Latest Drugwonks' Blog
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
As the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) of the WHO prepares to meet and discuss how to best facilitate the expropriation of intellectual property rights (in this case the IPR of pharmaceutical patents) it's important to consider the unintended consequences -- the death of medical innovation.
The global purloiners of patents -- led by Jamie Love -- are thrilled to point out all of the new and important medicines that are the low hanging fruit of their property theft proposals -- but are far less keen to explain how the fruit tree got there in the first place -- or how they are nurtured. In India, political leaders long cited former Prime Minister Indira Ghandi’s call for an end to “profiteering from life or death” in defense of their prohibition of patents on medicine. But in 2005, India reversed course and re-established patent protection for pharmaceutical products. The reason? Less than 10 percent of the nation’s estimated 3.5 million AIDS patients were receiving any medicine at all. In other words, the elimination of patent rights doesn’t produce greater access to medicines. There is a reason why virtually all the world’s “miracle drugs” have been developed in Western countries. It’s called incentive.
Intellectual property rights are the fertile soil that allowed the tree to grow in the first place -- and to thrive. To borrow an over-used adjective from the world of global climate change -- we must protect "sustainable" innovation. Jamie Love and Company may very well say, "A world without patents, amen." And they're right, because minus pharmaceutical IPR we'd all better start saying our prayers -- because that's the only way we're going to battle disease and improve the health of our global fraternity. If the IGWG succeeds, pharmaceutical innovation dies. And that's a Silent Spring we cannot afford.
The global purloiners of patents -- led by Jamie Love -- are thrilled to point out all of the new and important medicines that are the low hanging fruit of their property theft proposals -- but are far less keen to explain how the fruit tree got there in the first place -- or how they are nurtured. In India, political leaders long cited former Prime Minister Indira Ghandi’s call for an end to “profiteering from life or death” in defense of their prohibition of patents on medicine. But in 2005, India reversed course and re-established patent protection for pharmaceutical products. The reason? Less than 10 percent of the nation’s estimated 3.5 million AIDS patients were receiving any medicine at all. In other words, the elimination of patent rights doesn’t produce greater access to medicines. There is a reason why virtually all the world’s “miracle drugs” have been developed in Western countries. It’s called incentive.
Intellectual property rights are the fertile soil that allowed the tree to grow in the first place -- and to thrive. To borrow an over-used adjective from the world of global climate change -- we must protect "sustainable" innovation. Jamie Love and Company may very well say, "A world without patents, amen." And they're right, because minus pharmaceutical IPR we'd all better start saying our prayers -- because that's the only way we're going to battle disease and improve the health of our global fraternity. If the IGWG succeeds, pharmaceutical innovation dies. And that's a Silent Spring we cannot afford.
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.
