Gaming the System. Denying Care.

01/29/2015 02:08 PM |

I’m shocked to discover that there is gambling going on in this establishment.

From today’s New York Times:

Study Finds H.I.V. Drugs Priced Out of Reach

Drugs to treat H.I.V. and AIDS are being priced out of reach for many patients enrolled in insurance plans through the new health care exchanges, despite warnings that such practices are illegal under the Obama administration’s health care law, according to a new analysis by Harvard researchers.

The study, to be published on Wednesday in an article in The New England Journal of Medicine, looked at 48 health plans in 12 states and found that a quarter of the plans showed evidence of what researchers called “adverse tiering,” or placing all of the drugs used to treat H.I.V. in a specialty tier where consumers are required to pay at least 30 percent of the cost of the drug.

The financial impact can be drastic, the researchers found: A patient taking a common H.I.V. treatment, Atripla, would pay about $3,000 more a year in a restrictive plan compared with someone enrolled in a more generous plan, even after accounting for the fact that the more restrictive plans tended to charge lower monthly premiums.

“That’s really a large cost difference, and really is a very significant financial constraint for those with chronic conditions, particularly H.I.V.,” said Douglas B. Jacobs, the lead author of the study, who is pursuing degrees in public health at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study, which did not name the insurers whose plans it analyzed, looked only at the midlevel, or silver, plans offered in the marketplaces because they are the most popular plans among consumers. More comprehensive plans, known as gold and platinum plans, are often more generous in coverage but carry higher premiums. Insurers have said that these may be a better choice for people who have serious medical conditions.

Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said that a crucial component of the marketplace was consumer choice, and that the study should have included an analysis of the gold and platinum plans. “Individuals have diverse health and financial needs, and health plans have designed a wide range of coverage options, including those with lower cost-sharing, so individuals can pick the policy that is best for them,” she said.

Health insurers are prohibited from discriminating against people with specific medical conditions under the new federal health care law, and the law contains some provisions that help prevent such practices. Patient advocates and others, however, have said that some companies appear to be skirting the law by restricting access to all drugs that treat certain conditions.

In May, two consumer groups filed a federal complaint asserting that four insurers in Florida had discriminated against people with H.I.V. by making their drugs more costly and difficult to obtain. All of the companies have since agreed to make changes that would lower the cost of the drugs in 2015, although the federal complaint is still pending.

The latest study is “more confirmation that this is happening, not only in Florida, but in other states as well,” said Carl Schmid, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, one of the groups that filed the federal complaint.

In December, the Obama administration said that it would investigate insurers’ prescription drug coverage, and told insurers that companies that place most or all drugs that treat a condition on the highest-cost tiers are effectively discriminating against people with those conditions.

In an effort to contain the rising cost of prescription drugs, many insurers are requiring extra steps for people who need the drugs or raising out-of-pocket amounts that patients must pay. The insurers say such practices are necessary to keep premiums low and to encourage patients and their doctors to make cost-effective decisions, like choosing a cheaper generic over an expensive brand-name drug.

But what makes these cases different, the researchers said, is that the insurers restricted access to all drugs that treat H.I.V., even less costly generics, leaving patients who have the virus with few options.

Limiting access to H.I.V. drugs could benefit insurers because it might discourage people with such conditions from signing up for coverage. But the study’s authors warned that if left unchecked, a small number of insurers — those offering the most generous coverage — could end up shouldering the burden of caring for the sickest patients.

If the more generous plans end up with a disproportionate share of sicker members, they could, in turn, adopt more restrictive practices. “It could, in essence, be a race to the bottom on drug benefit designs,” Mr. Jacobs said.

  Read More & Comment...

Biosimilar Interchangability: When Irish Eyes Aren't Smiling

01/28/2015 10:02 AM |

A new poster presentation at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, titled, “Biosimilar but not the same,” offers some timely and important real-world data on the differences between originator biologics and their biosimilar cousins.

The study, from Mercy University Hospital, University College Cork, Centre for Gastroenterology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland, studied the clinical impact of both the innovator product (Remicade) and it’s EMA-approved biosimilar (Inflectra). The findings are important. Specifically, the rates of surgery in Infliximab and Inflectra groups were significantly different.

80% of the Inflectra group required hospital readmission versus 5% of the infliximab (Remicade) group. (p=0.00004). 60% of patients in the Inflectra group needed steroid augmentation of standard steroid tapering protocol with 50% requiring multiple increases in steroid dose versus 8% of patients in the Infliximab (p-value = 0.0007). Over the course of 8 weeks, 93% of patients in the Inflectra group had an increase in CRP with 7% remaining unchanged whereas 100% of patients in the infliximab group had a decrease in CRP (p=<0.001).

The conclusion is not ambiguous, “Our results suggest that biosimilars may not be as efficacious as the reference medicine. The results found reflect the ECCO statement position that the use of most biosimilars in IBD will require testing in this particular patient population and cannot be extrapolated from other disease populations."

The complete poster can be found here.

These First World data points about a product from a respected manufacturer (Hospira) cannot be ignored and must be used to inform the policy debate over nomenclature, interchangeability, label extrapolations, and overall pharmacovigilance practices.

Attention must be paid.
 

  Read More & Comment...

PCORI's Survival Depends on Shift to Precision Medicine

01/27/2015 04:53 PM |

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has given nearly $300 million away to groups that are conducting research that is less then, shall we say, transformational..   Most of the money is going to comparaative effectiveness research that pays lip service to differences in individuals when in fact it is just coming up with one size fits all comparisions with a bit of control for age, gender, ethnicity, disease stage.  For instance, PCORI is funding a study http://Which Medicine Is Best for Children with Epilepsy?   Really?  Drug A over Drug B or Drug C?   

PCORI is funding mainframe medicine when cloud=based, crowd sourced technologies that integrate genomics, systems biology and patient provided data to match people to treatments.  It is investing heavily in PROMIS and it's own CER research network.. both are based on technologies and natural language processing algorithms that are old, clunky and barely accessible to patients.   

The new Congress has just launched a 21st century cures initiative.  A close look at the legislation and it's goals suggest that PCORI is ill-suited to the goal of using 21st century bioinformatics to increase the role and power patients have over access to new treatments.  PCORI is funding yesterday's research methods.

Congress should hold oversight hearing on PCORI and ask some hard questions about it's research focus.   It doesn't have to exist at all or in it's current form.  Indeed,  the money from PCORI and other stand alone pots of money could be integrated into a public-private venture to support biomarker development and precisiono medicine that the legislation calls for.  

PCORI had better show it's ready to shift it's gears and mission if it wants to survive.  Read More & Comment...

Will Congress Produce Cures?

01/27/2015 04:19 PM |

The Energy and Commerce committee 21st Centure Cures Initiative has produced an important piece of legislation designed to accelerate the adoption of precision medicine.  The way to tell if it will pass is how much time and effort AHIP and the PBMs spend trying to gut the recommendations to advance personalized or precision medicine.  If they cared about the cost of medicines, they would propose ways to reduce the time and money needed to develop and adopt precision medicine.   The same goes for critics who say nothing about the value of medicines and are not an advocates for 21st century cures.

Here is the committee's press release and the legislation itself.  http://1.usa.gov/1BvrGio



  Read More & Comment...

Patient-Driven Care with a Capital PFF

01/27/2015 09:36 AM |

A real-world step towards both helping patients now and gathering useful data to advance better care.

PULMONARY FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES EXPANSION
OF FIRST-OF–ITS-KIND CARE CENTER NETWORK
PFF Adds 12 Sites, Bringing Total to 21 Centers Across the Country

CHICAGO, January 27, 2015 – The Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation (PFF) today announced the expansion of its PFF Care Center Network with the selection of 12 additional sites, bringing the total number of medical centers to 21 in 20 states. Launched in 2013, the PFF Care Center Network is comprised of leading medical centers with specific expertise in treating pulmonary fibrosis (PF), a group of lung disorders including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) that are often difficult to diagnose and manage and that are associated with survival rates of less than five years following diagnosis in certain diseases.  

“As the leading advocate for the pulmonary fibrosis community, we are dedicated to advancing the care of people living with this deadly disease, and this starts with providing greater access to experienced care teams,” said Gregory P. Cosgrove, M.D., chief medical officer of the PFF. “Working together, institutions within the Network will identify and share best practices, which foster better care and ultimately enable more institutions that embrace these practices to be certified as a PFF Care Center site.”

As part of the selection process, a panel of peer reviewers, comprised of current members of the PFF Board of Directors, Medical Advisory Board, PFF Care Center Network and PFF Patient Registry Steering Committee, reviewed and scored applications.

“When selecting sites to add to the PFF Care Center Network, we consider a center’s specific programs and its geographic location in order to best serve the needs of the broader pulmonary fibrosis community,” said Kevin Flaherty, M.D., M.S., chairman of the Steering Committee of the PFF Care Center Network. “The new centers selected provide the highest quality patient care and an individualized approach to treatment in accordance with best evidence-based recommendations. We welcome these new centers and look forward to continuing to expand the Network in the coming year.”

The Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Care Center Network

The PFF Care Center Network uses a multidisciplinary approach to deliver comprehensive patient care, forming specialized care teams comprised of experts in interstitial lung disease in pulmonary medicine, rheumatology, radiology and pathology. This multidisciplinary approach is critical to managing a complex disease like PF and ensuring people with PF receive an accurate diagnosis, obtain quality clinical care, and acquire important support services.

The institutions newly certified as PFF Care Center Network sites include:

• Inova Fairfax Medical Campus
• Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
• Medical University of South Carolina
• New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center
• Piedmont Healthcare
• The University of Arizona Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of Arizona Medical Center-University Campus in Tucson
• The University of Kansas Hospital
• Tulane University School of Medicine
• University of Alabama at Birmingham
• University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
• University of Pennsylvania

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis   Read More & Comment...

Rob Califf at FDA -- Finally!

01/26/2015 02:33 PM |

Dr. Robert Califf named FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., today appointed Robert Califf, M.D., a recognized global leader in cardiology, clinical research, and medical economics, as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.  

In this position, Dr. Califf will provide executive leadership to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Healthand the Center for Tobacco Products. He will also oversee the Office of Special Medical Programs in the Office of the Commissioner. Dr. Califf will play a critical role in providing high-level advice and policy direction on the agency’s medical product and tobacco priorities and will manage cross-cutting clinical, scientific and regulatory initiatives in several key areas for the agency, including personalized medicine, orphan drugs, pediatric science, and the advisory committee system.

“I am delighted to announce this important addition to FDA’s senior leadership team,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “Dr. Califf’s deep knowledge and experience in the areas of medicine and clinical research will enable the agency to capitalize on, and improve upon, the significant advances we’ve made in medical product development and regulation over the last few years.”

Dr. Califf is currently serving as vice chancellor of clinical and translational research at Duke University. Other prominent roles during his tenure at Duke include director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute (DTMI), and professor of medicine in the Division of Cardiology at the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. Before serving as director of DTMI, he was the founding director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the world’s largest academic research organization. Dr. Califf is recognized by the Institute for Scientific Information as one of the top 10 most cited medical authors, with more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications.

During his career, Dr. Califf has led many landmark clinical studies, and is a nationally and internationally recognized expert in cardiovascular medicine, health outcomes research, health care quality, and clinical research. He is one of our nation’s leaders in the growing field of translational research, which is key to ensuring that advances in science translate into medical care. He was a member of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committees that recommended Medicare coverage of clinical trials and the removal of ephedra from the market and of the IOM’s Committee on Identifying and Preventing Medication Errors. In addition, he served as a member of the FDA Cardiorenal Advisory Panel and FDA Science Board’s Subcommittee on Science and Technology. Currently, he is a member of the IOM Policy Committee and liaison to the Forum in Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation.

Dr. Califf will join the FDA in late February.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human drugs, including vaccines and other biological products for human use, veterinary drugs, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

###

  Read More & Comment...

Opioid's Atlantic Charter

01/26/2015 12:02 PM |

For a balanced look at the current debate over opioids, check out A Delicate Balance: The challenge of treating pain—and stopping prescription drug abuse—in America. It’s timely, comprehensive, science-based sponsored content in The Atlantic and well worth a read.

ABOUT THIS SERIES

Pain exists. It’s pervasive. And, yet, the drugs prescribed for its treatment are often abused. A Delicate Balance explores several approaches to helping achieve the public health goal of stopping prescription opioid abuse while effectively treating people who live with chronic pain.

  Read More & Comment...

Obama's Precision Medicine Proposal: Guess Who Hates It?

01/23/2015 01:56 PM |

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a federal initiative to accelerate the development of precision medicine and ensure that everyone would have “access to treatments that deliver the right treatment at the right time.” 

To illustrate his point, the President invited Bill Elder, a 27-year-old medical student with a rare form of cystic fibrosis to sit with First Lady Michelle Obama during his speech.    Mr. Elder has been using Kalydeco, which, as the president pointed out “has reversed a disease once thought unstoppable” by turning off the genetic mutation causing his disease.

But Kalydeco, is NOT easily available under most health plans.  Ask Chloe Jones, a 14-year-old Arkansan with the same type of cystic fibrosis mutation.   Arkansas’ Medicaid agency has refused to give her Kalydeco.  Instead she has to first fail to respond to older, less-expensive therapies that treat the symptoms but not the underlying cause.   (Kalydeco costs about $200,000 a year.) In other words, she has to get sicker and a step closer to death.

Sadly, Chloe is not alone.  She and hundreds of thousands of other patients are denied the precision medicines the president celebrates. Instead of ensuring access to precision medicines for the right patient at the right time, pharmacy benefit management companies  (PBMs) that put together drug formularies for health plans are only offering drugs from biotech firms that give them biggest cash discount. And then insurers are requiring kids like Chloe to get sicker or pay thousands of dollars before getting targeted treatments.

After the rebates are harvested by PBMs by excluding precision meds, health plans require patients to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to get the one’s that are left.  Managed Care magazine points to a study by Avalere Health that revealed “many insurers require copayments of 10% to 40% for 19 classes of medications for patients with chronic conditions. More than 60% of silver plans put all covered medications for patients with multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and certain cancers in the highest formulary tier.”

While most plans cap out of pocket costs, most consumers can’t afford thousands of dollars upfront.   As a result, patients don’t take the medicines that could save their lives.  Health insurers and PBMs know it and profit from it.

On top of all that, health plans and PBMs don't pay for the genetic tests that match people to the right medicines.  They want randomized clinical trials to demonstrate accuracy know it will take years to set up studies and get results. 

The orchestrated outrage over drug prices, led by John Rother and his AHIP funded National Coaltion on Health is nothing but part of cynical plan to extort rebates and limit access to precision medicines.  It is noteworthy that AHIP, and the PBMs have contributed nothing to the discussion around the bi-partisan 21st Century Cures Initiative.  If they cared about the cost of medicines, they would propose ways to reduce the time and money needed to develop and adopt precision medicine.   The same goes for critics who say nothing about the value of medicines and is not an advocate for 21st century cures.  

In fact, the pay for play schemes indicate that PBMs and insurers can only profit from precision medicine by rebates.   As Eric Topol points out in his new book "The Patient Will See You Now", the health data now controlled by payors and physicians will be generated and controlled by patients themselves.  Using smartphones patients will be able to find the right treatment for them based on their genetic and clinical data.   Where's the  need for middlemen at that point?  PBMs are the Blockbuster Video and Tower Record Stores of the healthcare system.  NO ONE will miss them when they are gone. 

We need to hasten the creative destruction of PBMs.    We can start by replacing fail first or step therapy approaches with value-based precision therapy.   And we should elimiinate the discriminatory practice to placing precision medicines in the most expensive formlary tiers and the coo-insurance costing thousands.    Finally, we need to expand the use of new medicines in the real world.  

Ultimately, the rebate and co-pay schemes plump up profits to prop up an outdated business model. PBMs and insurers are skimming off billions of dollars with drug benefit designs that target the most chronically ill and vulnerable patients. No wonder, patient groups have sued health plans for discrimination.  Change can't come fast enough.    Read More & Comment...

Cognitive Dissonance Over Opioids

01/23/2015 09:37 AM |

Are opioids “bad?” Certainly they can be addictive and that fact can’t be understated. That’s precisely why they are controlled substances. And still nascent abuse deterrent technologies are helping to further decrease the opportunities for improper use. But the value of opioids is, when used as directed, they are highly effective in combatting the scourge of pain.

The truth, of course, is that opioids aren’t bad. The problem is that they’re not perfect nor are they perfectly safe – just like 100% of prescription drugs on the market. “Safe” is a relative term. Opioids are safe when they are used as directed. Are chemotherapy drugs “bad” because of their horrible side effects? Of course not. Why – because the alternative is far worse. So too the case with opioids. For both physicians and the tens of millions of Americans with chronic pain, the absence of opioids would be disaster.

That’s why the FDA and other pertinent constituencies view the future of pain medication through the lens of “safe use.” How can we enhance appropriate prescribing, dispensing, and patient behavior? Abuse deterrent technologies are part of the answer, but better physician, pharmacist, and patient education must be another pillar. The FDA has made this a policy priority. FDA Commissioner Hamburg has called for “Improving appropriate prescribing by physicians and use by patients through educational materials required as a part of a risk mitigation strategy for extended-release and long-acting opioids.”  Now it's also time for the DEA to work with the FDA to develop smart policies for specific education as a must-have for prescribing rights.

Alas, there are too many pundits, politicians, and self-anointed citizen advocates who are keen to focus on placing blame. It’s a savvy strategy for media attention but does little to advance the public health. There’s no value in fixing the blame for medicines that aren’t 100% safe. No medicine is 100% safe. That cynical approach just leverages ignorance to produce anger. There’s tremendous value in fixing the problem – through advancing the safe use of opioids – a crucial weapon in the armamentarium against pain.    Read More & Comment...

When Lawyers Play Doctor

01/21/2015 09:39 AM |

When it comes to medicine, who should make decisions about safety and efficacy – and on what evidence should those choices be made? At present, the Food & Drug Administration has the responsibility to determine approvals and labeling language based on a scientific review of the evidence. Should this authority be ceded to the tort bar?

Consider the recent spate of litigation against the manufacturers of opioid pain medications. One example is the City of Chicago’s lawsuit against multiple manufacturers of opioid pain treatments. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division), the City of Chicago’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) seeks to limit the ability of Chicago doctors to treat the chronic, non-cancer pain of patients in the manner doctors deem most appropriate. Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved certain opioid pain medications for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, the FAC seeks to deprive patients and doctors of that treatment choice by having six lay jurors determine that “the use of opioids to treat chronic pain is not ‘medically necessary’ or ‘reasonably required’ in that their risks do not exceed their benefits.”

The FDA has determined that opioids serve an important public health role: “When prescribed and used properly, opioids can effectively manage pain and alleviate suffering—clearly a public health priority. Chronic pain is a serious and growing health problem: it affects millions of Americans; contributes greatly to national rates of morbidity, mortality, and disability; and is rising in prevalence. At the same time, there is no dispute that opioids pose significant public health risks: Opioids also have grave risks, the most well-known of which include addiction, overdose, even death. The labeling for these products contains prominent warnings about these risks. Moreover, the boxed warning states that all patients should be routinely monitored for signs of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

In September 2013, the FDA ruled on a citizen’s petition filed by a group of clinicians, researchers, and health officials called Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (“PROP”). Like the Chicago FAC, the Petition directly challenged the use of opioids for “chronic non-cancer pain.” PROP contended that the “long-term safety and effectiveness of managing [chronic non-cancer pain] with opioids has not been established,” and requested that the FDA, inter alia, impose a “maximum duration of 90-days for continuous (daily) use for non-cancer pain.” The FDA carefully reviewed the Petition and more than 1900 related comments. The agency assessed the relevant literature. It held a two-day public hearing at which it received “over 600 comments” and dozens of experts and concerned citizens testified. The FDA noted that “the majority of comments” “opposed PROP’s requests” and that “many professional societies,” including the American Medical Association, “did not support the Petition and stated that the data cited by PROP did not support PROP’s requests.” After completing a 14-month review, the FDA determined that opioids should continue to be available for the treatment of chronic pain, while also directing further study and certain labeling changes for some opioid drugs. Significantly, after being presented with the same assertions as those now alleged in the Amended Complaint, the FDA made two findings directly at odds with the underlying premises that form the cornerstones of the FAC.

But the lawsuits keep coming. The FDA has the authority, the ability, the means, the mission, and the mandate to manage the health care risks and benefits inherent in the products it regulates on behalf of the American public.

A more balanced legal system will occur only when elected officials determine the time has come for real tort reform, as it affects pharmaceutical companies.  But that day is likely very far off. Healthcare leaders must devote their most aggressive efforts toward reform.

Maybe when our elected officials understand that it's the health of their constituents versus the pocketbooks of lawyers, our public servants will finally get serious on tort reform.  Read More & Comment...

Bach to the Future

01/20/2015 09:42 AM |

Time and again, the dangerous idiots of healthcare reform claim that there's no difference between so-called "me-too" drugs, and that they're simply a way for drug companies to turn a quick profit. The New York Times,in an editorial, claimed that "the nation is wasting billions of dollars on heavily marketed drugs that have never proved themselves in head-to-head competition against cheaper competitors." Wrong.

A recent op-ed in the New York Times, (Why Drugs Cost So Much, NYT, January 14, 2015) by Peter Bach is only the latest in a series of such bandwagon drivel – and he should know better.

The truth is that despite the assertions in and by the New York Times, different drugs are indeed different, even if you describe them as "me-too" medications. Likewise, even though every brand of store-bought peanut butter contains peanuts, oil, sugar, and salt, no one would argue that Skippy and JIF taste exactly the same.

Time and again, different medicines have proved themselves where it counts - in the bodies and biochemistries of patients. No two patients are alike, and the more options available, the more likely doctors are to find what works best for each patient. A few points to consider:

* When patients have access to more effective medications, their overall health improves, even as their overall medical expenses go down. That, in turn, reduces national health-care spending and boosts the economy. Value must be measured in patient outcomes.

* Healthcare innovation saves lives, saves money, promotes economic growth, and provides hope for hundreds of millions of people (both patients and care-givers) in the United States and around the world.

* If we do not support the development of new medicines through timely licensing and fair pricing, innovation will be stopped in its tracks – and that is not an acceptable public health outcome.

* Regulators can be partners in innovation three ways: Through robust oversight, through active collaboration, and, most importantly, by being an innovation enabler.

 The deviation between value and pricing in a distinction with a difference – and while both are important, it is value that’s the higher priority since driving patient outcomes is the higher calling (and better long-term economic investment).

After all, as Yale economist William Nordhaus has written, "The social productivity of health care spending might be many times that of other spending.”

Luckily, America's doctors, drug researchers and patients are smarter than that. Just like there aren't any "me-too" patients, there aren't any "me-too" drugs. And if cars and peanut butter are going to be personalized, then medicine is too important not to be.

  Read More & Comment...

Does Cutting Drug Prices Kill People?

01/15/2015 01:34 PM |

Peter Bach yet again tries to make the case that new drugs are too expensive.

He writes: "The price of drugs is so unfair and mystifying that publlic often pays a high price when the identical drug is available at a fraction of the cost."

Actually, he didn't write that.  It's from another New York Times article: " Drug Prices Here Held Inequitable. "   It was written 40 years ago.  Burks, E. (1965) Drug Prices Here Held Inequitable. The New York Times Retrieved from https://secure.pqarchiver.com/

What he did write is another variation on this very old theme: "We can free insurers and government programs from the requirement to include all expensive drugs in their plans as we explain to the public that some drugs are not effective enough to justify their price. If we do this, we can be confident that manufacturers will lower their prices to ensure their ability to sell their products. Or we can piggyback on the gumption of bolder countries, and demand that policy makers set drug prices in the United States equal to those of Western Europe. Either approach would be vastly superior to the situation we have today."

First the facts.  

1. Nearly 90 percent of all brand drugs are discounted.  Companies pay rebates to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans health system.    In the private sector (including Obamacare plans) drug firms pay rebates to pharmacy benefit management companies to get preferred listing.  

2. Bach is incorrect in claiming insurers have to cover every ‘expensive’ drug.  Express Scripts has 66 products on its 2015 formulary exclusion list, compared with 48 in 2014. CVS Caremark’s 2015 list has 95 products, including 72 carryovers from the 2014 edition.  

He loves this idea.  But what about patients?

From Managed Care Magazine:  

"The problem with this approach is that by adding more tiers health plans have confused employees and made some medications more expensive — the antithesis of a value-based strategy. They also have retained cost-sharing mechanisms that make high-priced drugs unaffordable for many patients, Vogenberg says. A 25% copayment on a drug priced at $1,000 a day costs a patient $1,750 each week or more than $7,000 per month. Many patients simply cannot afford their medications, even though commercial plan members often use copayment assistance programs from pharmaceutical manufacturers and can avoid such high cost-sharing amounts, says Brenda Motheral, RPh, MBA, PhD, president of Artemetrx, a specialty drug management consultant.

Bach is silent as PBMs pocket rebates while at the same time sticking patients with the higher costs of meds.


3.  Compared to Europe and Canada, on average Americans then pay slightly more for new medicines  in exchange for faster and broader access.   On average we get twice the new medicines about a year and a half earlier with fewer restrictions.  When all is said and done, using Euro-prices would save a grant total of 8.6 billion.. less than one third of one percent of total health care spending."

4.  Contrary to Bach, Americans also pay less out of pocket for medicines than in Europe. On average, out of pocket costs are about $800.  

4.   European speand more on cancer care as a percentage of health care and less on cancer drugs.  

Nowhere in Bach's article does he mention the value of broader, faster access to new medicines.   Let's stick with the European comparision.

Cancer mortality rates in the US are lower than most anywhere in Europe for every major cancer.  And five year survival rates (adjusted for lag time and incidence) are much higher and increase faster.  That doesn't include the life years lost when people with advanced forms of cancer die waiting a year and half for a new medicine or have strict limits place on access.    

American get broader access to better drugs that save money at about the same price as medicines elsewhere.  Price controls and PBM restrictions on access to new drugs actually increases cost and makes people sicker.  And probably let a lot of people die waiting for new medcines.  If a new medicine adds 3 months on average to the life of a cancer patient it would mean that each year (based on 590,000 cancer deaths a year) someone is denied access robs people with cancer of about 145000 life years annually. 


Back claims other systems are vastly superior.  The evidence suggests otherwise.  Cutting drug prices does kill people. 

  Read More & Comment...

Deterring Opioid Abuse: A Success Story

01/15/2015 09:06 AM |

The gain in pain is plainly in the main.

Abuse of opiate-based prescription painkillers such as oxycodone and morphine peaked around 2010-2011 and now may be on the decline in the United States, according to an analysis of databases designed to track illicit use of the drugs.

New laws, programs and policies, such as prescription tracking systems and the reformulation of oxycodone to make it harder to abuse, may be combining to reverse the once-growing trend, researchers said.

"I think we're at an inflection point and we're starting to turn this steamship around," said Dr. G. Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, who was not involved in the research.

The new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at data collected between 2002 and 2013 from substance-abuse treatment centers, poison centers, college students and drug-diversion investigators.

There were "large increases in the rates of opioid diversion and abuse from 2002 to 2010, but then the rates flattened or decreased from 2011 through 2013. The rate of opioid-related deaths rose and fell in a similar pattern," write the study authors, led by Dr. Richard Dart of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center at the Denver Health and Hospital Authority in Colorado.

The full NEJM article can be found here.

Now we need to continue to move (and act) beyond the rhetoric and pursue additional solutions. And at the top of the list is the foundation of the Hamburg Manifesto -- prescriber education.  Read More & Comment...

E&C Show and Tell

01/14/2015 07:26 AM |

Per BioCentury, Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) previewed on Tuesday the goals of legislation they plan to release this month as part of their 21st Century Cures initiative.


In commentary published by CNN, the legislators wrote that their bill will seek to “modernize clinical trials to streamline the approval of drugs and devices,” in part by reducing paperwork and promoting adaptive trials. It will also help FDA “better integrate the patient perspective into the regulatory process,” including using public-private partnerships to strengthen science around biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes.


The bill's sponsors also aim to promote “better access to and sharing of information such as genomic and other clinical data to foster more collaboration among researchers," and to invest in programs for young scientists.
Upton -- the chair of the U.S. House's Energy & Commerce Committee -- and DeGette also plan to “incentivize new drugs and devices for unmet medical needs” by “streamlining the premarket process while establishing mechanisms to better capture real world evidence post-market." They also said they will examine incentives, including “exclusivity or simplifying the reimbursement process,” to stimulate the development of new drugs and devices for unmet medical needs.

More as more develops.

  Read More & Comment...

Brill not so bril

01/13/2015 08:01 AM |

The review of Steven Brill’s “What Ails Us” (NYT Book Review, January 11, 2015), refers to the pharmaceutical industry’s back-room negotiations to "gut" comparative effectiveness under Obamacare. The truth is that the Recovery Act of 2009 provided $1.1 billion for patient-centered health research (also known as comparative effectiveness research) – and that’s only part of the story.

What Mr. Brill is actually referring to is the administration’s “deal” with the pharmaceutical industry to leave in place what is known as “the Non-Interference Clause,” which prohibits the Federal government from negotiating drug prices for (among other things) the highly successful Medicare Part D drug program. It’s important to note that the Non-Interference Clause was the brainchild (during the Clinton years) of Senators Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy – hardly candidates for the Tea Party Hall of Fame.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (in 2004), revoking the Kennedy/Daschle Non-Interference Clause, “would have a negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree. Because they will be at substantial financial risk, private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts, both to control their own costs in providing the drug benefit and to attract enrollees with low premiums and cost-sharing requirements.”

In 2009 the CBO reiterated its previous views, stating that they, “still believe that granting the Secretary of HHS additional authority to negotiate for lower drug prices would have little, if any, effect on prices for the same reason that my predecessors have explained, which is that…private drug plans are already negotiating drug prices.” Unlike other healthcare benefits, Part D is also cost-effective for taxpayers. In 2014 the CBO reported Part D drug spending was 45 percent below original cost projections. 

Importantly, the CBO says that no further savings are possible unless the government restricts beneficiary access to medicines or establishes market-distorting price interventions. In other words, price controls lead to choice controls.

  Read More & Comment...

Fil in the blanks

01/12/2015 07:58 AM |

In October 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill, overwhelmingly passed by state lawmakers that would limit automatic biosimilar substitution to those the FDA deems “interchangeable.” SB 598 also would have required pharmacists to notify physicians when an interchangeable is substituted for a prescribed biologic.

One of the Governor’s stated reasons for his veto was, “The FDA, which has jurisdiction for approving all drugs, has not yet determined what standards will be required for biosimilars to meet the higher threshold of ‘interchangeability.’ Given this fact, to require physician notification at this point strikes me as premature.”

Much has changed since that day – especially per physician notification. Today even the GPhA supports this public health imperative. Perhaps the biggest change in the landscape was yesterday’s ODAC meeting on a biosimilar filgrastim – and not just the overwhelming 14-0 vote in favor, but also the FDA’s strong support of the Sandoz application.

All of a sudden the issues addressed in SB 598 don’t seem so “premature.”

But the filgrastim adcomm isn’t the end of the debate. There are still many issues yet to be determined via FDA guidance  (such as nomenclature) and corporate strategy (read, “pricing”). As BIO’s Jim Greenwood said, “This week’s advisory committee meetings facilitated important discussion of the scientific approach of reviewing biosimilar applications and we encourage this positive momentum, however, we believe the appropriate way to develop policy on such a significant new approval pathway is through published guidance documents with the opportunity for public comment, rather than through single-application advisory committee meetings.”

One issue that’s taking a back seat to the approval of biosimilars is the requirement for new thinking on their post-approval safety and surveillance. Biologics aren’t the new kid on the block anymore. While it’s important to pursue ways to expedite 21^st century cures (as well as the eponymous legislation), it’s equally important to focus on the details of 21^st century follow-on products (both biosimilars and non-biologic complex drugs). Just as the FDA has been diligently pursuing patient-centered drug development, so too must it develop new strategies and tactics (“guidelines”) for patient-centered pharmacovigilance of biosimilars and NBCDs (such as Copaxone).

It’s also time for NORD and all the other patient and disease organizations who were so wonderfully outspoken on the urgency of expediting the FDA review process for new therapies and cures to hoist the banner of follow-on safety.

On pages 21-22 of the FDA briefing documents, an agency analysis found that, statistically, the commercial variety of EP2006 (Sandoz’ biosimilar) was lower in protein content than the comparator product (Neupogen) and was nonequivalent.  FDA dismissed this as something that could be worked out with better manufacturing controls and asked Sandoz to correct it. Okay, but isn’t this exactly the kind of thing that can cause “poor responders” to filgrastim to have suboptimal responses?  An important fact to consider when debating the value of differential nomenclature for biosimilars.

And then there’s the issue of cost. Many members of Congress have been leaning heavily on the FDA to expedite biosimilar guidances so that payers can realize cost savings.

But what will those savings be?

When ODAC member James Liebmann (assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Department of Medicine) asked what the price of the Sandoz biosimilar would be, the answer wasn’t a resounding success for those counting their savings before they’re hatched. According to Mark McCamish (Sandoz global head of biopharmaceuticals and oncology injectables development), “We can’t say that the price would be less because in some situations the price will be at parity because of other relative terms that will come into existence that’s there. Price is a relatively complex situation.”

Indeed – as is regulatory science, which is why attention must be paid to creating ever-greater clarity for both biosimilar and NBCD pathways – and in post-approval surveillance.

It’s not just about price – it’s about safety. And it’s not about getting it done fast – it’s about getting it done right. Members of Congress should be focused on greater clarity through guidances because of patient safety issues rather than vague promises of cost-savings. As Brian Harvey (Pfizer’s VP for Regulatory Strategy -- and my former agency colleague) commented, “In lieu of a finalized guidance,” the agency has been making “very good efforts” to provide case-by-case feedback about biosimilars as companies move forward.”

As Brian Harvey (Pfizer’s VP for Regulatory Strategy -- and my former agency colleague) commented, Pfizer has been “very pleased” with the frequency of its interactions with FDA regarding biosimilars and “the granularity of the feedback” the company is receiving.”

For those in the know, that’s great, but it leaves the rest of us guessing. Official guidance would be even better.

  Read More & Comment...

Islam's Bigotry Against Scientific Genuis At Root Of Extremism

01/09/2015 12:32 PM |

This past summer Qasim Rashid  wrote an article entitled: "When Will the Muslim Honor It's First Nobel Laureate?"  It's a moving piece  about the failure of Islam to honor science and indeed how scientists who's research deviates from or challenges Islamic dogma are treated as infidels.  

Rashid writes: "Muslims today boast, rightfully, about Islam's Golden Age and its unprecedented contributions to the sciences. Muslim leaders worldwide implore Muslims to rise up to that greatness once more. But in doing so, too many ignore the 20th century's most prominent Muslim scientist--one who once again rekindled the brilliance of the countless Muslim scientists who created the Golden Age of Islam."

The source of extremistism is the insistence upon doctrinal certainty and the enforcement of that world view through defilment, descration and death.   The refusal to engage in fact-based discussions about the origins of the Universe and the evolution of man means that much of physics and biology is off limits.   

In his book "The Ascent of Man"  Jacob Bronowski wrote: “There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy.”

The massacre of this week, the killing of 122 children in Pakistan, the rise in attacks on Jews in Europe are the result of this monstraous centainty.  Islamic leaders will be hard put to undermine this aspect of it's epistemoilogy but they must do so to save their religion.  

We have not faced a similar assault on freedom since Nazi Germany.  And no surpise, the Third Reich rose to power by subsuming science to it's Aryan vision. 

Back then the West rose up to defend freedom in the "hour of maximum danger."  It must do so now. without apology or resort to the usual relativistic excuses that hamstring the actions and intellectual honesty necessary to that defense.  And it can begin by pointing that the gap betweeen Islam and the rest of the world that opens wider with every savage act of violence can be bridged only when the scientific impulse -- the challenge of past dogmas and theories and the dedication to critical thinking -- is wovem into the fabric of education and institutions.  Honoring the scientists of today is a good way to demonstrate that necessary shift in outlook. 

You can read his article by going to this link: When Will The Muslim World Honor Its First Muslim Scientist Nobel Laureate?


  Read More & Comment...

Biosimilar Filgrastim and a Call for a Nomenclature Safety Net

01/07/2015 09:42 AM |

Today, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) adcomm debates and discusses whether to recommend approval of a Sandoz filgrastim biosimilar, (supported by the agency in their meeting materials), a few interesting items of note.

On pages 21-22 of the FDA briefing documents, an agency analysis found that, statistically, the commercial variety of EP2006 (Sandoz’ biosimilar) was lower in protein content than the comparator product (Neupogen) and was nonequivalent.  FDA dismissed this as something that could be worked out with better manufacturing controls and asked Sandoz to correct it. Okay, but isn’t this  exactly the kind of thing that can cause “poor responders” to filgrastim to have suboptimal responses?  An important fact to consider when debating the value of differential nomenclature for biosimilars.

Here’s what the FDA had to say …

 More concerning was that Sandoz was apparently confused in providing multiple lots of the biosimilar to the FDA for the protein testing.  As a result, they thought they had provided 6 lots for testing that turned out to be only 4.  Page 4 of the Addendum states:

“On November 25, 2014, Sandoz responded to the Agency request. In the response, Sandoz clarified that the actual number of EP2006 commercial drug product lots used in the statistical analysis referred to above is four lots instead of six lots. The six EP2006 commercial drug product lots initially considered were determined to be not independent because four of those six EP2006 commercial drug product lots were split-fill lots from two EP2006 bulk drug product batches, resulting in only four independent EP2006 commercial drug product lots.”

If Sandoz, a world-class company with a stellar record for cGMPs, in their highly reviewed and internally scrutinized licensing application confuses batches of their biosimilar, what can we expect in the real world after marketing?  If Sandoz can’t track different lots of their experimental drug, what will the reality be in the real world? Another cry for sanity in the debate over nomenclature.

Biosimilars are here to stay -- and we need a nomenclature safety net.
 

  Read More & Comment...

The Three Things Drug Companies Must Do To Get Products To Patients

01/06/2015 03:49 PM |

A recent article in Biocentury by Roger Longman and Jane Borne of Real Endpoints has some undiluted advice about the challenge drug companies will face getting customers for the record number of new medicines approved in 2014

"HCV has taught payers they can in fact limit access to valuable drugs even when there’s no competition at all. Five years ago, it would 
have been unthinkable to deny a relatively healthy but HCV-infected patient a curative drug. Today it’s routine."

Ditto for HIV, MS, psoriasis, various cancers.  


"They are willing to challenge head-on, as far as we can see for the first time in a major, potentially fatal disease, the resistance of physicians and patients in order to provide their customers with a mechanism for bending the cost curve in specialty drugs. And that means that we will see similar deals in all significant competitive specialty categories — including in some areas of cancer."

RIght now companies are responding by offering the big pharmacy benefit networks discounts in exchange for being the only drug of it's kind covered.  And since the first movers are likely to cut such deals to limit competition,  what will happen to other medicines that may have significant benefits for patients or to other medicines that need to be used in combination.  When price is the only thing that matters, outcomes take a backseat.  And pharmacy plans are doing because, under Obamacare, they can.  

Isn't that a restrictive formulary?  Won't that kill the other speciality pharmacies and small drug stores that sell on service and not just margin?  Isn't that bad for patients?

There's only one right answer: Yes.

There are three things companies must do to get their products to patients.  I am not sanguine about the ability or desire of  most companies to take these steps.

1.  Identify groups of patients that benefit most from a new medicine, especially groups that will benefit and require a combination of treatments to improve health.

2.  Demonstrate the benefit of such treatments to patients and their families in terms of a return to or continuation of life free for disease.   Estimate the value of this state of wellness and estimate the cost -- in terms of out of pocket spending, lost productivity and even death -- of forcing people to use a drug that's cheaper for a health plan but not best for a patient.  

3.  Demonstrate the benefit of such treatments to employers, universities, retirement funds, life and disability insurers, Medicare, Social Security.   And share this information widely and with Congress.  Otherwise valuable Obamacare reforms to eliminate discrimination against chronically ill people through restrictive formularies will fail.  

As Longman and Borne note:  It’s crucial that biopharma provide (these other stakeholders) the appropriate measurement tools. If they don’t, buyers will settle on the easiest point of comparison: price.










 

From   Read More & Comment...

Calling Dr. Ackerman

01/06/2015 08:49 AM |

And Ivan Ackerman. Always the wrong answer. Always.


 

It seems that some folks at the AMA think that 7+3=9.

According to Inside Health Policy, an American Medical Association internal council report reveals the group is leaning toward a naming scheme where biosimilars and their reference products would share the same International Nonproprietary Names (INN). The report says that unique names may suggest different active ingredients within the products and go against standard nomenclature. This stance differs from that of the innovator biologics industry and a handful of specialty physician groups, which argue that shared naming would improperly imply interchangeability.

Wrong.

Assigning differential naming to biosimilar products will certainly prove challenging to the various constituents of the drug compendia community — but it will be crucial for pharmacovigilance. In the real world, how can we not have separate names when there are going to be four categories of products?

Based on comparative analytical data, FDA will characterize its assessment of biosimilarity into one of four levels -- not similar, similar, highly similar or highly similar with a fingerprint-like similarity — depending on the type, nature and extent of any structural and functional differences revealed.

Additional pharmacologic studies would be required to show that the identified difference is “within an acceptable range to consider the proposed biosimilar product to be highly similar to the reference product.”

FDA said only products in the top two tiers would meet the statutory requirement for analytical similarity under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. Products in the top two tiers would then only require “targeted and selective animal and/or clinical studies to resolve residual uncertainties” to demonstrate biosimilarity. In addition, these data could be used to extrapolate clinical data for additional indications.

The argument that differential naming is bad for patient safety is pure Orwellian Newspeak — specifically “blackwhite, ” The ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be — no matter the lack of supporting data. When it comes to biosimilar nomenclature, it’s urgent that we keep our priorities straight. And that means keeping patient safety, not interoperability challenges, at the top of the agenda. Fortunately, White Oak trumps blackwhite.

The good news is that a handful of specialty physician groups disagree with the AMA and are siding with the innovator biologics industry in urging FDA to adopt a biosimilar naming scheme under which products have distinguishable names, pushing back against arguments made by an American Medical Association council and generic drug makers for shared International Nonproprietary Names (INNs). The groups, like innovator companies, argue that distinct names are needed to track adverse events and to protect against improper pharmacy substitution.

The specialty physician groups wrote to FDA on December 18th that a shared name would imply interchangeability, referencing statements made by the agency in past about how INNs should not be used to "imply pharmacologic interchangeability of products with the same active ingredient(s)."

Signers of a the letter include: Alliance for Patient Access; American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; American College of Rheumatology; American Gastroenterological Association; Association of Black Cardiologists; American Urological Association; Clinical Immunology Society; Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations; physician co-conveners Biologics Prescribers Collaborative; and members of the National Physicians Biologics Working Group of the Alliance for Patient Access.

For a more complete debunking of the AMA’s position, see the recent FDLI paper, Biosimilar Nomenclature: Can we Achieve the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth?

Claude Debussy said, ‘‘Music is between the notes.’’ And the same can be said for biosimilarity and the practice of medicine. We now have many thoughtful guidance documents but, in many respects, it’s just theory. And just as the case with music theory, the words on the page are one thing—but when talented performers sit down at different pianos in disparate venues the results are both similar and unique.

  Read More & Comment...