Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Well that’s what “consensus” gets you.
The current definition of WHO says counterfeit drugs are 'medicines which are deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity or source.
The proposed definition proposed removes the clause “deliberately and fraudulently” and replaces it with “a medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity, history, or source.” It also says that ‘this applies to the product, its container, packaging or other labeling information.”
As
Here's her bio:
Margaret A. Hamburg, MD, Senior Scientist, Global Health and Security Initiative, NTI
One of the youngest people ever elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Margaret “Peggy” Hamburg is a highly regarded expert in community health and bio-defense, including preparedness for nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. She currently serves as Senior Scientist for the Global Health and Security Initiative of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation dedicated to reducing the threat to public safety from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A graduate of Radcliffe College, she earned her M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and completed her training at the New York Hospital/Cornell University Medical Center.
From 1997 to 2001, Hamburg held the position of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), serving as principal policy advisor to Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. From 1991 to 1997, she served as New York City Health Commissioner, a position in which she designed and implemented an internationally recognized tuberculosis control program that produced dramatic declines in tuberculosis cases, and created the first public health bio-terrorism preparedness program in the nation. Between 1986 and 1990, she held a variety of positions within HHS, including Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; and Special Assistant to the Director, and later Assistant Director, of the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
A member of the Harvard College Board of Overseers and the Boards of Trustees of Rockefeller University and the Rockefeller Foundation, Hamburg is also a distinguished senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a fellow of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. She holds membership in the New York Academy of Medicine, and the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the board of Henry Schein Company. She has served on the boards of other organizations, including the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Primary Care Development Corporation, and the Board of Scientific Counselors for the National Center for Infectious Diseases of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to a new Harris poll, 81% of Americans say they prefer generics to brand-name drugs.
Earlier this month, the GPhA applauded the introduction of HR 573, a bill that would prohibit the marketing of authorized generics during the 180-day generic exclusivity period. Kathleen Jaeger, chief executive of the GPhA, sees the proposed legislation as a way to close a “loophole” in the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act that allows innovator life science companies “to delay generic competition by discouraging generic companies from challenging weak and potentially unenforceable patents." She praised the bill’s sponsor, Republican Jo Ann Emerson, and colleagues for “working to close this loophole for the benefit of consumers struggling with health care costs during these difficult economic times."
Historical pricing data shows that brand companies launch their generics at a 50 percent discount off retail price compared to a 30 percent discount experienced when a generic drug has no competition. If HR 573 passes, consumers and taxpayers over the next two years would realize about $8 billion instead of $13 billion in savings. Cui bono? The missing $5 billion will line the pockets of a handful of generics companies. That’s quite a cui bonus. This end-run around Hatch-Waxman is an extended index finger to the FDA, the FTC and judicial precedent. (A Federal Appeals Court made it clear that Hatch-Waxman allows for authorized generics.)
Over the next few years about $60 billion in brand drugs will become generic; $30 billion of that will be sold without competition for 180 days if Ms. Jaeger and Representative Emerson get their way.
No wonder this “modest proposal” is being greedily embraced by the generics industry and Big Pharma bashers. And greedy is hardly hyperbole since profits on generic medicines exceed 45% -- even when there is a competitive branded generic on the market.
We all call the existing legislation by its inside-the-Beltway designation, “Hatch-Waxman” – but let’s not forget that the full name of the law that brought the generic industry into being is the Drug Price Competition & Patent Term Restoration Act -- not the Generic Drug Company Guaranteed Profit Act. When the media and generic drug lobbyists conflate suspicious stalling tactics with legal and consumer-friendly market actions, neither the truth nor the public health are served.
You mean the ends doesn’t justify the means?
According to a Reuter’s report, “The healthcare spending watchdog NICE said it was reviewing how it values new technologies, a week after an industry report called for such a move.” NICE's announcement followed an industry report published last week calling for an enquiry to assess the long-term impact of NICE on the cost and the uptake of drugs, along with a series of tax breaks and other measures to support the crisis-hit biotechnology industry
The study (due this July) will be led by Ian Kennedy, Emeritus Professor of Health Law, Ethics and Policy at University College London. He’s an academic lawyer who, for the past few decades, has lectured on the ethics of medicine. A long-standing member of the General Medical Council, he is a former president of the Centre of Medical Laws and Ethics, which he founded in 1978.
On a releated note, the Pink Sheet reports that, “Third-party payer policies appear to have an effect on clinical trial participation, but the impact "is difficult" to quantify, according to a draft report by Duke Evidence-Based Practice Center researchers prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.”
The draft report, "Horizon Scan: To What Extent Do Changes In Third-Party Payment Affect Clinical Trials and the Evidence Base?" was posted on AHRQ's technology assessment Web site. Comments on the draft are due Jan. 23. The topic is of interest because there is no consensus on financial responsibility for clinical trial-related health care costs, resulting in uneven reimbursement policies. A lack of adequate coverage for those costs may discourage patients from participating in trials, reducing the body of available clinical evidence.
A 2000 survey of nearly 6,000 cancer patients who were aware of clinical trial availability revealed that about 75 percent chose not to participate, with 20 percent of that group citing uncertainty about insurance coverage as the reason for declining participation. The top responses given for not entering into a clinical trial were: standard treatment was believed to be better (37 percent) and fear of receiving a placebo (31 percent).
Yet another unintended consequence of cost-based versus patient-centric reimbursement policies.
What’s better than 1 FDA? How about 50.
New evidence of a healthy change in public opinion may be found in a survey released this week by our colleagues at Timbro. A positive result of the breakdown of the Swedish monopolistic health care system is that the young generation (especially age 16-29) looks with favour on private options in social services.
Try this for size:
- three out of ten people think that private financing may need to increase for health and elderly care
- about half of this population consider this a positive development, and the younger are the most positive: 55 per cent of people age 16-29, and 49 per cent of the age group 30-44 think this "rather or very good".
Perhaps more surprising is the figure for the population age 60 and above: 48 per cent (the same as for the overall population) of the oldest Swedes are rather or very positive (as a proportion of those who replied that private provision of welfare services will increase in at least one area).
Last but not least, 51 per cent also think it largely positive if citizens were able to access private insurance for welfare services, beyond what the state provides. (There was an ominous attempt in 2008 by the supposedly centre-right government to abolish this option.) And again, the strongest supporters are found among the 16-29 year-olds.
There is room for optimism in the home country of cradle-to-grave socialism.
Stupak food safety investigation expanded to include Salmonella in peanut butter
WASHINGTON - U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee), chairman of the House energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, and full Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California), yesterday expanded the subcommittee’s food safety investigation to include the recent salmonella outbreak attributed to peanut butter.
The subcommittee on oversight and investigations held 16 hearings on food and drug safety over the past two years, including two involving a 2007 outbreak of salmonella from peanut butter.
Stupak issued the following statement:
“My subcommittee’s two-year investigation into the safety of our nation’s food supply essentially began when peanut butter contaminated with salmonella was discovered in February 2007,” Stupak said. “Today our investigation has been expanded to include the latest outbreak involving salmonella in peanut butter, which has sickened at least 448 people nationwide including 25 in Michigan.‬‪
“We have held 16 hearings over the past two years on food and drug safety, and have drafted legislation to provide the FDA the regulatory and financial tools to protect the American people. Food safety will remain a top priority for the Subcommittee and I remain committed to advancing legislation to address the weaknesses that allow 76 million Americans to be sickened by food borne illness every year.”
Good thing he is on the case. And good thing he has requested more money for the FDA in this latest disgorgement of tax dollars.
By the way salmonella happens all the time. It's not the result of FDA oversight or lack thereof now or in the past...The idea that food borne illneses be prevented by putting more FDA cops in facilities is absurd. And in terms of value per dollar spent how about investing in the Critical Path to pursue personalized medicine instead of spreading fear about peanut butter.
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.
