Latest Drugwonks' Blog

CQ reports:

"Makers of dietary supplements looked to be on a collision course with Sen. John McCain when the Arizona Republican introduced legislation designed to strengthen policing of products marketed to casual and professional athletes." Yet, "the two sides appear to have reached a compromise they say will be part of a manager's amendment to a major food safety bill (S 510) being readied for Senate floor debate." Notably, "the provisions would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue long-delayed guidance on acceptable supplement ingredients and report to the Drug Enforcement Administration when it rejects new supplements that contain synthetic anabolic steroids." This "would be a victory for McCain," who wanted the FDA to have more authority over supplements.

Talk about federal preemption!

CMS Medicaid confirmed Thursday that some money states receive as rebates from drugmakers will now be redirected to the federal government to help pay for the new health overhaul.  

State officials had hoped the federal government would interpret the law in a way that left their discounts untouched. But in a letter Thursday to state Medicaid officials, CMS Services explained, "The amount of the savings resulting from the increases in the rebate percentages … will be remitted to the Federal government."

Cindy Mann, CMS director for the Center for Medicaid and State Operations , confirmed in an interview that meant states that already received drugmaker rebates between 15.1 and 23.1 percent would no longer be able to keep that portion of their savings. States and the federal government would continue to share in savings for the portion of the rebates both below and above that range. Many states already have average rebates well above 23 percent.

Mann suggested that state officials could negotiate deeper discounts with drugmakers to try to "recapture that dollar."

Thanks Cindy.  Very helpful.

Teva is resigning from the Generic Pharmaceutical Association effective June 30th. (Apotex and Hospira resigned from GPhA last year.)

Does this make GPhA the healthcare equivalent of the Not Ready for Primetime Players?

Because Teva (Hebrew for "nature") most certain
ly is.

Jon Cohn has written long and well on behalf of single payer health care for The New Republic.  For over a decade he posted his analysis and observations through The Treatment, a column that grew in influence once Obama took office.  I rarely agreed wth Cohn's observations but always admired his persistence and willingness to wade at least a little bit into the clininal literature. 

He has "retired" The Treatment but now reappears in TNR -- and elsewhere -- as a, hired hand or observer at large courtesy of the Kaiser Foundation which is now spending tens of millions to support Kaiser Health News.  Or as the byline in Cohn's most recent TNR piece puts it:  "This column is a collaboration between TNR and
Kaiser Health News. KHN is an editorially independent news service and is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente."

Read Cohn's piece here

A collaboration?  Does that mean KHN paid for Cohn to write the piece and TRN ran it?  Did it split the costs?  Did TNR pay for lunch?  Is this something KHN will continue to do with other news outlets and magazines?  Given the Kaiser Family Foundation's advocacy role and support of Obamacare, does this raise questions about media objectivity or should this be considered a novel way of funding reporting?

I have no problem with the Kaiser Foundation setting up KHN or engaging in a collaboration witn TNR  or any other publication to run pieces by Cohn.  I do have a problem when those who support Obamacare then turn around and attack those who have reservations about reform who use similar approaches to disseminate their views. 

Kudos to Cohn and TNR for finding creative ways to carry on the health care discussion.  Let's see if they and their followers are intellectually honest and consistent when folks like me follow suit. 

Rank Incompetence

  • 04.22.2010
From the New England Journal of Medicine:

To the Editor: In their Perspective article (Jan. 14 issue), Murray and Frenk review a number of indicators of the relatively poor state of the population's health in the United States. Most, if not all, of this information is well known to readers of the Journal, and the authors' use of it is not objectionable. However, Murray and Frenk begin their discussion by referring to the World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, from the World Health Organization (WHO), which ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, and this is objectionable. (I was editor-in-chief of the World Health Report 2000 but had no control over the rankings of health systems.) Fully 61% of the numbers that went into that ranking exercise were not observed but simply imputed from regressions based on as few as 30 actual estimates from among the 191 WHO member countries. Where the United States is concerned, data were available only for life expectancy and child survival, which together account for only 50% of the attainment measure. Moreover, the "responsiveness" component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated. This is not simply a problem of incomplete, inaccurate, or noncomparable data; there are also sound reasons to mistrust the conceptual framework behind the estimates, since it presupposes a production function for health system outcomes that depends only on a country's expenditure on health and its level of schooling, ignoring all cultural, geographic, and historical factors.


The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's dismissal of a theory opposed to quantum mechanics, "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!" Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation.

Philip Musgrove, Ph.D.
Health Affairs
Bethesda, MD


Ode to COI

  • 04.22.2010

Much conversation about the FDA’s revised guidance on advisory committee conflict of interest waivers.  Commissioner Hamburg wants a “stricter” policy.

Transparency?  Certainly.  But what exactly is the problem that requires stricter guidance?  It’s not COI – its empty seats. 218 positions of the 600-plus on FDA's 49 advisory committees have yet to be filled.

According to the Pink Sheet, The general perception has been that the conflict-of-interest policy has made it more difficult to properly recruit for advisory committees. "There have been places where we felt we didn't have the right experts and we cancelled the meetings," John Jenkins, director of the Office of New Drugs, told attendees at the FDA/CMS Summit in December 2009 "We may have gone too far."

During my tenure at the FDA I was the senior official in charge of advisory committee oversight and the final decision-maker on who got a COI waiver and who did not. Many did not — but those who did received their waivers because FDA professional career staff made a strong case that these people weren’t just important to the advisory committee — but critical.

And we should all pay attention to the nomenclature.  It’s not about “conflict of interest” – it’s about (as Secretary Sebelius correctly says) “interest.”  And having an “interest” is not necessarily a bad thing – as long as you’re transparent about it.

If we allow FDA adcomms to become the realm of the second best and the almost brightest –what have we done to the advancement of America’s health? The answer is a significant disservice.

The revised FDA guidance can be found  here.

Leonard Nimoy is retiring... and so is his incarnation of Mr. Spock

http://www.space.com/entertainment/leonard-nimoy-retires-star-trek-100421.html


“Fail First” or “Succeed First?”  It’s a pretty good proxy for the larger health care debate that pits short-term cost savings over long-term patient benefit.
 
Sound familiar?

A new bill in the California Assembly (AB 1826) addresses the issue of “fail first” policies (aka: “step therapy) and cuts right to the chase.

The bill “Requires a health plan or health insurer that covers prescription drug benefits to provide coverage for a drug that has been prescribed by a participating licensed health care provider for the treatment of pain without first requiring the enrollee or insured to use an alternative prescription drug or over-the-counter product.”

And it uses chronic pain as a specific example:

“Due to the variety of causal conditions and types of pain (acute and chronic), there is no standard treatment for pain.  Pain treatment varies according to type, severity, and duration of pain, as well as the causal condition (if known), patient co-morbidities, and other factors (e.g., medication intolerance or patient compliance).  Health care providers use clinical judgment to select among various pain medications and treatments in efforts to resolve or control pain for individual patients …For some enrollees, no pain medications are subject to fail-first protocols.  Other enrollees, depending on the provisions of their plan contracts or insurance policies, have outpatient pharmacy benefits that make coverage for between one and 38 pain medications subject to fail-first protocols …Of more than 200 prescription medications used to treat pain, 54 are subject to fail-first protocols for at least some portion of enrollees with health insurance subject to this bill whose health insurance includes an outpatient pharmacy benefit.”  

(The complete bill can be found here.)

One example of a group supporting this legislation is the California Medical Association. Opposed?  The Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies.

The repercussions of choosing short-term savings over long-term results, of cost-based choices over patient-centric care, of “fail first” policies over the right treatment for the right patient at the right time – are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health. Skimping on a more expensive medicine today but paying for an avoidable hospital stay later is a fool’s errand.

In California -- indeed across the entire United States -- access to care must be matched with quality of care.

 

USA Today reports:
 
In an election year dominated by health care, dozens of candidates for Congress have a catchy campaign slogan at their disposal: Send a doctor to the House.

Forty-seven physicians — 41 Republicans and six Democrats— are running for the House or Senate this year, three times the number of doctors serving in Congress today, according to a USA TODAY review.

Read the full article here.

On the 62nd anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, a reminder of what David ben Gurion said regarding Israel's ability to thrive -- "to be a realist, one must believe in miracles."  ( CMPI has been a proud partner of  program based at the Tel Aviv University School of Management to support life science entrepreneurship in Israel for the past three years.  “Health Care Technological Innovation - From Idea to Commercialization.” )   Israel's robust contribution to biomedical innovation -- despite the threat of terrorism and annihilation -- is truly miraculous:

According to the WEF 2007-2008 Competitiveness Report, Israel has the 5th highest number of patents pending in the world and ranks 3rd in technological readiness. Israel is ranked in 1st in the world for Medical Device Patents per capita, and ranks third in Europe for the number of clinical trials in progress.

Fourth in the world in biotechnology patents per capita, Israel not only has the talent to innovate, but the skills to transform technology into successful enterprise. A generous government incentives program is a major factor for pushing progress forward.

Entrepreneurship in Israel

Israel has the largest number of startups in the world per capita. In absolute numbers, Israel is only second to the US. Israeli startup companies are known for their creativity, innovation, and originality. Israeli ingenuity can be found in some of the world's leading products and technologies: voice mail, billing systems, internet security, instant messaging, ingestible video cameras, and generic pharmaceuticals.

Investments in Israel

Israel has the largest number of companies listed on the NASDAQ outside of the United States and approximately 70 Israeli companies are traded on various European exchanges.
According to the Israel Venture Capital Research Centre, Israel requires approximately $1.5 Billion of new investment annually to support its developing companies. Israel continues to attract capital both locally and from abroad. However, there continues to be a strong need to fuel the capital requirements of early-stage companies

Many major multi-nationals have chosen to run core activities in Israel including: HP, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Siemens, GE, SAP, Philips, Time Warner, Sony, Cisco, Google, eBay, Analog Devices, Computer Associates, Berkshire-Hathaway, Applied Materials, Sun Microsystems, 3Com, Motorola, Pfizer, J&J and more.

Israel’s high tech industry in particular is extremely profitable and attractive to foreign multinationals.
2007 witnessed over 40 international Mergers & Acquisitions.

Mergers and Acquisitions in Israel

Major foreign firms have stepped up their local M&A activities, and direct foreign investment in Israel has exceeded $2 Billion annually.

2006 saw a record number of Mergers & Acquisitions - a total of 76 Israeli companies were acquired. Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway made its first international investment when the company made its monumental acquisition of Israeli ISCAR for $4 billion, HP acquired Mercury for $4.5 billion and SanDisk acquired M-Systems for $1.5 billion.  Other examples of multinational companies that have acquired Israeli companies include: Microsoft, Motorola, Intel, HP, Siemens, Samsung, IBM, GE, Phillips, Lucent, AOL, J&J, Applied Materials, Sun Microsystems, EMC, Boston Scientific, eBay, HP, Kodak, Cisco and Xerox.

M&A activity involving Israeli companies that were either acquired or merged totaled $3.2 billion in 2007 in 75 deals – the second highest number of M&A deals in any one year to date.
Mergers and acquisitions of VC-backed Israeli companies in 2007 totaled $1.9 billion and consisted of 32 deals.

Israeli companies were also on the acquiring side in some 60 deals in 2007, including about 20 where one Israeli company acquired another Israeli company, and nearly 40 acquisitions of foreign companies. Israeli companies spent $2.15 billion on mergers and acquisitions in 2007, of which $1.96 billion was for acquisitions of foreign companies (IVC Online)

Venture Capital in Israel

With 100 active funds and over $10 billion under management, Israel’s venture capital industry thrives like in no other country. In 2004, foreign funds committed over 50% of the total dollars invested, demonstrating that Israel is an internationally sought after and sound investment (Israel ’s Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor).

In the past 10 years, Israeli VC's attracted a total of $10.6 Billion. According to IVC, $2 Billion in capital is currently available for investment by Israeli VC's, of which $1.2 billion is intended for First investments in high-tech companies and the remainder reserved for Follow-on investments. $800 Million is expected to be raised in 2008 by Israeli VC's for investment in Israeli high technology over the next few years. (IVC Online)

In 2007, 462 Israeli high-tech companies raised $1.76 Billion from local and foreign venture investors, 8.5 percent above the $1.62 billion raised in 2006 and 31.5 percent above 2005 levels.
In the fourth quarter, 115 Israeli high-tech companies raised $503 million, a 21 percent increase from the $414 million raised by 108 companies in the third quarter and a 5 percent increase from Q4 2006. (
IVC Online)
In 2007, Israeli VC's invested $678 million in Israeli high-tech companies. The Israeli VC share of the total amount invested in Israeli high-tech companies was 39 percent.

Israeli VC's invested $50 million in foreign companies during 2007 (in addition to their investments in Israeli high-tech companies), compared to $60 million in 2006 and $95 million in 2005. Three of the 39 investments were first investments and the remainders were follow-on.

In 2007, 78 Seed companies attracted $151 million, the highest amount raised since 2001.


http://www.novuscom.net/~allon.m/isratech/fund.html
 

CMPI

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.

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog