Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Click Here to View Annual Canadian Expeditures
The Canadians spend an average of $1932 dollars out of pocket. We spend about $2600. Most of the burden in Canada falls on the poor and seniors in the form of out of pocket costs for meds.
Click Here to View Annual U.S. Expenditures
Moreover, according the Peterson Institute for International Economics, our out of pocket costs have been dropping... despite all the propaganda flowing these days ...
Household out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures, percent of total, 2006
Click Here to View the Full Story
"Empirically, the share of total healthcare expenses that Americans pay out-of-pocket is lower than in the vast majority of European and other OECD countries for which recent comparable data are available. Americans are therefore generally more likely to ask someone else to pay for their health care than people in other OECD countries. In reality America’s healthcare system is already more “socialized” than in most European and other developed countries.
Certainly, it is the case that Americans pay a higher absolute dollar amount in out-of-pocket expenses than almost anywhere else in the OECD (only Switzerland is higher). Yet that is solely because health care in America is so much more expensive than anywhere else and demonstratively not due to Americans being relatively more exposed to the “true costs of healthcare” than people elsewhere, let alone in countries practicing so-called “socialized medicine.”
The simple fact remains that Americans are relatively less exposed to market forces and “the price mechanism” in health care than most people elsewhere, which is certain to be one more reason why Americans end up having to pay so much more for their healthcare."
It's about time.
The story in today’s New York Times is headlined, “Drug Deals Tie Prices to How Well Patients Do,” but it could just as easily have been called, “Payers and Phama Focus on Patient-Centric Care.”
The article, by the always excellent Andrew Pollack, begins thus:
“Pressed by insurance companies, some drug makers are beginning to adjust what they charge for their drugs, based on how well the medicines improve patients’ health.”
Outcomes baby!
Pollack writes:
“In a deal expected to be announced Thursday, Merck has agreed to peg what the insurer Cigna pays for the diabetes drugs Januvia and Janumet to how well Type 2 diabetes patients are able to control their blood sugar. And last week, the two companies that jointly sell the osteoporosis drug Actonel agreed to reimburse the insurer Health Alliance for the costs of treating fractures suffered by patients taking that medicine.”
Put up or shut up? That’s about the size of it. But it cuts both ways.
“We’re standing behind our product,” said Dan Hecht, general manager of the North American pharmaceutical business of Procter & Gamble, which sells Actonel with Sanofi-Aventis. “We’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.”
This outcomes-based strategy was first tried in Great Britain for the Johnson & Johnson drug Velcade and most recently for the Pfizer drug Sutent.
J&J won coverage in 2007 after agreeing to pay back the government for people who didn’t benefit. Patients get the first four doses of the 762.38 pound drug, and then are tested to see if they’ve responded to the treatment. Those who improved continue with the drug. Johnson & Johnson provides a rebate of about 3,000 pounds for those who didn’t respond.
For Sutent, the U.K.’s National Health Service (via NICE) decided the medicine extended the lives of patients enough to justify its cost, as long as the first course of treatment was free.
According to Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of NICE, “We’re meeting them partway.”
It's a creative approach based on outcomes -- a giant step towards recognizing the importance of personalized medicine the folly of basing reimbursement decisions on large-scale general population studies.
And such strategies are also being designed to improve compliance. Pollack continues:
“Some discounts will be granted if more people diligently take the drugs as prescribed. This helps both Cigna, because people who take their pills are likely to have fewer complications from the disease, and Merck, because it sells more pills. The assumption is that Cigna will push for patient-compliance programs that urge people to take their medicine at the right times and in the proper doses.”
Imagine that, an access/reimbursement program that actually helps advance the four rights of 21st century personalized medicine – the right medicine for the right patient in the right dose at the right time.
Sure beats a myopic, QALY-based view that puts cost ahead of care.
Pollack quotes Eric Elliott, the president of Cigna Pharmacy Management:
“We wanted a contract that drives performance,” he said. “Getting this one out will provide more momentum.”
Focusing on outcomes not only means that Pharma will have to put their money where their mouth is – but that payers will have to put patients first.
Now that’s healthcare reform.
The complete New York Times story can be found here.
A team of FDA scientists and colleagues from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; and Switzerland's Institute for Research in Biomedicine say their study of the avian influenza virus might lead to new tests that can detect such infections.
The FDA said in-depth analyses of blood from patients recovering from the H5N1 virus also provided important insights into how to combat the potentially lethal virus and helps define what part of the virus is seen by the immune system.
As one result of the research, the FDA scientists and their collaborators said a protein of the bird flu virus called PB1-F2 was identified as a potentially potent target for attack by immune systems to stop the spread of the virus.
The study appears online in the journal PLoS Medicine.
Now imagine what the FDA could achieve if only Congress would release the designated funding for the Reagan/Udall Foundation.
Collaboration is the key -- and the Critical Path has never been more critical.
Apt because of his excellent new article, "Drug Safety, medication, safety, patient safety: An overview of recent FDA guidences and initiatives."
Rick's article can he found here.
His abstract sets the stage:
"Drug development and pharmacotherapy are components ofintegrated pharmaceutical medicine. The term ‘drug safety’ canbe used when evaluating adverse events during clinical trials, andwhen evaluating adverse drug reactions to a correctly prescribed, dispensed and administered drug. The term ‘medication safety’ refers to the evaluation of medication errors that occur at the prescribing, dispensing and/or administration level; endeavours to educate clinicians and patients about the correct use of a particular drug; and the design and implementation of safety systems and educational programmes to minimise these errors. Drug safety and medication safety are subsets of patient safety.Recent guidance documents and initiatives at the US FDA indicate the agency’s awareness of the paramount importance of safety considerations throughout drug development and pharmacotherapy, its commitment to expand and enhance its governance role in lifecycle drug development, and its commitment to play an infl uential role in the safe use of medicines."
Turner's discussion of REMS, safe use, FDAAA, the Sentinel initiative, and other important items makes this article a must read.
They don't call him "Page" Turner for nothing.
The other group of people were of course not the clueless in the mainstream media. They were the audience the President of Iran played to by speaking -- on Hitler's birthday at a UN sponsored conference on racism rigged to engender more hate and promote the destruction of the Jewish state. As Ahmadinejad spoke European delegates to this conference on racism walked out in protest. Yet many of their own countries were party to cancelling Holocaust Remembrance ceremonies in various cities to "protest" Israel's military operation in Gaza in response to both rocket attacks and it's continuing project of establishing medium and long range missle capacity against major cities in Israel, courtesy of Iran. The irony of siding with those who eliminate the Jewish state as a form of protest was lost on these nation states. Similarly, the willingness to abet militant Islam in meaningless international conferences and expect to be congratulated for walking out on the speech of a monster...well now that I think about it, that's something the students at Columbia University didn't do!
Once again history and the future of the Jewish people appear to be on a collision course. Throughout the world lip service is paid to our "right to exist", as if this is some sort of special gift from the family of nations and not something Jews -- mostly Israelis in the past 60 years -- have had to defend with their lives almost yearly. The promise of "Never Again" is uttered but in Europe and in the the halls of Congress and the mainstream media, attacks on the Jewish lobby are now part of the conversation. Modern day blood libel (the Gaza operation) is now the grist for playwrights who explore the Jewish soul and conclude it is dark, violent and racist to the core. England has become a cesspool of anti-Semitism and many in the American left are following suit. Sometimes I fear the world is slouching from indifference back to eon-old habits.
Yet I believe Israel will prevail and the Jewish people will thrive precisely because of day's such as this one. In Israel at 10 am sirens wailed, traffic stopped, people stood still. For a minute the entire nation as one remembered, not just as a collective reminder of what preceded the establishment of Israel, but to show that one nation carved out of national tragedy will eternally bear witness to both the evil that nearly consumed the world and to our capacity not only rouse the conscience of others but to defend our existence the next time such evil rises again. We pause in silence. Not just to remember, but to underscore our willingness to set aside "normal" life and do what is required to survive, thrive and contribute to the world.
It is 10:01 am. Life in Israel goes on. Am Yisroel Chai.
The theory is that the way to make drugs “safer” is to ensure they are used appropriately.
And communications is the weak link in the chain. Hence REMS as a tool for safe use. Seems to make sense.
Presented for your consideration -- questions posed by the FDA in advance of a two-day public meeting set for May 27-28 on whether class-wide opioid REMS should include a certification process for prescribers, pharmacists and other heath care providers, a strong patient education component, and prescriber-patient agreements.
According to a report in the Pink Sheet, “Since FDA's announcement that it intended to seek the class-wide REMS in February, pharmaceutical companies have been charting new territory as they try to work together to develop a REMS framework for the whole class.”
Working together to advance safe use. Good idea. The Pink Sheet continues, “The evolution of the opioid class-wide REMS will set an important precedent for trying to get competitors to work together on post-marketing programs in the future.”
In short, competitors must also be allies in pursuit of the public health. And that means both innovator and generic companies.
Not easy. But important advances rarely are.
The President has recently reaffirmed his conviction that "we must have quality, affordable health care for every American.” This is an important goal. In the health care debate, though, misconceptions abound — and this hurts reform efforts. As lawmakers move forward, they must be aware of the facts. And they must be clear on the precise causes of
The American health care system is broken in important respects. American health care is designed to provide acute care, but too often neglects the urgent imperative of chronic conditions. This disconnect will become even more problematic as Baby Boomers continue to age and the fastest growing demographic segment in America is the over-75 population. The argument that health care is "too expensive" is too broad. A better argument is that waiting until Americans become seriously ill to intervene is too expensive. Earlier diagnosis and earlier, continuing care is crucial to the future health of both Americans and the American health care system.
Prevention must be our first line of defense. Our health care system often works miracles when people become very ill, but it needs to do a better job at keeping people healthy before disease attacks. Although proper diet and nutrition are misunderstood and undervalued, better health care habits will not prevent the diseases that all Americans (and Baby Boomers in particular) will develop as we age. There are effective treatments, including medicines, which stop diseases such as hypertension and diabetes from progressing, allowing millions of Americans to lead active and productive lives rather than undergoing surgery, emergency care, hospitalizations, disabilities, and nursing home care.
We cannot afford, in terms of either dollars or lives, to continue playing the health care "blame game," tending to focus on health care prices - for hospitals, insurance, drugs, and doctors. Disease is the enemy and the cost of disease is staggering. Rather than looking for a villain, it's time to start asking the hard questions and finding the right answers - focusing on how to reduce the price of a diabetic amputation is the wrong approach. We need to focus on prevention because that's the best way to save money and improve lives. Now is the time to do this, so that we can invest in and afford better treatments for other conditions such as cancer and Parkinson's disease, which are so desperately needed and that hold so much promise.
All Americans deserve access to quality health care, but how can Americans get broader access to health care without diluting the quality of health care and compromising the future of health care? If miracles have become expectations - "What's a miracle worth?"
For the rest of the story, see here.
Comparative effectiveness research might lead to people being denied life saving care but at least they would get to choose the music they die to...free of charge I hope....
Hallelujah or Highway to Hell? Songs to die for
AFP/File – US entertainer Frank Sinatra sings in Washington, 1992. Sinatra's "My Way" is the most …
LONDON (AFP) – Frank Sinatra's "My Way" is the most popular song played at funeral services, but other more arresting death-bed choices were revealed in a poll published in Britain Thursday.
Australian rockers AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" has stormed into the funereal charts along with Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust," while Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" has a new lease of life after its recent success on a talent show.
More traditionally, hymns including "The Lord Is My Shepherd" and "All Things Bright And Beautiful" are among music chosen by people to accompany their final journey.
For classical music fans, Schubert's "Ave Maria," Puccini's "Nessun Dorma" and Bach's "Air On A G String" are among the most chosen pieces to comfort their loved ones as they pay final farewells.
Television and radio music also features on the burial playlist: theme tunes from popular programmes like "Top Gear", "The Benny Hill Show" and even the Radio Four Shipping Forecast music, which many fall asleep to at night.
Click Here to Read the Full Article
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.
