Latest Drugwonks' Blog
The National Federation of Independent Business is announcing a new report this morning that says the health insurance premium tax (levied on insurance plans) will cut as many as 249,000 jobs in the private sector by 2021 and cause a loss of $18 billion to $30 billion in sales. The drop would be a result of rising premium costs for employers and consumers. Just last week America's Health Insurance Plans released a similar report that said the tax would increase premiums by as much as 3.7 percent. The White House pushed back on the AHIP report and said it ignored "provisions that will increase transparency and bring costs down."
Read the NFIB report here.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback announced a major overhaul of the state’s Medicaid program today, which would put nearly all Medicaid recipients into private, managed-care plans. While low-income families are currently in such plans, elderly and disabled Kansans receive care through a fee-for-service system.
The state has drafted a request for proposals from private contractors willing to provide comprehensive health, mental health and long-term health care services at a fixed rate per person. State officials say they expect to select three vendors, who will compete for clients.
At a news conference today, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, a physician and the administration’s point man on the Medicaid reform effort, predicted the changes could slow the growth in Medicaid spending by nearly one percent a year. That would save the state more than $350 million over the next five years and would save the federal government $500 million at the same time.
Read the full story here.
A new report in the Chicago Sun-Times raises an important question in the looming debate over generic interchangeability – the non-active ingredients in pharmaceuticals.
Just as there are bioeqivalance issues between innovator and generics – so too are there important differences between generics of the same molecule. And an important issue in both cases is the variety of fillers, colors and additives in these products that have nothing to do with the reason it is prescribed but can have unintended and undiagnosed consequences that can range from stomach pains to headaches to hyperactivity.
“It’s frequently overlooked by medical professionals and patients because, when we prescribe medication, we’re prescribing the active ingredient,” said Dr. John Saran, who specializes in internal medicine with Edward Medical Group. “(But) there may be 15 other things in there.”
While patients generally are asked if they have allergies to any medications, the allergy refers to the drug, not necessarily the fillers in it.
For instance, lactose is a common filler in pills and capsules. If a patient is lactose intolerant, the patient might believe they cannot tolerate the drug, when in fact, it is the filler that is causing cramping. Neither the doctor nor the patient may be aware that the pill contained lactose because, according to Saran, many times the additives and filler information are not included on the handout from the pharmacy.
According to the Sun-Times report, “Common additives … can lead to asthma attacks, anaphylaxis, runny nose and adversely affect children with learning disorders. Artificial sweeteners can affect those who have hyperactivity. Vegans may not want capsules because they are gelatin based. Even dye-free versions of medicine may still contain preservatives that can cause reactions. Children’s medications are especially a problem because they are flavored and colored to make them more palatable."
As if adverse event reporting wasn’t tough enough already.
According to BioCentury, Lisa Barclay has replaced Molly Muldoon as chief of staff for Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. Barclay, a partner at the law firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, worked at FDA in the 1990s in the Commissioner's Office of Policy.
The 4th Annual Risk Management and Drug Safety Summit is over. But the reverberations will be felt for some time to come.
After event chair (me) opened with a challenge for industry and regulators to step up to the challenge of “the responsibility of risk, the esteemed presenters were, to put it mildly – feisty.
(My complete opening comments on the “responsibility of risk” can be found here and many of the presentations from the Summit can be found here.)
The first keynote presenter at the summit was Janet Woodcock, who said that “advancing the science of safety is a shared effort.” She also shared the agency’s relief (shared by the majority of summiteers) that MedGuides shall now exist outside of a REMS context.
When MedGuides were in safety’s land. Let my REMS plans go.
Janet also made it clear that the outcomes data bases now available to the agency’s Sentinel program will not be used for comparative effectiveness purposes.
She then addressed the issue (also part of the PDUVA V discussion) or a benefit/risk assessment tool. Specifically, Janet laid out five “key considerations”: (1) analysis of condition, (2) unmet medical need, (3) clinical benefit, (4) risk and (5) risk management.
Sounds like a plan. Well – almost.
Dr. Woodcock then discussed a pilot program that most in the room (myself included) had never heard of before. Janet shared that CDER has begun a pilot program (with six unnamed NMEs) wherein the various sectors of review teams will fill out their own benefit/risk assessments (based on the five criteria mentioned above) to explain how they arrived at their relative positions. She didn’t mention whether or not these findings would be made public.
(Did somebody say, “transparency?”)
Janet also talked about the agency’s continuing and crucial struggle to advance PMI (patient medical information). The goal of CDER’s current initiative to create a one-pager for Rx products more akin to the Nutrition Facts Panel (aka, “the food label”) or an OTC “drug facts” box.
A noble effort – but the devil is certainly in the details. For example – would this document be progressive, or would existing products need to create them as well. If progressive, would this single sheet be part of the initial label negotiation process? And if retroactive – can the agency use its FDAAA directive labeling authority to create the page itself -- and, if so, based on what social science? Where would the boundaries be between product education and promotion? How would this document be distributed (hard copy, websites, social media, etc.)? Would generics use the same information and, if so, what about narrow therapeutic index products? Janet didn’t have all of the answers – but it’s certainly a provocative topic worth pursuing.
Next up was Sir Alasdair Breckenridge (Chairman, MHRA), who turned heads by saying that, “We need to stop talking about safety. Safety should be removed from our lexicon. We must focus on benefits and harms.”
Sir Alasdair also discussed the difficulties of regulating in an environment where EU- level directives add additional burdens to national level regulatory authority. Specifically, he shared that mandarins in Brussels have altered the definition of “adverse reaction.” The new definition includes:
“… noxious and unintended effects resulting not only from the authorized use of a medicinal product at normal doses, but also from medication errors and uses outside the terms of the marketing authorization, including misuse and abuse of the medicinal product.”
How, Sir Alasdair, asked, can any agency address adverse reactions based on medical errors and product abuse? Are they signals or noise?
Brussels sprouts. Alasdair doubts.
He also cited an interesting study (Golder, S., et al, PLoS Medicine, May 2011) on the issue of adverse effects data derived from RCTs as compared to observational studies. The conclusion of this paper is that:
“Empirical evidence indicates that there is no difference, on average, in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systemic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types.”
This opens up a big can of worms relative to the considered value of observation studies. But, as Alexandre Dumas said, “All generalizations are dangerous – even this one.”
Picking up on Sir Alasdair’s point about “benefits and harms,” Dr. Tim Franson (former regulatory chief at Eli Lilly & Co, current President of the USP Convention and an SVP at B&D Consulting) asked a smart question, should we be talking about risk at all – or about benefit risk? shared a timely quote from Edward Tenner’s treatise, Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, “Any technology powerful enough to improve life radically is also capable of abuse and prone to serious unanticipated side effects. Mix new technologies with the wide variations in how organizations and individuals behave and you often have a recipe for explosion.”
That passage deals with nuclear power. Discuss.
Dr. Franson concluded his remarks reminding the audience that, when it comes to global benefit/risk management, “We all share in the responsibility.”
Day Two of the summit featured a keynote address by John Lechleiter, Chairman, President and CEO of Eli Lilly and Co. who commented:
“We’d like to see the FDA adopt systematic, transparent Benefit/Risk assessment methods consistently across review divisions and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. This would support more balanced regulatory decision-making … and enable the Agency to clearly communicate the rationale for its decisions to industry, providers and the public at large. I note here FDA’s support for medication adherence in 2011 – which we applaud. But a more balanced approach to communicating both the benefits and risks of a drug would also aid in the effort to improve adherence.
FDA should accelerate efforts to adopt and apply the best scientific methods and also incorporate the perspectives of affected patients – which can form the basis of consistent, transparent, reproducible decision-making.
Here are some things that I believe FDA could do right now to accelerate the benefit-risk agreement outlined in PDUFA:
Identify external benefit-risk experts as key consultants. FDA has acknowledged the need for systematic benefit-risk assessment tools … and has engaged external experts sporadically over the past several years. To accelerate progress, FDA should identify and pull together the leading academicians, clinicians, and thought leaders in the field now to augment their internal practical experiences in drug review.
Engage other major regulators in this effort. For example, FDA could advance discussions with EMA and other agencies to develop a harmonized approach to benefit risk assessment that would enrich decision-making and enable effective communications. This is important, as there’s potential for discord as regulators globally develop different tools and approaches. Adopting globally harmonized assessment of benefits and risk could alleviate regulatory confusion and uncertainty and help advance the public health.”
(John’s compete remarks can be found here.)
The theme of shared responsibility ran through the entire event. But talk is cheap. And if we all believe that to be true – then it must also instruct our rhetoric. For example – should ETASU (Elements to Assure Safe Use) be changed to ETASU (Elements to Assist Safe Use)? After all, (and to brutally frank here) nothing can ever assure safe use, but if we all assist in the endeavor, well, there’s a much higher chance for success.
Shared responsibility. If you can’t say it, you can’t do it.
Which brings us back to where we started – risk as a shared responsibility facilitated relationships built on trust. Trust between regulator and regulated. Trust between physician and patient. Trust enhances perception and, as the saying goes, perception is reality.
Generally, when you think about President Obama’s “core constituencies,” blue-collar unions are at or near the top of the list.
Consider, then, the following groups and their united position against the President’s plan to impose additional mandatory rebates on the pharmaceutical industry:
(And let’s call it what it is – a tax. More precisely, an excise tax imposed by Uncle Sam on drug sales – and not a single penny goes towards lower costs for a single patient. Not one. The cash goes into the general fund.)
· The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
· The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
· The International Association of Police Associations
· Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
· International Association of Fire Fighters
· International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers
And the soliDarity is for a good reason – according to a new study by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the President’s new tax on Medicare Part D would:
· Increase Medicare prescription drug premiums by up to 40%
· Increase annual out-of-pocket spending for almost 18 million seniors by as much as $208 annually
· Increase yearly total out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors by up to $3.7 billion.
The bottom line is the bottom line: As Yale Economist Fiona Scott Morton plainly states, “Applying the Medicaid rebate rule to Medicare Part D would likely result in higher prices for consumers in the private sector.”
That is not what the union movement signed on for when they supported the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
But wait, it gets worse.
The President’s tax a job killer. According to the Battelle Report, the tax could cause the elimination of between 130,000 and 260,000 jobs – many of them in the construction industry -- and hence the union revolt.
And, to add insult to injury, the President’s tax would also stifle life science innovation.
It’s hugely disappointing that the same man who (as a United States Senator) once said that …
“Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require continued federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising and use of personal genomic information."
… is now advocating a policy that would result in precisely the opposite.
After speaking (during the State of the Union and a widely quoted op-ed in the Wall Street Journal) about the need for America to embrace innovation – President Obama is trying to make it more difficult, specifically when it comes to the desire to invest in pharmaceutical innovation – a sure bet under no circumstances.
If innovation is one of the key answers to our national economic recovery, then the President should abide by what he said, “Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. We can make our economy stronger and more competitive, while meeting our fundamental responsibilities to one another.”
As Harvard University health economist (and Obama healthcare advisor) David Cutler has noted: "Virtually every study of medical innovation suggests that changes in the nature of medical care over time are clearly worth the cost."
Let’s keep our eye on the prize. No, not ill-considered budget reduction on the backs of working Americans and seniors – the real prize: better access to smarter healthcare for all Americans. Rather than wasting time on spin, let’s redouble our efforts on innovation. Then, when we succeed through brainpower and teamwork (and, hopefully some civil bipartisanship), the circus surrounding the President’s tax will be but a footnote in the history of American healthcare.
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:17 AM
To: CDER-ALL-HANDS
Subject: FY2011 Innovative Drug Approvals
CDER Staff:
You may have seen news reports or statements by industry that we are not “innovative,” or that we make it too hard for companies to get a new product on the market. But these broad-brush statements are, in most cases, inaccurate and unfair. They often lack important context that would explain our intentions and the work we do.
To help correct these misimpressions, CDER recently collaborated with the Commissioner’s Office, CBER, and many others throughout FDA on a report that highlights the innovative products approved by the agency in Fiscal Year 2011.
The report, released today, shows that in FY 2011, for CDER and CBER combined, FDA approved 35 new molecular entities (NMEs). These include innovative therapies for hepatitis C, late-stage prostate cancer, lupus, drug resistant skin infections, pneumonia, and other serious and life-threatening diseases.
The speed and efficiency with which these products were approved speaks directly to our staff and our high-quality reviews. It also demonstrates our willingness to exercise regulatory flexibility and creative approaches to help industry meet our standards—without lowering them.
FDA expedited the approval of many of these products by streamlining clinical trial requirements to permit smaller, shorter, or fewer studies wherever possible.
Here are a few highlights of the report:
FDA approved nearly half -- 16 -- of the innovative drugs under the agency’s “priority review” program for drugs that may offer major advances in treatment; priority reviews carry a six-month target date for review.
FDA approved all but one of the 35 products on or before the target dates for approval agreed to with industry under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
FDA approved the majority of these innovative drugs on the “first cycle,” that is, without requests for additional information that would trigger a second review cycle.
Continuing to enhance our efficiencies remains important, and in the near future I will be sharing with you some ideas on this topic. The positive messages highlighted in this report are a direct result of the combined hard work of all of us at CDER. Thanks to all of you! I am proud and appreciative to be part of the CDER team!
To view today's press release and the report, please visit http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm278383.htm
FY2011 Innovative Drug Approvals Page: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/ucm276385.htm
Please join the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (www.cmpi.org) and some of the nation’s top experts in PDUFA and FDA reform for an interactive panel discussion of “Defining the Future of the FDA: PDUFA V and Beyond.”
When: 12:00 – 1:30PM, November 29, 2011
Where: RM.2168 Rayburn House Office Building
Who:
Peter J. Pitts (Moderator), Former FDA Associate Commissioner, President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
Vincent J. Ventimiglia, Jr, Former Assistant Secretary for Legislation at the US Department of Health and Human Services, Senior Vice President in the Health and Life Sciences Practice at B&D Consulting, a division of Baker & Daniels LLP.
Paul T. Kim, Former Deputy Staff Director for health policy for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Partner at Foley Hoag LLP in the Government Strategies practice.
Michele J. Orza, Former Assistant Director of the Health Care Team at the Government Accountability Office, Principal Policy Analyst at the National Health Policy Forum.
Tim Franson, Former Vice President, Global Regulatory Affairs, Eli Lilly & Co., President, USP Convention, Senior Vice President, Health and Life Sciences Sector, B&D Consulting.
RSVP: mcoluccio@cmpi.org
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
