between industry and the scientific community, an important aspect of knowledge management.
Out of the nine second call topics, three are related to improving knowledge management which is key to future progress in the development of efficient medicines. They notably aim to improve data standards for the industry, academia and regulatory authorities to better evaluate efficacy and safety of new medicines. They also seek to allow easier sharing of information that will accelerate drug development.
The six other topics aim at working on the efficacy of drugs against cancer, inflammatory and infectious diseases. For example, one topic focuses on understanding the composition of cancer tumors and their response to treatment. Another aims to speed up the development of better, cheaper and quicker diagnostics for infectious diseases.
The European Commission's contribution to this second call will be €76.8 million is expected to be at least matched by in-kind contributions from the member companies of EFPIA.
The FDA’s Critical Path program was given only $6 million by Congress. Is the future of drug development really more than 10X more important in Europe?
Good article in the FT by the away-meticulous Andrew Jack. His focus is on the impending patent expiry of Lipitor. But read between the lines. It’s really about how Big Pharma is going to survive and thrive in the post-blockbuster era.
Jack writes:
Jeffrey Kindler, CEO of Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor: “When such a thing goes off-patent, obviously it’s a very significant event ... Our job is to prepare the company for that”
But the monopoly rights that made Lipitor so lucrative are now set to disappear. Once its patents expire in 2011, generic drug manufacturers will be able to sell it far more cheaply. That is good for patients, but bad for Pfizer as it struggles to maintain its pre-eminent industry ranking. It is also a sobering moment for the entire pharmaceutical industry: many believe that the circumstances that gave rise to Lipitor’s extraordinary success may never occur again.
However the Senate's health-care debate pans out, we'll wager this prediction: The pharmaceutical executives who have endorsed this exercise will eventually be exposed as among the most shortsighted CEOs in the history of capitalism.
In June, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America sealed a deal with the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promising to contribute $80 billion in lower drug costs over the next decade to ObamaCare, plus a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign. In return they were to be spared from price controls and the reimportation of cheaper foreign drugs.
The loophole is that the deal didn't include the House, and now it may fall apart in the Senate. But even if it does somehow survive, by now it is obvious that the industry's political protection will last only as long as it takes to pass a bill, whereupon the same politicians who are trying to override this deal will get back to work.
"You've heard that as a consequence of our efforts at reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they're willing to put $80 billion on the table," President Obama said in July. "We might be able to get $100 billion out or more."
Led by Henry Waxman, the House saw that and raised: The bill that passed earlier this month extracts as much as $150 billion from the industry, including demands for a 23.1% "discount" when Medicare buys prescription drugs for some seniors (much like Medicaid imposes now) and gives the government the power to "negotiate" lower prices for everyone.
The pharma lobby was unfazed. "Despite the shortcomings in the House legislation, we remain completely committed to helping the President and Congress pass comprehensive health care reform this year," a senior vice president said in a statement. "This is a three-act play and a good critic doesn't write a review after the opening scenes."
But now the curtain is coming down. The Senate bill is only going to grow more expensive on the floor. Given that Harry Reid is even relying on a 5% "botax" on cosmetic surgery, the drug makers will become ever more appealing targets as the search for revenue to make ObamaCare appear to be deficit neutral grows more desperate.
Meanwhile, the AARP and its media stenographers are levelling allegations that drug makers are already jacking up prices for brand-name prescriptions. John McCain and Olympia Snowe are cosponsoring a bill with Byron Dorgan that would allow pharmacies and wholesalers to import medications from Canada and Europe.
So how has the industry responded? More or less as Lenin predicted. Big Pharma is now running ads against Joe Lieberman, saying his threat to torpedo the Senate bill could cause drug prices to rise by 20%. It is also funding a campaign that targets the fence-sitters Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln.
In other words, the industry is trashing the very Senators who stand the best chance to rescue it from government control. Instead, the drug CEOs are making themselves complicit with the Washington mentality of seeing only the costs of medications, not benefits like longer lives or fewer hospitalizations. They are ensuring that they will always be a political target and making the extortion easier in the bargain.
The shame is that there be will fewer resources for the research and development that drives innovation, particularly for the smaller biotech companies that are the future of cutting-edge medicine. When it takes about a decade and a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market, a CEO of a smaller drug company told us recently, most firms are "living on the edge of extinction."
But it is the biggest players who are engaged in political gamesmanship. At a speech in February at the Economic Club of Chicago, Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler laid out what he called his company's "new approach to legislation and public policy." Rehearsing the health industry's role in stopping HillaryCare in 1994, he announced that the difference this time is that pharma will be "actively supporting appropriate reforms, rather than simply trying to stop things we don't agree with."
Mr. Kindler, a lawyer and former McDonald's executive, went on to endorse even such political inspirations as comparative effectiveness research, which while fine in theory will inevitably be used to "prove" that more expensive medications aren't worth the costs to government when ObamaCare's spending detonates. In England, these kinds of studies were used to try to ban Pfizer's Stutent, a treatment for kidney cancer. The Senate bill contains a Medicare commission with a mandate to go after drugs, though only about 10 cents of every U.S. health dollar goes toward prescriptions.
The irony is that if business began to educate the public about what the current bills will mean for U.S. health care, it might be able to defeat them and force a more modest, sensible reform. National Journal's composite of all health polling finds that 50.9% of the public now opposes health reform in general, up from about 15% in February. Only 43.9% are in favor. The most recent polls put support even lower: Just 35% from Quinnipiac, 38% from Rasmussen.
A Washington Post-ABC poll found that 52% of the public believes ObamaCare will increase their personal health costs and that 37% expect their quality of care will deteriorate. They're right. A survey of registered voters by Public Opinion Strategies found that the more people hear about the plan, the less they like it, and that voter hostility is higher now than it ever was for HillaryCare.
Yet now this son of HillaryCare is headed toward passage, and when shareholders start griping about lousy returns, Mr. Kindler and his fellow executives will be long gone. It's one more reminder that when it comes to protecting economic freedom, you can never trust big business. The biggest losers will be patients, who lack the millions to lobby Congress and in the future will have fewer innovative medicines.
US, 26 Nov 2009 - The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in capable new hands. Its commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, a Harvard-trained physician six months into her tenure, brings to the job both a broad experience in science, public health and biosecurity (see page 406) and an ability to handle multiple, simultaneous demands — a skill she displayed as New York City's youngest health commissioner.
For all her abilities, however, Hamburg is struggling to steer an underpowered ship that is loaded to the gunwales. The 103-year-old agency, based in Silver Spring, Maryland, has never before had so many demands placed on it, nor has its budget ever been so constrained relative to its duties. Between 2001 and 2007, for example, the number of US food-manufacturing plants under the FDA's jurisdiction increased from about 51,000 to more than 65,000, yet the number of staff in its foods programme fell from 3,167 to 2,757. At current inspection rates, any given domestic food company faces a less than one-in-four chance of being inspected once in seven years. And that looks frequent compared with the agency's estimated average inspection rate for foreign manufacturers of medium-risk medical devices: once every 27 years.
It is true that the FDA's funding has been boosted since 1993 by user fees paid by drug- and device-makers. In 2009, such fees amounted to nearly 23% of the agency's $2.7-billion budget. But this influx has, paradoxically, taken the pressure off Congress to fund the many mandates it continues to heap on the agency. For instance, the FDA is expected to monitor the accuracy of direct-to-consumer advertisements by drug companies, and the promotional materials they send to physicians. But in 2008, Congress gave enough money to fund only 55 staff for this job. With some 71,000 industry submissions in 2008, those employees can cope with only a small fraction. Similarly, because drug and device fees are dedicated largely to funding reviews for market approval, other functions at the agency, most notably food safety, have received short shrift.
Calls for more cash inevitably raise red flags in this era of ballooning deficits, but the imbalance between the FDA's means and its responsibilities makes the need inescapable. A bipartisan group including six former FDA commissioners and three former heads of the agency's parent department, the Department of Health and Human Services, has publicly urged Congress to boost the agency's appropriations. So have almost all FDA-regulated industries, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Medical Device Manufacturers Association and most major drug companies, as well as dozens of patient groups.
How much extra money is enough? The FDA's science board was asked the same question by Congress in late 2007 after the board issued a scathing report on the agency's eroding scientific capabilities (see Nature 450, 1143; 2007). To set things right, the board concluded last year, Congress would need to add $450 million to the agency's budget in 2010, and $460 million each year between 2011 and 2013.
The administration of President Barack Obama has asked Congress for a further $295 million for the agency in 2010, which would bring its congressional appropriations to $2.3 billion — less than what is needed, according to the science board's estimates, but "a good start", as Hamburg told Nature earlier this month. Congress should provide at least that much, and make plans to boost that figure in subsequent years.
Historically, it has taken crises to goad legislators into giving the FDA the money and muscle it needs — a notable example being the poisonous cough syrup that killed more than 100 people in 1937, and led to the 1938 enactment of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which still forms the basis of the FDA's authority. Congress shouldn't wait for the next crisis.
According to a technical amendment to FDA’s final rule for internal analgesics, acetaminophen products sold in stick packs and sachets must carry warnings about the risk of liver injury by April 29, 2010,.
Warnings on immediate containers such as sachets and stick packs are important because "consumers may routinely remove these packages from the outer carton and, therefore, fail to see the liver injury and stomach bleeding warning if they are only printed on the carton," FDA says in the technical amendment.
By requiring the stick pack/sachet warning, FDA refuses a request from manufacturers.
FDA acknowledged requests that the agency should exempt certain immediate containers from the labeling requirement because of limited space, but disagrees, saying stick packs and sachets have "adequate space to accommodate the required warnings."
Finally, FDA clarifies products with acetaminophen introduced within a year before the final rule's effective date - April 29, 2010 - must include a "see new warnings" flag for at least one year from the launch date.
Products launched after the effective date do not need the new warnings flag.
FDA maintains the rule will not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number" of businesses.
According to the Tan Sheet, “Acetaminophen marketers could face more burdensome restrictions down the road, including removing certain doses from the market, if FDA follows the advice of an advisory panel convened in April to discuss ways to reduce the risk of hepatotoxicity related to the ingredient.”
Tough luck, says a front-page commentary in BioCentury. Tough luck getting cutting-edge treatment if you don’t have “the power.”
BioCentury writes:
“In healthcare as in all else, the ability to make important decisions — especially about other people — is at its heart all about power: who has it, how those who have it use it to shape their vision of society, and the effect of those actions on individuals.”
Case-in-point – what happens when the whole becomes more important than the parts therein?
“Two clinical practice recommendations last week — one in the U.K. and one in the U.S. — illustrate the worst of what centralized healthcare can be. Both are based on a vision of society — explicit in the U.K. but still implicit in the U.S. healthcare debate — in which the whole trumps the individual. And both would condemn thousands of patients to death on the grounds that saving their lives is not worth the cost to society as a whole.”
It’s what happens when cost trumps care.
“This kind of gap between benefit to the individual and cost to society will only get worse as more power is centralized in the hands of one or a few payers, and as taxpayer subsidies enable patients to contribute even less to the direct cost of their own care.”
Except, that is, if you’ve got “the power,” a voice, clout.
On Thursday, Senator Barbara Mikulski announced she would introduce an amendment to the Senate healthcare reform bill that “would guarantee women access to mammograms beginning at age 40, and prevent insurance companies from making them unaffordable.”
So much for unbiased, non-political, science-based decisions. It’s about power not about patients.
“Fighting for such patchwork fixes is already the norm in the U.K. and likely to become so in the U.S.: government reviewers will recommend for or against medical interventions based on the cost-benefit to society as a whole, patients and doctors will object, and if their political clout is sufficient, a fix will be made.”
And, the BioCentury commentary concludes:
“Avoiding this quagmire can only be done by going back to the original question — who has power and how is it used — and shifting the answer from government-backed bodies to the patient.”
The complete BioCentury commentary can be found here.
“Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire is that which he exercises over himself.”
While Senator Harry Reid’s health care bill cleared an initial hurdle over the weekend with the vote to proceed with debate, there is a tough road ahead – and a great deal of compromise needed for passage of a final bill.
The thought of more compromise apparently causes Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) profound dismay.
The New York Post reports on Senator Brown’s response to the positions taken by moderate Democratic senators:
All the complaining by centrists prompted Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), one of the Senate's more liberal members, to vent: "I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country -- when the public option has this much support -- that [a public option is] not going to be in it."
But he predicted the quartet of vocal critics would fall in line. "I don't think they want to be on the wrong side of history," he said.
Talk about a totally shameless display of arrogance.
Who is Senator Sherrod Brown to presume he speaks for the future?
Guess what, Senator? Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln represent the citizens of their respective states.
More to the point, their positions are in line with American public opinion.
Rasmussen Reports shows that “just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.”
We have a representative democracy and that is how the system operates. If Senator Brown is unable to persuade several moderate Senators of his own party to go along with a certain piece of legislation, then perhaps a little moderation and compromise is in order.
Besides, the federal government seizing control of 1/6 of the US economy should never be easy.
If Senator Brown wants to cut billions from Medicare, impose onerous financial mandates on young Americans, significantly increase the national debt, and relegate all Americans to a lower-quality medical system, then let him say so.
And let history judge him.
Meanwhile, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) made this statement on the House floor prior to the passage of Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill.
Watch it. Then ask yourself whose vision of the future is more appealing to you – Senator Brown’s or Rep. Paul Ryan’s.
When Mike Deats talks, people listen – and they should.
Deats (the well-respected head of enforcement at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom) says, “People can be reassured that it is extremely rare to receive counterfeit medicines from either a registered UK pharmacy or from any other legitimate outlet.”
And he’s right. But that doesn’t mean that counterfeit medicines isn’t an important health issue – it is. And the time to deal with it is now – before it becomes a more significant problem, as it already is much of the developing world. There's a lot of money to be made and the penalties for selling counterfeit medicines are small. It's a serious problem that needs to be seriously addressed.
As the Financial Times reports, “While seizures of counterfeit drugs by European customs agents have risen significantly in recent years, the proportion of fake prescription medicines sold through pharmacies and other regulated networks remains modest.” But there’s a lot of money to be made by criminals selling counterfeits over the Internet – and there have been more than a few cases of fakes entering the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain in the United Kingdom.
And, it's important to note, that many Canadian Internet pharmaceies source their goods from British pharmaceies -- 20% of whose product comes from other "lower cost" parts of Europe.
On a similar note, Mickey Arieli, director of the Israeli Health Ministry's Pharmaceutical Crime Unit, says that “Israelis and former Israelis are behind many of the world's Internet sites that sell counterfeit or other illegal drugs involved in pharmaceutical crimes, providing useless or dangerous products to people who think they are getting the real thing.”
According to Arieli, prescription drugs meant to treat serious diseases like cancer, malaria or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder were reaching the public, especially via illegal Internet sales.
Most counterfeit drugs, said Arieli, are manufactured in China, but Arieli points to illegal Web sites operated by Israelis or former Israeli residents that expedite the transfer and payment for them.
The time to address counterfeit medicines is now -- before it becomes a public health crisis as it already is in much of the developing world. The profits are high and the criminal penalties are low. And, unless we address the issue -- the problem is only going to get worse.
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor – Fri Nov 20, 12:36 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – As U.S. health officials struggle to vaccinate tens of millions of Americans against the pandemic of swine flu, some are looking regretfully at one easy way to instantly double or triple the number of doses available -- by using an immune booster called an adjuvant.
These additives, often as simple as an oil and water mixture, broaden the body's response to a vaccine, reducing the amount of active ingredient called antigen needed.
They are widely used in European flu vaccines as well as in Canada. But not in the United States -- even though the federal government has spent nearly $700 million buying them.
The reason -- people might not trust them.
"If we really do want pregnant women to trust this vaccine or even parents, we have to think about what is acceptable to them," Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an interview.
"We have so much vaccine hesitancy in this country," agreed Jeff Levi of the non-profit Trust For America's Health. "To add ... a new element could well have undermined the efficacy of this campaign," Levi told a hearing this week before a Congressional subcommittee.
This frustrates the World Health Organization, which says the global capacity to make influenza vaccines is about 3 billion doses a year -- not enough to cover the population of 6.8 billion people. WHO has hoped rich countries would donate leftover H1N1 vaccine to others.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department was ready to try adjuvants had the pandemic been worse. H1N1 swine flu has infected an estimated 22 million Americans and killed 3,900, but it so far does not appear to be any deadlier than seasonal influenza.
The worry is that it is affecting younger adults and children instead of the elderly usually targeted by flu, and has the potential to mutate into something more deadly.
"If things had been worse and this would have been a more severe pandemic, we may well have needed to go that way anyway," Levi said.
TRIED AND TRUE
Instead, the United States has stuck with what CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden has repeatedly called the "tried and true" approach -- the same formulation used in seasonal flu vaccines. Five companies have contracts -- Sanofi-Aventis, CSL, Novartis, AstraZeneca unit MedImmune and GlaxoSmithKline.
Polls show that only about half of Americans plan to be vaccinated against H1N1. Of those who do not, about half say they worry about safety.
Even so, long lines have formed as people try to get the 50 million or so swine flu doses that have rolled out of factories. Drug companies have struggled with an unpredictable virus that does not grow well in eggs, as well as changes to U.S. orders that slowed down packaging.
Studies suggest the supply that is out now could have been tripled.
In September, GlaxoSmithKline found a single shot of its H1N1 vaccine protected 98 percent of volunteers, using an adjuvant and just 5.25 micrograms of antigen. A standard dose without adjuvant takes 15 micrograms of antigen.
Vaccine makers urged Congress this week to help federal agencies find ways to approve the use of adjuvants, and to assure skeptical Americans about their safety.
Dr. Vas Narasimhan, president of Novartis Vaccines USA, noted adjuvants had been licensed for use in Europe for 10 years and tested in 200,000 people.
"Adjuvanted vaccines produce higher immune response than unadjuvanted vaccines particularly in the elderly and young children," Narasimhan told a hearing this week.
He said they may protect better than standard vaccines against viruses that have drifted a little -- the single biggest reason that flu vaccines must be re-formulated every year.
They may also eventually help require less vaccination. "Adjuvanted vaccines have been shown to more broadly prime patients' immune response (up to seven years later), requiring fewer vaccinations to the newly circulating strain," he said.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is intrigued. Last month it awarded $60 million to researchers and companies to develop new adjuvants.
Relative to a social media and the angst-ridden issue of adverse event reporting, here's an idea -- what about an FDA an FDA Facebook page that people can "friend" and through which the FDA can push out information about early safety communications, important safety alerts -- and how to report "official" 4-part adverse events
For more on making MedWatch a better and more user-friendly tool, watch this space.
Nothing good. (She is a visiting scholar at the National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics)
First, she is peddling the questionable claim that up to 30 percent of medical care in the US is unnecessary based on a misreading of the Dartmouth Atlas which is already coming under fierce critcism.
Second, she is questioning the efficacy of all flu vaccines.
And now it seems she is using her perch as a visiting scholar to coordinate the writing of a letter to NIH Director Collins by 100 so-called scientists and experts demanding that the NIH study the impact of conflicts of interests on medical research, etc.
And it appears that most of the signatories to the letter are drawn from a list of people that Brownlee and her anti-science collaborator and serial retractor Jeanne Lenzer put together a year ago that they deemed free of pharma influence. Pharma influence perhaps, but not free of trial attorney association or affiliation with Socialist organizations that regard profit of any sort in healthcare immoral. Those too are conflicts or biases -- along with a willingness to abuse one's government position to aid and abet a narrow political agenda -- but those are not to be the subject of any NIH study suggested by the letter writers. Perfectly fine to be free of pharma support... the question is, are they free of conflicts now that they are are petitioning the NIH where the woman who helped organize and coronate them as unconflicted now resides as a visiting ethicist? I guess anything is permissible as long as no money from drug companies is involved. So goes the new morality...
You can compare the signatories to the holier than thou missive and Shannon's circle of purity here..
Someone ought to investigate Brownlee's role in soliciting the letter, whether she used her time or position at NIH to coordinate the effort. Also, it would be interesting to note if merely writing opinion pieces is what her job entails and whether it is an appropriate use of tax dollars to subsidize an activity that could otherwise be performed in the private sector.
NEW YORK — The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it issued 22 warning letters to Web site operators over alleged illegal sales of unapproved or misbranded drugs.
The agency said the move caps a weeklong international effort aimed at curbing illegal actions regarding medical products, including sales. In all, the FDA and its partners in the program targeted 136 Web sites that appeared to be illegally selling medical products.
None of the Web sites were for pharmacies in the U.S. or Canada, the agency said.
As I note in my article in the American Spectator today, (spectator.org/archives/2009/11/18/breast-cancer-follies) the US Preventive Services Task Force www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm (bet you didn't know it was effectively a mouthpiece for AHRQ comparative effectiveness research and -- based on AHRQ research -- the final word on what and will be covered under all health care reform bills) has pulled the plug not only on the most reliable tool for breast cancer screening thus far, but also what is becoming an important test for determining whether women are at risk for heart disease.
The rationale given in both cases: What we know about the limits and net benefit of screening for everybody is precise - based on a review of studies that we decided are good enough to review -- and that we don't know enough about new tests and tools to use them.
The result? Less screening now and delayed use of newer tools based on scientific advances for years to come.
Follow the logic of the Task Force members:
"Dr. Kerlikowske counters that the new USPTF guidelines are based on a far more detailed and rigorous analysis of the mammography data than has ever been done before. (The USPSTF reviews its guidelines every five years.) "There is new evidence to precisely quantify benefits by age. It didn't exist before," says USPSTF's Diana Petitti. "Those lines of evidence came together to a conclusion that the net benefit of starting earlier rather than later was small."
Precisely quantify benefit? Are we to presume that the benefit is exactly the same for all women without family history of breast cancer? What about those who have not been screened for genetic inclination? And what is net benefit? Sort sounds like a collective benefit to me. Meanwhile, what started all this is the untested assumption that too much screening leads to too much treatment. Is that true? Where is the precision for that number?
The decision to ditch the use of CRP to predict heart disease risk in women of the same ilk. The concern is not public health, but what such tests do to generate "too much" treatment. And again the evidentiary standard is one that ignores the very individual or subpopulation differences necessary to real precision in order to obtain a "net benefit" for a health system. The willful disregard of the JUPITER data as it pertains to women is shocking. Setting aside the real benefits of treating women with high CRP levels with statins in the trial, the study demonstrates that testing for CRP is an important predictor of and precondition to reducing death from heart disease.
At the very least, the Task Force decisions should factor in the impact on compliance. Ironically, the administration had no problem yanking adjuvant out of H1N1 vaccines to appease Mercury moms and others for whom believing vaccines poison children is a new religion. Or as an administration official said in a recent hearing explaining the mounting delays in vaccine availability, which in turn has lead to doubts, cynicism and apathy about immunization:
If adjuvants were added to the vaccine supply, many of the unadjuvanted doses would need to be taken out of the supply she said.
Also, public confidence in vaccines, in particular vaccines with adjuvant is low, she said. "And we didn't really want to rock the public confidence in a new vaccine with adjuvant."
Caving in to unfounded fears is justified to promote public confidence. But what about caving in to cost control concerns and claiming you relied on the best evidence available? Both approaches are driven by politics, not by medical science.
“The new recommendations took on added significance because under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.”
The American Cancer Society, which endorsed the recent health care bill that passed the House of Representatives, publicly condemned the new guidelines.
LIVESTRONG CEO Doug Ulman also joined in the criticism:
“Since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued these reversals, LIVESTRONG and our partners at the American Cancer Society have heard from legions of women under 50 who are breast cancer survivors and many more whose lives were saved as a result of a routine self-exam. The work that has saved their lives must be sustained, not discarded.”
There is arguably a great deal of waste in our health care system. But to focus cost concerns on one of the most positive aspects of our system (cancer screening and cancer treatment) simply defies all common sense.
Indeed, First Lady Michelle Obama praised US superiority in this area of medicine just last month at a White House Breast Cancer Awareness event:
“And today, because of that work, the number of women getting regular mammograms has dramatically increased, and the five-year survival rate when breast cancer is diagnosed in time is 98 percent -- and that's compared to 74 percent in the early 80s.
“And today, we spend $900 million on breast cancer research, which is 30 times more than what we spent in 1982. So we have come a long way.”
And, just maybe, more government control of the health care sector is not the answer.
According to this June 2009 study by the Employment Policies Institute, both insured and uninsured American women fare substantially better than their Canadian counterparts (who we are told enjoy universal coverage) in the area of cancer screening:
“When it comes to cancer screening, 80 percent of insured women (in the USA) ages 40-64 had a mammogram within two years of the interview; and 87 percent when the period of receipt is extended to 5 years. That compares to 49 percent of uninsured women who had a mammogram within two years and 65 percent when the period is within 5 years. However, those screening rates are relatively high even for uninsured women when compared with screening rates in Canada, a country with universal health coverage. The Canadian health survey reports that 65 percent of Canadian women ages 40-69 had a mammogram within the past 5 years, the same percentage as uninsured women in the U.S. When it comes to Pap Smears, Canadian women also have about the same rate of screening over the past five years as uninsured women in the U.S. (80 percent), although those rates are below those of insured American women, among whom 92 percent were screened. Among U.S. men ages 40-64, 52 percent of those with insurance were screened for prostate cancer with a PSA test within the past 5 years, compared to 31 percent for men who are uninsured. (In Canada, the comparable percent is 16 percent.)”
The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle writes the following:
“Substantial savings might be generated with a version of Britain's NICE, which could use CER to set global policies on coverage. But merely making the information available has virtually no effect. If we can't expect heartless private insurers to deploy CER in the name of cost control, how can we hope that our government will do so in the face of the inevitable backlash from angry voters who swear that their toe surgery changed their life?”
Her sarcasm not withstanding, McArdle makes an excellent point.
While most insurance companies would enthusiastically welcome comparative effectiveness guidelines put forth by the federal government, insurers have been reluctant to exercise measures of cost control of that type because they are responding to the wishes of their customer base.
In other words, no single insurer is willing to take these steps and engender an exodus of clients to a competitor. And, ironically, those on the political Left who support a government takeover of health care make two common contradictory arguments: People with insurance are under-insured and private insurers are mainly responsible for the high cost of health care in this country.
As most people know by now, Medicare ranked # 1 in 2008 on the list of insurers with the most claim denials. For all we know, the majority of those claims were legitimate and denied solely for cost-control reasons.
Even so, Medicare still wastes $60 billion a year on account of fraud. Jeffrey Anderson of The Weekly Standard determined that amountfar exceedsthe ill-gotten 2008 profits of the ten largest insurance companies in the country.
So who really deserves blame for the high cost of health care in this country? It would seem the usual suspects object to insurers not exercising more cost control (increased claim denials) while simultaneously using the popular argument that people are under-insured by those avaricious insurance companies.
Confused? Don’t be surprised. This entire national debate on health care is chock-full of contradictory arguments emanating from the Big Government crowd.
The bad news is it appears this debate will continue for at least a couple more months. Hang in there.
The NY Times saw fit to print that Rx sticker prices are rising on the front page of it's shrinking and increasingly expensive paper (didn't the times just raise it's price?)
When Rebbie Lewis McGowen decided to replace her 2000 Dodge Stratus sedan with a new loaded-out Jeep Grand Cherokee, she was amazed that her favorite dealer agreed to a price that was about the same as she paid for a similar Jeep nine years earlier.
“That’s why I jumped on it the first day I saw it,” said McGowen, 61, who got the silver sport utility vehicle from River Oaks Chrysler Jeep in Houston for about $34,000, $7,000 less than the sticker price.
Like many U.S. buyers, she took advantage of a depressed auto industry, one that in recent years has had too many factories churning out too many cars and trucks for too few buyers, forcing big discounts. Although sticker prices have risen, actual sales prices aren’t a whole lot different than they were nine years ago.
So far this year, average sale prices actually have dropped by about $800 to $25,586, according to J.D. Power and Associates.
But industry analysts don’t expect that trend to continue much longer. General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC came out of bankruptcy protection with far fewer factories, and Ford Motor Co. for the past few years has been closing plants to align its output with demand.
Analysts say that with the industry’s massive restructuring, the big discounts that American consumers have gotten used to could go away as auto sales recover from the worst slump in more than a quarter-century.
“I just think it happened to be this point in time that I was able to make such a deal,” McGowen said. “Next year, when the 2010s come out, it’s not going to be the same situation.”
Growth in rebates, low-interest loans and other incentives may be starting to slow, reports the Edmunds.com automotive Web site. Across the industry, the average incentive per vehicle dropped from $2,869 in June to $2,735 in July.
But that could be an anomaly driven by increased demand from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, which likely will expire in September. July’s figure is still $90 higher than the same month last year, according to Edmunds.
In addition to the restructuring, all of the Detroit Three are trying to develop better cars, ones that are so stylish, efficient, safe and reliable that people will pay more for them, similar to what Toyota Motor Co. and Honda have already accomplished in the U.S. market.
At Ford, the only one of the Detroit Three to evade bankruptcy court, getting more money per car is part of a strategy to return to profitability, Chief Financial Officer Lewis Booth said recently.
“We’ve all got to learn to flex the revenue muscle,” said Booth, who adds that Ford’s actual sale prices are up this year, even in a down market. “It’s driven by our new products, and that’s why were getting improved transaction prices. We’re getting a mixture of reduced incentives and higher value from the customer. We’re selling more higher-service cars, more options, and all of those are good for profits and revenue.”
Now that people are demanding we reimport drugs to reduce prices, why don't they be consistent and demand importation of cheap cars from China and India...?
According to Evan Tracey (Campaign Media Analysis Group, a group that tracks political advertising), those opposed to the healthcare bill passed by the House (led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce)have spent $24 million on TV commercials over the past month to $12 million spent by those who support the legislation (led by Healthcare for America Now and Moveon.org) This is a reversal from the previous spending advantage by bill supporters enjoyed through most of this year.
Why? Consider that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) is drafting the Senate’s version of the bill behind closed doors.
"There's no input from any of us, no input from Republicans" said R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "So what option do we have than to take our message and story to the American people?"
And the American people need to hear all sides of the argument. According to a new Associated Press poll, 43 percent of Americans oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. An additional 15 percent remain neutral or undecided.
Linda Gorman writes: “A little noticed feature of the health reform legislation is the common tendency to regulate insurance premiums in a way that will force young people to pay more so that older people can pay less. The legislation would gouge people at the time of life when their wages tend to be low in order to subsidize people at a time in their life when wages tend to be high.”
She’s absolutely right. No matter which proposal you look at in either the House or Senate, young Americans will get a raw deal.
CMPI recently interviewed Congressman Aaron Schock – the youngest member of Congress at age 28. We asked him about this issue and more.
Schock is optimistic that young Americans will come to recognize that the current proposals under consideration in Congress will lead to less choices and control for them in health care, not more.
Perhaps more importantly, Congressman Schock correctly notes the deleterious effect this legislation would have on an already precarious job market.
It amounts to a double whammy for America’s youth.
For Congressman Schock’s perspective on this issue, watch our interview with him here:
.jpg)
