Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Peter Pitts
From today's Washington Times ...
"Evidence-based" Rx miscues
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have been traveling the country laying out their solutions to the problem of escalating health-care costs. One plan they all favor is ramping up federal funding for so-called "evidence-based" medicine.
The theory behind evidence-based medicine is simple: If the government were to run clinical trials testing the effectiveness of drugs and medical technologies, and then use the results to determine what to cover, taxpayers would avoid paying for treatments that aren't effective enough to justify their price tag.
Sounds great, right? Too bad that in practice, evidence-based programs are largely driven by the political imperative to cut costs — not the medical imperative to give patients the best care possible.
That was certainly the case for CATIE, or the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials in Intervention Effectiveness. This federally funded, $40 million study concluded new "atypical" nonpsychotic drugs are no more effective at treating schizophrenia symptoms than are older drugs. Because this finding flatly contradicted psychiatrists' real-world observations, CATIE had no impact on which drugs were prescribed for schizophrenia.
Like most large-scale trials, CATIE took a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine. Evidence-based programs encourage this approach. The underlying assumption is that the same care can be applied to every patient suffering from the same disease.
Modern science disproves that notion. Everyone has a unique biological makeup. Health-care professionals need to be given the autonomy to tailor their treatments to the specific needs of their patents.
Evidence-based programs rarely provide that autonomy. In the long run, this often results in higher costs.
Consider an overweight man who is forced to take a cheaper, less effective anti-cholesterol drug. If he ends up in the emergency room because of undertreated cardiovascular disease, this could end up costing the health-care system significantly more money.
All too often, denying patients access to the right medicines early on means paying for more invasive and expensive procedures later.
The evidence confirms this. A study from the University of Utah examined the relationship between cost-containment programs and the total cost of health care for a number of medical conditions. It found that the tighter the restrictions on which treatments a physician could administer, the higher the overall cost of care.
Medical treatment should be based on the specific genetic, clinical and demographic factors of an individual patient. That's how you keep people healthy. In an era of personalized medicine, one-size-fits-all health-care strategies are dangerously outdated.
Choosing short-term savings over long-term results has a pernicious effect on the public purse and public health. Strenuous cost controls compromise patient care.
The theory behind and the practice of evidence-based medicine just don't match up. And until politicians can show how they'll resolve that tension, they need to look elsewhere in their quest to find politically palpable solutions to the country's health-care woes.
Peter J. Pitts is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 15, 2008 8:07 AM
From today's Washington Times ...
"Evidence-based" Rx miscues
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have been traveling the country laying out their solutions to the problem of escalating health-care costs. One plan they all favor is ramping up federal funding for so-called "evidence-based" medicine.
The theory behind evidence-based medicine is simple: If the government were to run clinical trials testing the effectiveness of drugs and medical technologies, and then use the results to determine what to cover, taxpayers would avoid paying for treatments that aren't effective enough to justify their price tag.
Sounds great, right? Too bad that in practice, evidence-based programs are largely driven by the political imperative to cut costs — not the medical imperative to give patients the best care possible.
That was certainly the case for CATIE, or the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials in Intervention Effectiveness. This federally funded, $40 million study concluded new "atypical" nonpsychotic drugs are no more effective at treating schizophrenia symptoms than are older drugs. Because this finding flatly contradicted psychiatrists' real-world observations, CATIE had no impact on which drugs were prescribed for schizophrenia.
Like most large-scale trials, CATIE took a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine. Evidence-based programs encourage this approach. The underlying assumption is that the same care can be applied to every patient suffering from the same disease.
Modern science disproves that notion. Everyone has a unique biological makeup. Health-care professionals need to be given the autonomy to tailor their treatments to the specific needs of their patents.
Evidence-based programs rarely provide that autonomy. In the long run, this often results in higher costs.
Consider an overweight man who is forced to take a cheaper, less effective anti-cholesterol drug. If he ends up in the emergency room because of undertreated cardiovascular disease, this could end up costing the health-care system significantly more money.
All too often, denying patients access to the right medicines early on means paying for more invasive and expensive procedures later.
The evidence confirms this. A study from the University of Utah examined the relationship between cost-containment programs and the total cost of health care for a number of medical conditions. It found that the tighter the restrictions on which treatments a physician could administer, the higher the overall cost of care.
Medical treatment should be based on the specific genetic, clinical and demographic factors of an individual patient. That's how you keep people healthy. In an era of personalized medicine, one-size-fits-all health-care strategies are dangerously outdated.
Choosing short-term savings over long-term results has a pernicious effect on the public purse and public health. Strenuous cost controls compromise patient care.
The theory behind and the practice of evidence-based medicine just don't match up. And until politicians can show how they'll resolve that tension, they need to look elsewhere in their quest to find politically palpable solutions to the country's health-care woes.
Peter J. Pitts is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 15, 2008 8:07 AM
Peter Pitts
In April of 2006, James Copping (Principal Administrator, European Commission Enterprise & Industry Directorate-General) had this to say about rethinking the EU Commission’s position on information-to-patients:
“From the Commission’s point of view, we want a system where patients can be empowered to take an equal part in health care decisions. To do that, they need more information and we all want to make high-quality information available as soon as possible. We believe that all stakeholders have a role to play to provide this information, but the tricky issue for us is to find the appropriate framework which national regulatory authorities can live with.”
Copping continued as to possible ways to achieve that goal:
“The pharmaceutical industry has a lot to contribute because of their resources, skills and expertise and we have seen in the working group that the industry plays a constructive part. It’s amazing to me that an industry which plays such an important part of our health care is often seen on par with the tobacco or the oil industry. It’s not clear to me why this is the case, but we need to develop good working relationships between all of us. We all agree that we need good quality information, but none of us can do it alone.”
Well, almost two-years to the day, the controversial EU-wide ban on pharmaceutical advertising may soon end – although what this means, precisely, is unclear, as is what kind of information may become available.
The European commission plans to allow drug companies to give "information" about their drugs to the public on TV, the internet and in print.
The consultation document from the enterprise and industry directorate-general says: "It should be possible for the pharmaceutical industry to disseminate information on prescription-only medicines through TV and radio programmes, through printed material actively distributed, through information in printed media or through audiovisual and written material provided to patients by healthcare professionals." The consultation period closed on April 7. An earlier Commission report had found unequal access to health and medicines information throughout the EU, which it said could be harmful to public health.
Leaders of the European pharmaceutical industry have once again stressed that they are not seeking, and have never sought, direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription medicines to be permitted within the European Union. However, according to Arthur Higgins (EFPIA president and chief executive of Bayer HealthCare AG.), “After years of debate, we call on all European institutions to develop a patient-centered EU framework for information provision without further delay.”
EFPIA is also concerned at the EU proposals for a governance system for monitoring the information provided by the industry. The Commission suggests that the structure of enforcement could take place on three different levels – an EU advisory committee, the EU national authorities and national “co-regulatory” bodies – but EFPIA believes that this could potentially lead to a “patchwork” of very different interpretations and implementations in national laws, as it is currently the case, and thus fail to adequately address the European dimension of the current shortcomings.
Instead, the industry proposes an alternative system based on an EU-wide “health information” Code of Conduct, including effective quality assessment procedures for information, ex-post control mechanisms (with involvement of third/independent parties) and robust enforcement procedures in case of breaches including sanctions as well as fines. Such a Code could work alongside and complement the legislative change envisaged by the European Commission later this year.
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 15, 2008 7:18 AM
In April of 2006, James Copping (Principal Administrator, European Commission Enterprise & Industry Directorate-General) had this to say about rethinking the EU Commission’s position on information-to-patients:
“From the Commission’s point of view, we want a system where patients can be empowered to take an equal part in health care decisions. To do that, they need more information and we all want to make high-quality information available as soon as possible. We believe that all stakeholders have a role to play to provide this information, but the tricky issue for us is to find the appropriate framework which national regulatory authorities can live with.”
Copping continued as to possible ways to achieve that goal:
“The pharmaceutical industry has a lot to contribute because of their resources, skills and expertise and we have seen in the working group that the industry plays a constructive part. It’s amazing to me that an industry which plays such an important part of our health care is often seen on par with the tobacco or the oil industry. It’s not clear to me why this is the case, but we need to develop good working relationships between all of us. We all agree that we need good quality information, but none of us can do it alone.”
Well, almost two-years to the day, the controversial EU-wide ban on pharmaceutical advertising may soon end – although what this means, precisely, is unclear, as is what kind of information may become available.
The European commission plans to allow drug companies to give "information" about their drugs to the public on TV, the internet and in print.
The consultation document from the enterprise and industry directorate-general says: "It should be possible for the pharmaceutical industry to disseminate information on prescription-only medicines through TV and radio programmes, through printed material actively distributed, through information in printed media or through audiovisual and written material provided to patients by healthcare professionals." The consultation period closed on April 7. An earlier Commission report had found unequal access to health and medicines information throughout the EU, which it said could be harmful to public health.
Leaders of the European pharmaceutical industry have once again stressed that they are not seeking, and have never sought, direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription medicines to be permitted within the European Union. However, according to Arthur Higgins (EFPIA president and chief executive of Bayer HealthCare AG.), “After years of debate, we call on all European institutions to develop a patient-centered EU framework for information provision without further delay.”
EFPIA is also concerned at the EU proposals for a governance system for monitoring the information provided by the industry. The Commission suggests that the structure of enforcement could take place on three different levels – an EU advisory committee, the EU national authorities and national “co-regulatory” bodies – but EFPIA believes that this could potentially lead to a “patchwork” of very different interpretations and implementations in national laws, as it is currently the case, and thus fail to adequately address the European dimension of the current shortcomings.
Instead, the industry proposes an alternative system based on an EU-wide “health information” Code of Conduct, including effective quality assessment procedures for information, ex-post control mechanisms (with involvement of third/independent parties) and robust enforcement procedures in case of breaches including sanctions as well as fines. Such a Code could work alongside and complement the legislative change envisaged by the European Commission later this year.
Posted by Peter Pitts on April 15, 2008 7:18 AM
Robert Goldberg
Prescription drugs are 10 percent of our total health care spend. And cancer drugs, despite the hoopla, the coverage, the furor are...less than five percent of that 10 percent. Other biologics are an even small percentage.
So leave it to the HMOs, the ones that want to focus on that teeniest, tiniest part of the health care dollar when it comes to comparative effectiveness, the one part that demonstrably displaces and slows the use of more expensive medical services, to impose a 50 percent co-pay on the average (or as Obama would say, the "ordinary") American for these most expensive meds.
Here's Gina Kolata writing about in the NY Times...
"With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month....
The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5."
How about a Tier 20 where you beg the HMO to give you the drug in exchange for your first born?
Here's a story growing more typical by the day:
In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.
She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying a 30 days’ supply at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.
Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.
There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.
“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.
After all the studies demonstrating that increased co-pays are associated with a rise in sickness, hospitalization, etc...what on earth are HMO's thinking?
_http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/14drug.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208192535-86G/GZlEluwU6N3fpEUaig
Prescription drugs are 10 percent of our total health care spend. And cancer drugs, despite the hoopla, the coverage, the furor are...less than five percent of that 10 percent. Other biologics are an even small percentage.
So leave it to the HMOs, the ones that want to focus on that teeniest, tiniest part of the health care dollar when it comes to comparative effectiveness, the one part that demonstrably displaces and slows the use of more expensive medical services, to impose a 50 percent co-pay on the average (or as Obama would say, the "ordinary") American for these most expensive meds.
Here's Gina Kolata writing about in the NY Times...
"With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month....
The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5."
How about a Tier 20 where you beg the HMO to give you the drug in exchange for your first born?
Here's a story growing more typical by the day:
In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.
She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying a 30 days’ supply at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.
Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.
There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.
“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.
After all the studies demonstrating that increased co-pays are associated with a rise in sickness, hospitalization, etc...what on earth are HMO's thinking?
_http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/14drug.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208192535-86G/GZlEluwU6N3fpEUaig
Peter Pitts
Not.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American adults favor a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% oppose such a government-led initiative while 31% are not sure.
The survey also found that 46% believe the quality of care would decrease under a national health insurance program while 16% believe that quality would increase. Twenty percent (20%) say the quality of care would remain about the same while 18% are not sure.
At the same time, 42% believe the cost of health care would increase while 25% would expect prices to go down.
While opposing a national program overseen by the federal government, Americans support requiring companies to provide health insurance for their employees. Sixty-three percent (63%) favor such a requirement while 24% are opposed.
Not.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American adults favor a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% oppose such a government-led initiative while 31% are not sure.
The survey also found that 46% believe the quality of care would decrease under a national health insurance program while 16% believe that quality would increase. Twenty percent (20%) say the quality of care would remain about the same while 18% are not sure.
At the same time, 42% believe the cost of health care would increase while 25% would expect prices to go down.
While opposing a national program overseen by the federal government, Americans support requiring companies to provide health insurance for their employees. Sixty-three percent (63%) favor such a requirement while 24% are opposed.
Peter Pitts
Commissioner of Food and Drugs Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. announced the appointment of Frank M. Torti, M.D., M.P.H. as the FDA's Principal Deputy Commissioner and first Chief Scientist.
The newly created Chief Scientist position stems from the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.
"Dr. Torti's impressive clinical and scientific credentials are an excellent match for the work we do on a daily basis to promote and protect the nation's health as a science-based and science-led agency," said Dr. von Eschenbach. "FDA's Chief Scientist will ensure that the foundation of the FDA's regulatory structure will always be state-of-the-art science."
As Chief Scientist and a member of the agency's senior leadership team, Dr. Torti will support the launch of the FDA Fellowship Program, which has the potential to attract up to 2,000 professionals of varying disciplines for a two year training program. As well, the new office will work to ensure the quality and regulatory focus of the intramural research programs of the agency, and place special emphasis on the importance of clinical research trials that are a part of the foundation of the FDA's regulatory structure.
“I appreciate the confidence and trust that Secretary Leavitt and Commissioner von Eschenbach have placed in me," said Dr. Torti. “I look forward to beginning this work at this important moment for the FDA."
A prominent clinician, scientist and researcher in molecular oncology, Dr. Torti is currently serving as Charles L. Spurr Professor of Medicine, Chair of the Department of Cancer Biology, and Director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dr. Torti received his bachelor's and master's from Johns Hopkins University, his medical degree from Harvard Medical School, and his Master of Public Health from Harvard School of Public Health. He served as an intern and resident at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, and a fellow of medical oncology at Stanford University where he subsequently joined the faculty and was tenured. He has written extensively on prostate and bladder cancer, designed and executed a number of cancer clinical trials, and has substantially contributed to the understanding of the molecular mechanisms that underlie inflammatory diseases and cancer.
Throughout his career, Dr. Torti has served on and chaired a number of national health and medical committees. He currently serves on the National Institutes of Health's National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. He also founded and serves as President of the Cancer Biology Training Consortium, a national society of cancer biology department chairs and program directors. He is the recipient of a National Institutes of Health MERIT Award.
Dr. Torti will join the FDA in May.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. announced the appointment of Frank M. Torti, M.D., M.P.H. as the FDA's Principal Deputy Commissioner and first Chief Scientist.
The newly created Chief Scientist position stems from the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.
"Dr. Torti's impressive clinical and scientific credentials are an excellent match for the work we do on a daily basis to promote and protect the nation's health as a science-based and science-led agency," said Dr. von Eschenbach. "FDA's Chief Scientist will ensure that the foundation of the FDA's regulatory structure will always be state-of-the-art science."
As Chief Scientist and a member of the agency's senior leadership team, Dr. Torti will support the launch of the FDA Fellowship Program, which has the potential to attract up to 2,000 professionals of varying disciplines for a two year training program. As well, the new office will work to ensure the quality and regulatory focus of the intramural research programs of the agency, and place special emphasis on the importance of clinical research trials that are a part of the foundation of the FDA's regulatory structure.
“I appreciate the confidence and trust that Secretary Leavitt and Commissioner von Eschenbach have placed in me," said Dr. Torti. “I look forward to beginning this work at this important moment for the FDA."
A prominent clinician, scientist and researcher in molecular oncology, Dr. Torti is currently serving as Charles L. Spurr Professor of Medicine, Chair of the Department of Cancer Biology, and Director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dr. Torti received his bachelor's and master's from Johns Hopkins University, his medical degree from Harvard Medical School, and his Master of Public Health from Harvard School of Public Health. He served as an intern and resident at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, and a fellow of medical oncology at Stanford University where he subsequently joined the faculty and was tenured. He has written extensively on prostate and bladder cancer, designed and executed a number of cancer clinical trials, and has substantially contributed to the understanding of the molecular mechanisms that underlie inflammatory diseases and cancer.
Throughout his career, Dr. Torti has served on and chaired a number of national health and medical committees. He currently serves on the National Institutes of Health's National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. He also founded and serves as President of the Cancer Biology Training Consortium, a national society of cancer biology department chairs and program directors. He is the recipient of a National Institutes of Health MERIT Award.
Dr. Torti will join the FDA in May.
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
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
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
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
About CMPI
Loading
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.
