The Structure of Dysfunctional Health Claims

08/02/2012 08:26 AM |

Is that pomegranate juice in your glass or are you just happy to see me?

According to DSHEA, dietary supplements are foods. And now a food (or in this case, a fruit juice) is behaving like a dietary supplement -- making false health claims.

Makers of POM Wonderful (a pomegranate juice drink) have been warned by both the FDA and the FTC to stop making unsubstantiated claims about the drink's health benefits.

Among the claims made by the company is that POM is "40% as effective as Viagra" because it improves blood flow and promotes healthy blood vessels. The firm also claim POM is "proven to fight cardiovascular, prostate and erectile health" and that "clinical studies prove that POM Juice prevents, reduces the risk of, and treats, erectile dysfunction."

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover pilot study examined the efficacy of pomegranate juice versus placebo in improving erections in 61 male subjects. The study did not achieve overall statistical significance, but the authors (from the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California,) conclude that additional studies with more patients and longer treatment periods may in fact reach statistical significance.

And then again -- it may not.

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit against the makers of POM Wonderful. This comes six months after the FDA told POM to stop misleading consumers with claims of “super health powers.”

There’s a punchline in there somewhere   Read More & Comment...

"Safer" Vaccines Endangers Health Of Children

08/01/2012 04:28 PM |

News accounts of the effect of a weaker DTP vaccine ignore the fact that it was 'diluted" in response to panic about the vaccine's safety that was bogus.  The Precautionary Principle has harmed thousands of children...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/whooping-cough-vaccine-effective-early-form-study-finds/story?id=16898211#.UBmQU8j3v5h


  Read More & Comment...

Jonca returns to the Bull-y Pulpit

08/01/2012 07:35 AM |

Jonca Bull returns to the agency after stints at Novartis and Genentech to become director of the Office of Minority Health.

Great choice.

Good luck, Jonca.

  Read More & Comment...

(Lap) Band on the Run

07/31/2012 08:43 AM |

Doctors behaving badly -- very badly.

The FDA has sent a warning letter to Lap-Band VIP warning them to change their billboard and television marketing or face disciplinary action. Lap-Band VIP, based in Tarzana, has promoted its weight-loss surgery on television, the Internet and freeway billboards throughout Southern California. One billboard featured a photograph of a thin woman with the pitch: "Tiffany lost over 100 lbs. Actual patient. Results may vary."

Those ads were misleading, the FDA said in a June 25 letter, because they failed to include adequate warnings about the surgery's risks. The agency said Lap-Band VIP "should take prompt action to correct the violations" or risk "regulatory action."

Dr. Shahram Salimitari, a co-owner of Lap-Band VIP, told the Los Angeles Times that the company was pulling the billboards down. "Most of my patients come through referral," Salimitari said. "We don't need to advertise like that to get patients. We do it by taking care of patients."

It seems that Dr. Salimitari has an interesting way of taking care of thngs.

He’s described on the Lap-Band VIP website as a specialist in "gastric banding procedures," but the website does not mention that Salimitari was arrested by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in 2008 and charged with threatening to kill a sheriff's deputy and a flower shop owner.

Talk about violative behavior!

The trouble started after the store owner asked Salimitari to move his black BMW 323i, which he had double-parked outside her store in a Valencia strip mall, according to a sheriff's arrest report.

Salimitari swore at the woman and said, "If you do anything to my car, I'll kill you," the store owner, Myra Harbour, testified at a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court in San Fernando. The woman later obtained a restraining order, which is still in effect, that prohibits Salimitari from coming within 100 yards of her.

Sheriff's Deputy Thomas Babiracki said Salimitari threatened to kill him after he arrived at the flower shop. The deputy said he used pepper spray to control the irate surgeon and that he needed another deputy's help to handcuff the 220-pound Salimitari.

"I felt threatened," the deputy testified. "He's larger than I am."

Results, it seems, may vary.

  Read More & Comment...

Bay State Abeyance

07/30/2012 07:49 AM |

Massachusetts has lifted its ban against pharmaceutical co-pay coupons.

State Representative Steven Walsh, a Lynn Democrat who chairs the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care Financing and leads House efforts to tamp down health costs, supported lifting the ban. He believes it is wrong to deny patients access to the coupons, even for a limited time. “To not allow families to get coupons ... for life-saving drugs seems pretty Draconian,” Walsh said.

Co-pay coupons are prohibited if a generic is available.

The law expires in 2015 unless it is renewed. Under it, the state must conduct a detailed analysis to determine if health care costs rise after the lifting of the coupon ban. The review will examine whether patients are more faithful about taking their medications and whether there are changes in the use of generic, versus brand name, drugs.

  Read More & Comment...

Everybody in the Pool

07/27/2012 08:07 AM |

The Mandate.  It sounds like an epithet from Jersey Shore.

It’s time to stop debating (or celebrating or bemoaning) the legality of the individual mandate. The Supremes have spoken.  Now it’s time to start discussing, seriously discussing, why it’s important – and flawed.

You can’t have an insurance-based healthcare system without healthy young people in it. We have many millions who are not and many of them can well afford it. They choose not to have coverage. The mandate’s penalty (or, if you prefer, the tax) is a limp noodle. It’s less than the cost of an annual premium. And to further weaken the desire of healthy young adults to buy health insurance – they can’t be denied if and when they get ill.

This important cohort isn’t going to be threatened into the insurance pool. They are going to have to be enticed. Alas, that’s not something Uncle Sam is very good at -- but the private sector is. And since insurance companies can’t sell policies across state lines (a travesty that should be fixed) it’s going to have to happen on a state-by-state basis.

We can evolve healthcare by recognizing that it must be done locally — state-by-state. When it comes to reform, states are the laboratories of invention.

If the key goal of healthcare evolution is broader coverage at lower costs, one national program that offers valuable lessons for the path forward is Medicare Part D (the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Part D applies free-enterprise principles to the nation's health care system (letting competition drive down prices and increase choice and quality) rather than operating it like a government-managed utility. That’s the fundamental debate.

When it comes to the future of the Affordable Care Act (or, if you prefer, ObamaCare) there are many crystal balls.

But what we need are balls of a different consistency.

  Read More & Comment...

When "Over There" is "Over Here"

07/26/2012 08:06 AM |

Regulators (especially those of the FDA variety) love ambiguity – because ambiguity is power. But regulatory ambiguity invariably leads to mission creep.

Presented for your examination, this short codicil from the recently signed PDUFA legislation:

SEC. 311. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

‘‘There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over any violation of this Act relating to any article regulated under this Act if such article was intended for import into the United States or if any act in furtherance of the violation was committed in the United States.’’

Whether this was written incorrectly or intentionally written in an overbroad fashion, it’s now the law of the land.  But what does it mean?

To answer that question we need to address ambiguity’s regulatory cousin -- intent.  Here’s a what-if scenario: 

Acme Pharmaceutical Company has a drug that is both EMA and FDA approved.  Acme wants to report on the results of a new clinical trial conducted for EMA appraisal. The clinical trial is for a use not currently approved by the FDA.  Acme sends out a press release to European media. The story runs in European newspapers. The New York Times (via its London bureau) picks up the story.

Could Acme (because of the story in the New York Times) be accused by the FDA of off-label promotion?

Here’s the key question – was Acme’s intent to have the story picked up by a US media outlet?

Internal company debates often focus on responsibility for an FDA violation after the fact.  Section 311 makes it clear that more wide-ranging discussions need to happen beforehand. What is the intent? Is it marketing-driven or is it being done in the best interest of a patient or the broader public health? (PS/ these two things are not mutually exclusive.)  Intent counts.  Just as the FDA has asked whether or not the speaker and the audience matters when it comes to the issue of “scientific exchange,” so too is this relevant in helping to determine “responsibility” for “extraterritorial” off-label conversations.

As the FDA asked in its December Federal Register notice, “How do companies generally separate scientific roles and promotional roles within their corporate structures?” How indeed?

To paraphrase the proverb, ““The smallest intention is more important than the greatest deed.”

  Read More & Comment...

The Soda Mandate

07/25/2012 07:11 AM |

There was so much righteous rhetoric at yesterday’s New York City Board of Health hearing on the Mayor’s proposal to ban high calorie drinks that it was a miracle the floor didn’t collapse from all of the, um, earnestness.

The major sound bite for the pro-ban crowd seemed to be that the theses of the anti-ban representatives were “the same arguments used by Big Tobacco.”  “Sugar,” they repeated ad nauseam, “is the new tobacco.” Sure.

Specifically the pro-ban zealots (led by that old war horse himself, Michael Jacobson) were referring to the “empty arguments” of jobs, choice, government intrusion, and economic impact.

The hearing also featured five New York City Council members and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz who all voiced their opposition to the proposed measure.  Why, they asked, isn’t this measure up for debate and vote in front of the City Council – the elected representatives of the people of the City of New York? 

The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” was mentioned more than once -- a lot more than once.

As Councilman Dan Halloran commented to me, “Mayor Bloomberg always knows best – just ask him.”

My testimony (which can be found here) concluded as follows:

New York City has not filed a physical education plan with the state since 1982. It’s time for Mayor Bloomberg to step down from the bully pulpit long enough to get our kids back into the gym.

It’s time for the Mayor to take a big gulp, stop talking about fizz and start focusing on phys ed.

The Mayor’s proposal will be voted on by the entire NYC Board of Health – all of whom are Bloomberg appointees.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The ends do not justify the means.

  Read More & Comment...

Illegal To Carry Your Own Cup In NYC?

07/24/2012 03:02 PM |

Just thought of something.. What if you use your own container (much like coffee refills).  


Here's the proposed reg again:

The limits would apply to cups and containers used for sugary drinks. The limits would
also apply to all self-service cups and containers, regardless of intended contents. Without such limitation,
a self-service cup exceeding the maximum size could be used for either non-sugary or sugary drinks. This
rule will not limit the amount of sweetener a customer may add to his or her own drink


So is using your own cup or container illegal?  Would someone be fined for carrying a 20oz reusable (environmentally friendly!!) container.   
  Read More & Comment...

Bloomberg Limits Cup Sizes in NYC

07/24/2012 02:56 PM |

You see,  if you give people a choice of cup sizes they wouldn't behave as the city intended.  If this is not an intrusion into the lives and livelihood of individuals, what is?   This will pave the way to portion and packaging control.. . Unreal.  

The limits would apply to cups and containers used for sugary drinks. The limits would
also apply to all self-service cups and containers, regardless of intended contents. Without such limitation,
a self-service cup exceeding the maximum size could be used for either non-sugary or sugary drinks. This
rule will not limit the amount of sweetener a customer may add to his or her own drink.
The rule will not take effect until 6 months after adoption by the Board of Health. It establishes a fine of
$200 for each occasion that it is violated. By addressing the increasing size of sugary drinks and
reacquainting New Yorkers with more appropriate portion sizes, the City is taking an important step in
reducing sugary drink consumption and combating obesity and its resulting morbidity and mortality.
The following specific amendments are proposed:
 Set a maximum size for sugary drinks: Non-alcoholic sugary drinks may not be offered or sold in
cups or containers that can contain more than 16 fluid ounces.
 Set a maximum size for self-service cups: Food service establishments may not offer or sell selfservice cups that can contain more than 16 fluid ounces. 
 Set a fine for violations:  No more than two hundred dollars for each violation as described in the
proposed rule.  Read More & Comment...

The Big Apple on Big Gulps

07/24/2012 07:35 AM |

Sometimes even “Big L” New York Liberals understand that more government isn’t always the answer.  Here is a brief video offering a sample of the Big Apple’s opinion on Mayor Bloomberg’s suggested treatment for “Big Gulp Disease.

http://youtu.be/quzl5_zFejY

I am getting ready to testify today in front of the New York City Health Department on this issue.  My takeaway message?  The Mayor should focus less on fizz and more on getting New York City kids more phys ed.

  Read More & Comment...

Aurora, Colorado and Risk Perception

07/23/2012 05:34 PM |

In Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman conducted a study and wrote a paper demonstrating  that "if you can think of it, it must be important."   Tversky, A; Kahneman (1973). "Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability". Cognitive Psychology 5 (1): 207–233. DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9

Put another way,  the two scientists demonstrated that we often assume something happening more often than it is or explain an event not it terms of the frequency or the facts but by what is most easily called to mind.  Hence, after the evil massacre of this past week the first reaction many of us had (the killer was crazy,  gun control laws are too weak,  media is too violent and too real in its depiction of violence) was based on the beliefs, events and images that most easily come to mind.   

There is another element of  this horrible event:  The way in which people acted to save the lives of others -- perfect strangers and family members alike -- without regard to their own well-being or survival.   Our moral sense is shaped by another aspect of availability:  that life is precious and we must do what we can to preserve it when it is threatened.    None of us can know how we would have acted with certainty.  But it is equally certain that most would seek to protect and help.  

  Read More & Comment...

Soda Ban Supporters Silence Science

07/23/2012 03:18 PM |

Dumb and Dumber: Hey guys, whoa, big gulps huh? Alright. Well ...

Tomorrow the NYC Department of Health holds hearings on its proposal to ban more than 16 oz servings of sugar sweetened soft drinks.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln’s statement about Prohibition: to control human appetite thourhg legislation by making a crime out of something that is not a crime is beyond reason…”

But then again  the war against soft drinks and sugar shaping up to be a nutritional Climategate.

Climate change researchers and scientists who do not sing from the global warming hymnal – even if they acknowledge that human activity contributes to changes in our environment – are silenced and sanctioned.  They are attacked in public, denied opportunities to publish and participate in conferences and savaged for receiving funding from private companies.  The true believers control the message and the policy response to global warming.   As Bjorn Lomborg has noted this is leading to” elaborate and expensive actions…to stop global warming  that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature.”

The same thing is going on in the public crusade against sugar and sugar sweetened soft drinks.   The attacks that claim sugar is as dangerous as smoking or alcohol are not scientific.  Those leading the charge are attacking and silencing anyone who dares to challenge this viewpoint.  And it’s leading to policies and actions like the soda ban that   limit freedom without having any impact on our health. 

The effort to restrict the size of soft drinks consumption flows from an obesity arena that Jeffrey Friedman  -- a pioneer in the genetics of obesity – has described as “so political, so rife with misinformation and disinformation.”

As Friedman told the New York Times in 2004, scientific data shows “..that body weight, in animals and humans, is not under conscious control. Body weight, he says, is genetically determined, as tightly regulated as height. Genes control not only how much you eat but also the metabolic rate at which you burn food. “  As Friedman notes,  ''People live in the moment.  They lose weight over the short term and say that they have exercised willpower.” But over the long term, the body's intrinsic controls win out. And just as willpower cannot make fat people thin, a lack of it does not make thin people fat.”

Indeed, research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the increase in obesity is a result of people who are programmed to gain weight doing so and pulling the average weight of the nation upward.   In 1991, 23 percent of Americans fell into the obese category; now 31 percent do, a more than 30 percent increase. But the average weight of the population has increased by just 7 to 10 pounds since 1991.

The same data shows that while “prevalence of obesity in the United States increased during the last decades of the 20th century.. “More recently there appears to have been a slowing of the rate of increase or even a leveling off.  The decline is most pronounced in younger adults, primarily women.  

Further, previous increases in weight gain are inversely related to the decline in smoking.  In fact much of the death associated with obesity is actually related to smoking.  So much for Mayor Bloomberg’s assertion that obesity related deaths will soon exceed smoking related mortality.  

Last week another study said inactivity is the leading cause of preventable deaths.  Set aside the problems of assuming all death is related to inactivity or any other single factor:  If inactivity is the leading cause of preventable deaths, can obesity or smoking or anything else be the leading reason too?  In fact, several epidemiological studies show that being heavier or even obese is not associated with higher mortality rates.  Indeed,  a  higher BMI in both sexes and WC in men were associated with increased survival in older adults, while a higher WHR or WTR either decreased or did not influence risk of death.

So why focus on sugar or sugar sweetened soft drinks as the biggest public health menace?

Those who do so claim it’s because sugar consumption is out of control and even addictive.   (I guess more so than drinking.)  But the addiction assertion has little evidence to support it.

And it’s undercut in any event by Department of Agriculture data showing that consumption of sugar and soft drinks has declined over the past decade as fruit, vegetable and fiber consumption as a percent of daily caloric intake has increased.   So has the number of people who are not only told by their doctor to exercise but also go out and “just do it.”

New York City is part of this trend.  According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York City kids – across every borough --  follow this national trend.  In NYC the adoption of healthy lifestyles by teenagers  started in 1997 well before the ban was proposed and well before soda and snack foods were banned from schools.  The same goes with exercise.   Since 1997, high school students in the city have been watching less television and exercising.  Yet under Bloomberg physical education classes have been cut throughout the school system.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/education/even-as-schools-battle-obesity-physical-education-is-sidelined.html?pagewanted=all


The ban on soda makes sense only as an emotional response by people whose minds are made up.  Otherwise it’s silly.   Hence if the soda ban is enacted, you can go to happy hour for NYC 24 oz. tallboys  (as well as free jello shots) but not a 20 oz Pepsi.  But guess which is a bigger public health problem in the NYC?

Here’s what the NYC Department of Health said about alcohol in NYC:  "alcohol-related deaths are among the leading causes of death in NYC; in 2008, an estimated 1,537 NYC adults died of alcohol-related causes. These included deaths from chronic alcohol use, such as alcoholism, and deaths from acute alcohol use, such as binge drinking. Liver disease accounts for one fifth (22%) of all alcohol-related deaths and is the most common chronic cause.”   http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/survey/survey-2010alcohol.pdf


Silencing those who disagree with the anti-sugar crusaders will lead to failed polices that distract from more effective solutions and real problems.  The soda size ban is just the start down that wrong direction.
  Read More & Comment...

Not so sweet 16

07/23/2012 09:05 AM |

Tomorrow (Tuesday) the New York City Department of Health is holding a public hearing on Mayor Bloomberg’s call to ban sugar-sweetened drinks in portions over 16 ounces from New York City restaurants.

CMPI will be testifying.

In advance of the hearing, we took our roving camera to Central Park on a sunny Saturday to ask New Yorkers what they thought about the Mayor’s initiative.

Short answer – they don’t like it very much.

While recognizing the danger of obesity, those we interviewed were pretty blunt that regulation is a bad idea. They don’t see “more government” as the solution to changing the nutritional habits of the Big Apple.

Sorry Mike.

We will post this video (along with our testimony) shortly.

Bottoms up.

  Read More & Comment...

Tim Possible

07/20/2012 08:40 AM |

In "How Fake Cancer Drugs Entered US," the Wall Street Journal reports on how two batches of counterfeit Avastin [bevacizumab] made their way into the US. The Journal specifically details the role played by the Internet pharmacy Canada Drugs.

In an email, FDA spokeswoman Sarah Clark-Lynn said, "The recent counterfeit incidents highlight vulnerabilities in the drug-supply chain and the possible health risk to patients if medical practices are choosing to buy unapproved drugs from a foreign supplier."

Hopefully veep wannabe Tim Pawlenty has been following this story.  When he was Governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty promised that his “drugs from Canada” Minnesota RxConnect program would serve some 700,000 people. According to  latest statistics, Minnesota RxConnect filled about 138 prescriptions a month. That's for the whole state, population 5,167,101.

That’s a nod to the smarts of the people in the North Star State. Recently Minnesota, state officials observed Canadian Internet pharmacies engaging in dangerous practices.

One pharmacy had its pharmacists check 100 new prescriptions or 300 refill prescriptions per hour, a volume so high that there is no way to assure safety.

One pharmacy failed to label its products and several others failed to send any patient drug information to patients receiving prescription drugs.

Drugs requiring refrigeration were being shipped un-refrigerated with no evidence that the products would remain stable.

One pharmacy had no policy in place for drug recalls. Representatives of the pharmacy allegedly said that the patient could contact the pharmacy about a recall "if they wished."

The FDA launched an investigation, confiscating thousands of drug shipments headed for the United States. Some of them were headed for Minnesotans who ordered them over the state's Web site.

When opened, nearly half claimed to be of Canadian origin, but "85 percent of them were from 27 other countries including Iran, Ecuador and China." And 30 of them were counterfeit.

One Minnesota resident discovered that one of his "Canadian" drugs came from Greece, and another came from Vanuatu, a small island in the South Pacific. "I never heard of the place," he said.

If Governor Pawlenty is, indeed, being vetted as a Romney running mate, hopefully he’s being asked about his stance on drug importation.

The full WSJ story can be found here.

  Read More & Comment...

ATU, Brute?

07/19/2012 07:59 AM |

Per the MHRA’s plan to provide early access to some unlicensed products, our spy inside that agency reports that:

MHRA put together a proposal two years ago to allow medicines at the end stage of development trials earlier access to the market. The UK government was not interested in this and kicked it into the long grass. This scheme MHRA proposed at the time would be very like the French ATU scheme which has been in operation for the past ten years or so.

(For more on the French compassionate use program, see here.)

But when last year, the UK government started talking about its "growth agenda,” it decided that early access to new medicines was central to that agenda, it came back to the MHRA for help. We dusted down our previous scheme -- which is now out for consultation.

When the dust clears, we’ll be watching.

  Read More & Comment...

The BPA Ban That Never Was

07/18/2012 04:27 PM |

The groups that have failed to turn BPA into a tort law cash cow are seeking to claim victory for a BPA phaseout that companies had in place for years industry... From the New York Times

F.D.A. Makes It Official: BPA Can’t Be Used in Baby Bottles and Cups

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Published: July 17, 2012

It would be interesting to read and know more about what companies did to work with chemical companies to develop polymers that had the same benefits of BPA.    Maybe one day...   Read More & Comment...

Thriving without a license

07/18/2012 07:07 AM |

A dynamic proposal from our regulatory couusins at MHRA on early access to life-saving medicines.

The U.K.'s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is asking for public comments on a proposal that would allow early access to unlicensed products for life threatening, chronic, or seriously debilitating conditions without adequate treatment options. MHRA said the program would apply to products with a "positive benefit-risk profile" that have completed Phase III testing. The agency estimates that 1-2 products per year would qualify for the program. MHRA added that in exceptional cases the program may be used for products at an earlier stage of development.

BioCentury reports that the proposal would allow sponsors to request an MHRA early opinion on an unlicensed product for a fee of L29,000 ($45,000). The opinion will be valid for one year and is renewable for L29,000 per year. Sponsors will not be allowed to advertise the products. Local level NHS organizations will be responsible for deciding whether to fund early access products from existing budgets.

MHRA proposed five ways of pricing early access products: conducting a full NICE cost-effectiveness review; setting the same price as that of the therapy for which the unlicensed product directly substitutes; allowing companies to set their own price as long as the impact on the NHS budget is below a predetermined threshold; supplying products for free; or determining prices on a case-by-case basis. Comments are due October 5. MHRA said the program could launch by year end.

  Read More & Comment...

Another Weapon Against HIV

07/17/2012 02:05 PM |

NPR's excellent health blog has a great discussion about Truvada, the HIV retroviral that the FDA just approved as a preventive treatment for a specific sub group of HIV patients:   http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/07/17/156868446/deciding-on-truvada-who-should-take-new-hiv-prevention-pill?ps=sh_stcathdl


The debate about the cost is a false one.  At a retail price of $13k a year,  Truvada is a bargain compared to what we lose and what we spend on treating HIV. 
My bet is that insurers will pay for this targeted preventive treatment.  As Mark Duggan has shown: previous HIV treatments have reduce Medicaid spending by 16 percent and increase life expectancy by a factor of three.    

  Read More & Comment...

Wither "the Deal?"

07/17/2012 06:45 AM |

From the fine  folks at the DIA …

Supreme Court's Health Care Decision was Announced, Now What Does it Mean for the Biopharmaceutical Industry?



To cure your headache over the sometimes confusing decision and more confusing commentary about the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision, hear three veteran health law and policy experts explain what to expect in the wake of the decision. They will detail what the case decided, what changed and what didn’t, then explore how it may affect biopharma companies, as well as the political implications and what Capitol Hill might do next as health reform evolves.

Join us on July 26 from 11:00 AM-12:30 PM ET for the Will the PhRMA Deal Stand and What Happens Next? What the Biopharmaceutical Industry Needs to Know in the Wake of the Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Affordable Care Act webinar where you'll hear experts cut through the hype to consider the real effects of the Supreme Court's decision on the drug, device and biopharma industries.

Moderator:
 John F. Kamp, JD, PhD 
Executive Director
, Coalition for Healthcare Communication

Presenters:
 Peter J. Pitts, Former FDA Associate Commissioner 
President, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest

Arnold I. Friede, Former FDA Associate Chief Counsel, Principal, Arnold I. Friede & Associates

Richard Manning, PhD 
Partner
, Bates White Economic Consulting

Agenda and Event Details
Ellen Diegel, Event Planner
Phone +1.215.293.5810
Fax +1-215.442.6199
Ellen.Diegel@diahome.org

  Read More & Comment...