Now that the unions are getting a tax break on their health plans the rest of us will not get, the President is dialing for dollars to cover the cost. He is actually picking up the phone and calling members of Congress to shorten the amount of time before generic companies can try to produce their own version of biotech drugs from 12 years to 8 years and allow a short cut around the FDA’s efforts to come up with an approach that insures that medicines meant to heal don’t maim.
For every 10 percent shaved off the life of patent protection, biotech investment declines by 10 percent. Over the next 15 years, the Obama deal would cut biotech investment, heavily concentrated in the Bay State, by 33 percent. Every biotech dollar invested has a ripple effect in terms of jobs, spending and investment in related businesses. Cut biotech spending by a third and the impact on economic growth will be magnified in reverse.
Then there is the human element. For cancer an increase in the number of biotech drugs iis associated with an increase in both the one-year and the five-year survival rate for all forms of the illness. For orphan disease, it has meant longer lives for people with lupus, cystic fibrosis, MS, Gaucher’s disease, HIV, etc. Less investment, fewer drugs, more deaths sooner. That’s one way to keep costs down and pay for the union tax break.
Finally, Obama wants to save a few million by cutting corners on drug safety. Current proposals require genetic companies to demonstrate patient safety by requiring appropriate and stringent clinical trials and testing. This is necessary because biologic drugs are created from living organisms such as proteins and carbohydrates, and are not as simple to replicate as traditional drugs like aspirin and antihistamines. Even changing the size of the molecule of the same protein can turn of biosimilar from avatar of health into an avalanche of deadly side effects. But Obama wants safety to meet budgetary, not scientific standards.
For every 10 percent shaved off the life of patent protection, biotech investment declines by 10 percent. Over the next 15 years, the Obama deal would cut biotech investment, heavily concentrated in the Bay State, by 33 percent. Every biotech dollar invested has a ripple effect in terms of jobs, spending and investment in related businesses. Cut biotech spending by a third and the impact on economic growth will be magnified in reverse.
Then there is the human element. For cancer an increase in the number of biotech drugs iis associated with an increase in both the one-year and the five-year survival rate for all forms of the illness. For orphan disease, it has meant longer lives for people with lupus, cystic fibrosis, MS, Gaucher’s disease, HIV, etc. Less investment, fewer drugs, more deaths sooner. That’s one way to keep costs down and pay for the union tax break.
Finally, Obama wants to save a few million by cutting corners on drug safety. Current proposals require genetic companies to demonstrate patient safety by requiring appropriate and stringent clinical trials and testing. This is necessary because biologic drugs are created from living organisms such as proteins and carbohydrates, and are not as simple to replicate as traditional drugs like aspirin and antihistamines. Even changing the size of the molecule of the same protein can turn of biosimilar from avatar of health into an avalanche of deadly side effects. But Obama wants safety to meet budgetary, not scientific standards.
