Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Then, when you read the article, you see that those doing the criticizing are ... insurance companies while those doing the praising are ... patients.
Why not a headline that reads, "Patients Praise Drug Makers for Co-Pay Subsidies."
I know -- man bites dog.
Steve Usdin reports in BioCentury:
“In bending political opinion about biosimilars, BIO benefited from the services of prominent Democrats, most notably former Democratic National Committee chair and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and perennial Democratic presidential campaign manager Joe Trippi, as well as well-placed lobbying firms. Trippi and Dean are not registered as lobbyists. Their activity, which supplemented the efforts of BIO’s in-house and external lobbyists, may not have met the legal criteria for requiring registration, but it was aimed at influencing the views and votes of members of Congress.”
“Dean, who represents the progressive, or more liberal, wing of the Democratic Party, surprised many on the political left by writing a commentary on biosimilars that was published in the July 8 issue of The Hill, a newspaper that is widely read on Capitol Hill. Dean repeated BIO’s talking points on biosimilars, contending that a “commonsense and fair approach, similar to the process and timeline currently in place for generic versions of chemical-based medicines, would allow the original developer of the biologic to protect the proprietary data used to develop the medicine for at least 12 years.” Dean, who attacked pharmaceutical company profits during his 2004 presidential campaign, wrote in the commentary that a “shorter exclusivity period would prematurely rob biotech innovators of their intellectual property and destroy incentives to develop new cure.” The Hill identified Dean as a physician, ‘former Vermont governor, Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate,’ but did not mention any relationship with BIO.”
"In his e-mail to board members, Greenwood did not fail to include Dean in his praise. ‘Our team at BIO, the D.C. offices of our members, our consultants (now including former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) did a magnificent job,’ he wrote. Dean told BioCentury last week that he provides ‘long-term and short-term strategic advice to BIO. I do not lobby.’ ”
In the same article Usdin also reports:
“Speaking at a briefing last week at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce a version of her Pathway for Biosimilars Act (H.R. 1548) as an amendment during Energy and Commerce Committee markup of its draft healthcare reform legislation.
The Eshoo amendment, which hasn’t been publicly released, “embodies the strengths of both H.R. 1548, as well as the recently passed Hatch/Enzi/Hagan Amendment at the HELP Senate Committee,” Greenwood noted in a July 16 letter of support for the Eshoo amendment.”
“The Eshoo amendment combines the 12-year exclusivity provisions passed by HELP last week “while also retaining the important provisions in H.R. 1548 aimed at avoiding patient and provider confusion over biosimilar products and ensuring patent disputes will be resolved prior to the expiry of data exclusivity.’ “
“Greenwood’s letter stated. H.R. 1548 requires that all biosimilars be assigned a unique international non-proprietary name (INN) rather than adopt the INN for the reference product as is the case for generic drugs. BIO has advocated for unique INNs, while biosimilars manufacturers oppose this as a barrier to interchangeability. Eshoo seems to have lined up enough support in the Energy and Commerce Committee to get the amendment passed — 23 of its 59 members are co-sponsors — if a vote is taken.”
CMPI (the public policy home of drugwonks.com) was proud to have sponsored that event (which also included comments by Representative Mike Rogers (R, MI), the Honorable Mike Ferguson, Former Vice-Chairman of the House Health Subcommittee (and a CMPI senior fellow), John F. Crowley, CEO, Amicus Therapeutics, Founder, CrowleyFamily5.com, and Dr. Geno Merli, Senior Vice President & Chief Medical Officer, Thomas Jefferson University, and Director, Jefferson Center for Vascular Diseases.
Video of this event will be available shortly on www.cmpi.org
The Internet is agnostic. It’s a library without a librarian. The Internet is agnostic to truth, accuracy, and spelling. So, when we talk about social media, it’s imperative to view it separate and apart from “the agnostic Internet.” Social media uses the Internet as its delivery mechanism and is anything but agnostic. The Internet is not social media – it is the playing field of social media.
If the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton, wither the battle of social media and healthcare? While everyone else is using social media as a healthcare communications blitzkrieg, or “lightening war,” regulated industry is digging in for a sitzkrieg, a “sitting war.”
This is not good news for pharma, physicians, or patients. Social media is driven in real time by facts (often wrong), statistics (regularly misunderstood), snake oil salesmen (wearing white coats), and just plain folks looking for information from a variety of sources – the most important being each other. Social media is the newest arrow in the quiver of social marketing, but it’s a discipline both misunderstood and frightening to those operating in the heavily regulated world of healthcare.
Pharma mustn’t feel safe behind a social media Maginot Line strategy.
Democrats are touting the fact that the AMA has signed on to their health care reform effort. But is the AMA really representing the views of its members, or are they playing a Washington game: currying favor with the Democrat majority, in the hopes that when negotiators decide who’ll pay for national health care, they’re not left holding the bill? Here’s one suggestion that the AMA leadership may be getting ahead of its rank and file:
Concerned that the American Medical Association has taken too tepid a position on Democratic healthcare reform plans, a coalition of state medical associations and specialty organizations is breaking from the country’s largest physicians’ group to mount its own push against the inclusion of a public insurance option in any overhaul bill.Seventeen state medical associations and three specialty physicians’ groups planned a conference call late Wednesday to discuss a draft letter that would go much further than the AMA’s more measured responses to the public option.
The AMA has made clear it is not opposed to a public plan, but would resist a Medicare-like program that mandates physician participation and pays less than their costs..
The draft letter, written by members of the Medical Association of Georgia, says flatly that the physicians’ groups unequivocally oppose a government-administered insurance plan, as well as use of government-funded effectiveness tests, or “comparative effectiveness research,” to dictate which medical procedures should be eligible for coverage…
A Republican aide familiar with the coalition’s concerns said the physicians’ groups especially worry that AMA’s position on public option language in the House’s developing legislation has been “too squishy…”
“Physicians have been offered a seat at the table so long as we sit still with our hands folded in our laps and keep our mouths shut,” wrote John Black president of the South Carolina association, and Gary Delaney, the group’s chairman. “The muzzle that the Feds placed on us must be removed and the decibel level of our voices must be raised so that we are unmistakably heard.”
In addition to Georgia and South Carolina, state medical associations from New Jersey, Florida, Arkansas, Virginia and 10 other states and the District of Columbia planned to discuss the letter and consider signing it.
The Triological Society and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were also invited to participate in Wednesday’s discussion, said a spokeswoman for the Georgia group.
Seventeen state associations are considering separating themselves from the national AMA to make clear that they oppose a government-run plan. That doesn’t completely devalue the AMA’s position, but it certainly makes you wonder what could have caused such a sudden and dramatic reversal. Given the threats Democrats have been leveling against groups that refuse to cooperate with their agenda, it would be no surprise if the AMA’s leadership simply calculated that it would be more dangerous to fight than to give in.
We’ll know in the next few days how many state associations are willing to buck their leadership and sign on to this letter. I wonder how much attention that will receive.
"Top Senate Democrats were critical Thursday of comments made by the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that existing reform plans wouldn't curb federal spending on health care. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told lawmakers on the Senate Budget Committee earlier Thursday morning that legislation approved this week by a Senate panel wouldn't reduce the federal government's spending on health care. "And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs," Mr. Elmendorf said. Mr. Elmendorf went on to say that there is widespread support among health analysts for taxing health care benefits as a way to reduce federal outgoings on health care. Taxing individuals' health care benefits is extremely unpopular among many Democratic lawmakers. Asked about the assessment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), quipped that Mr. Elmendorf should consider running for Congress."
Senator Reid, what do you mean by that remark?
That healthcare reform bill just released by Democratic House leaders calls for a public insurance option which would negotiate rates directly with providers, including drug firms.
It's in Subtitle B Section 224, which says: "The Secretary also has authority to negotiate prescription drug prices for the public option."
Direct negotiations? For some things to consider, see today’s edition of the Washington Examiner.
"Direct negotiations" means price controls. And price controls = choice controls.
Pharmaceutical marketers are in a tough spot when it comes to social media. On the one hand, they understand the importance and opportunity of it. On the other, they are restrained and frustrated by a number of barriers, including actual and implied ones from the FDA, and self-imposed ones from the nabobs of “no” (aka MLR – medical legal review). Anti-depressants anyone?
Social media is a social movement, and using the excuse that pharma can’t engage because, “We’re different,” misses the point. Compliance issues are very important, but it’s precisely because of the “special differences” that pharmaceutical companies must engage actively and creatively in social media. And that difference is the responsibility of advancing the public health.
Don’t pin all the blame on MLR. They’re on board. As the head of one large pharma’s MLR department commented to me, “We have to talk to our customers where they are – and they are in social media.”
MLR looks at risk, but is marketing presenting the benefits? And what about the FDA? The agency is certainly sending mixed messages. Yet, a senior Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) official said at the Drug Information Association (DIA) meeting last month: “The FDA does not want to stifle the use of social media.” Good news? We’ll see.
"the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without comprimising quality or access to care. "
So, not only do members not have to read the bill (per Mr. Hoyer) -- spelling no longer counts.
Perhaps the IOM should commission a study on the correlation between spelling errors and medical errors.
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.
