Latest Drugwonks' Blog
John McCain demonstrates his ignorance of health care in Iowa -- or maybe it's just political pandering -- you be the judge:
“Pharmaceutical companies must worry less about squeezing additional profits from old medicines by copying the last successful drug and insisting on additional patent protections and focus more on new and innovative medicine.â€
Attention Senator McCain:
America’s pharmaceutical and biotechnology research companies set a new record for biopharmaceutical research spending last year with an investment of $55.2 billion to develop new medicines and vaccines. That's $3.4 billion higher than the previous record of $51.8 billion spent by U.S. companies in 2005.
The research spending of all of America’s biopharmaceutical companies is much higher than the amount spent on biomedical research by the National Institutes of Health and pharmaceutical research companies in other countries.
It may not be popular or politically expedient to admit the truth. But we expect better from Senator McCain.
“Pharmaceutical companies must worry less about squeezing additional profits from old medicines by copying the last successful drug and insisting on additional patent protections and focus more on new and innovative medicine.â€
Attention Senator McCain:
America’s pharmaceutical and biotechnology research companies set a new record for biopharmaceutical research spending last year with an investment of $55.2 billion to develop new medicines and vaccines. That's $3.4 billion higher than the previous record of $51.8 billion spent by U.S. companies in 2005.
The research spending of all of America’s biopharmaceutical companies is much higher than the amount spent on biomedical research by the National Institutes of Health and pharmaceutical research companies in other countries.
It may not be popular or politically expedient to admit the truth. But we expect better from Senator McCain.
Speaking of nightime cold remedies being taken off the market....
Dutch ban famed hallucinatory mushrooms
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The Dutch government said Friday that it will ban the sale of hallucinatory mushrooms, rolling back one element of the country's permissive drug policy after a series of high-profile negative incidents.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_magic_mushrooms
Dutch ban famed hallucinatory mushrooms
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The Dutch government said Friday that it will ban the sale of hallucinatory mushrooms, rolling back one element of the country's permissive drug policy after a series of high-profile negative incidents.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_magic_mushrooms
This recent Vioxx liability driven drive to yank infant cough formulas from the shelves is the latest in a series of meaningless gestures that will do nothing to make kids safer or save lives. The leading cause of death and injury among kids are car accidents. I don't see trial lawyers and their allies threatening to sue the auto companies for vehicular manslaughter. But when stupid parents OD their kids on Triaminic or Children's Tylenol for Cough and Cold somehow that's the drug company's fault. As in this case report: "n the third case report, the child tragically died from an overdose of cough and cold medications that likely had been persistently administered because of continued symptoms in the child." I know, I know, the marketing made them do it. People are brain dead until some TV ad programs them to do something lethal. Nothing before or after matters.
I predict there will be a jihad against all pediatric cough formulations soon. The "safety uber alles" crowd smells blood after this victory and won't stop. They see danger lurking everywhere because they believe drug companies have to poison people to make profits.
Risk in life is not an all or nothing proposition. Life is a series of trade-offs, balancing the bad with the good, the bitter with the sweet, etc. Learning how to handle risky situations big and small is part of growing up, becoming an adult. We are infantilizing our culture further with this sort of overreach. You can't buy Claritin-D without a driver's license (but I can buy Viagra over the internet) build treehouses anymore, can't ride a bike without a helmet, can't play soldier, can't even sell cupcakes in school anymore without have some safety nanny get between you and a good time or you and a personal decision.
I predict there will be a jihad against all pediatric cough formulations soon. The "safety uber alles" crowd smells blood after this victory and won't stop. They see danger lurking everywhere because they believe drug companies have to poison people to make profits.
Risk in life is not an all or nothing proposition. Life is a series of trade-offs, balancing the bad with the good, the bitter with the sweet, etc. Learning how to handle risky situations big and small is part of growing up, becoming an adult. We are infantilizing our culture further with this sort of overreach. You can't buy Claritin-D without a driver's license (but I can buy Viagra over the internet) build treehouses anymore, can't ride a bike without a helmet, can't play soldier, can't even sell cupcakes in school anymore without have some safety nanny get between you and a good time or you and a personal decision.
Why are our teeth rotting? Because dentists are making more money then ever, making teeth cleanings and cavity filling more unaffordable than ever before. That's according to Alex Berenson who wrote another article without stealing documents.
In fact Berenson buries the reason dentist salaries are going up: there is a shortage of dentists and the falling number of schools to replace the one's who will be retiring. Meanwhile the disparity in care between rich and poor is the same old story....Medicaid rates are too low and when dentists do provide care, patients rarely show up. So even if reimbursement rates are bumped up patients don't show and doctors don't get paid. That's something Berenson ignores in his attack on the profession even though the federal government sees it as of tactical importance. Here's a glimpse from a government study about the dental divide...
"A common complaint among dentists concerns patients who do not keep their appointments. Missed appointments cause resentment among dentists because of the office management and financial problems they create. More importantly, the patient does not receive a needed service. The likelihood of a patient keeping a dental appointment is improved with a system of case management that addresses the logistical, cultural and behavioral barriers to dental care. Medicaid can pay for case management as a medical service or as an administrative activity."
http://www.hrsa.gov/medicaidprimer/oral_part3only.htm
I think part of the problem is that people have gotten used to only getting care when it's paid for, not when it is necessary so they shrug off going to the dentist twice a year. Then there is the failure to brush, floss, rinse, etc.
Still Berenson's article does pick up on themes and concerns articulated in the Surgeon General's report on Oral Health in 2000. A public health solution will not work, but a retail or market driven one might. Of course the dental profession is digging it's heels in on not letting hygenists do cleanings and exams on their own. But that won't last long. My prediction: Dentistry will go the way of the retail health clinics. Cleaning, xrays and exams for $60 with evening hours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/business/11decay.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=health&oref=slogin
In fact Berenson buries the reason dentist salaries are going up: there is a shortage of dentists and the falling number of schools to replace the one's who will be retiring. Meanwhile the disparity in care between rich and poor is the same old story....Medicaid rates are too low and when dentists do provide care, patients rarely show up. So even if reimbursement rates are bumped up patients don't show and doctors don't get paid. That's something Berenson ignores in his attack on the profession even though the federal government sees it as of tactical importance. Here's a glimpse from a government study about the dental divide...
"A common complaint among dentists concerns patients who do not keep their appointments. Missed appointments cause resentment among dentists because of the office management and financial problems they create. More importantly, the patient does not receive a needed service. The likelihood of a patient keeping a dental appointment is improved with a system of case management that addresses the logistical, cultural and behavioral barriers to dental care. Medicaid can pay for case management as a medical service or as an administrative activity."
http://www.hrsa.gov/medicaidprimer/oral_part3only.htm
I think part of the problem is that people have gotten used to only getting care when it's paid for, not when it is necessary so they shrug off going to the dentist twice a year. Then there is the failure to brush, floss, rinse, etc.
Still Berenson's article does pick up on themes and concerns articulated in the Surgeon General's report on Oral Health in 2000. A public health solution will not work, but a retail or market driven one might. Of course the dental profession is digging it's heels in on not letting hygenists do cleanings and exams on their own. But that won't last long. My prediction: Dentistry will go the way of the retail health clinics. Cleaning, xrays and exams for $60 with evening hours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/business/11decay.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=health&oref=slogin
Jonathan Cohn is The New Republic's leading voice in support of universal health care. He has taken issue with conservative who have criticized Democrats for using middle and upper class individuals as walking and talking posters for their efforts to increase the welfare state. Most recently conservative bloggers, including me, have taken issue with Democrats deciding to have a 12 year boy give a response to President Bush's veto of SCHIP. It seemed tacky at the time, sort of a cheap shot considering the bill Bush nixed extends government insurance to folks making $83K a year (no asset test folks!) at a time when Medicaid rolls are declining. But then I learned that picking the kid was Families USA's idea and well, the fact they have moved from lying about drug prices to dragging a family into the middle of a political fight does not surprise me at all.
So of course Cohn tries to blame "right wingers" for picking on a kid. Let's be clear. The issue is whether SCHIP should be expanded to middle income families. At least that's what Cohn is saying:
"We know that people with modest incomes are having a harder time paying their medical bills, because insurance is getting so pricey and--increasingly--the benefits available leave them exposed to high out-of-pocket expenses. We also know this is particularly true of people who can't get coverage through large employers--a class of people that is expanding as the business community slowly extricates itself from the mess of providing workers with insurance.
In other words, it's not just the most destitute Americans who need assistance getting health insurance. It's people who have jobs, make a decent living, and own their homes. And when medical crisis hits, they're forced to take drastic steps--like selling their homes, depleting life savings, declaring bankruptcy, or simply going without the care they and their loved ones need. Unless, of course, the government provides them with insurance at affordable rates. "
First of all, Cohn is immune to the facts: many people simply don't buy insurance that is affordable (and it is affordable) in many cases so they create a medical crisis in many cases.... The fastest growing segment of the uninsured are people making $70k or more and whose incomes are growing. Explain that. Meanwhile Medicaid roles are declining.
Cohn also sees health insurance as a big pre-paid security blanket. Zero deductibles. No copays. Coverage for everything. Dream on boychick. That does not even exist in France, your health care wet dream. That system is broke so Sarkozy is installing gatekeepers, co-pays, the works. Soon France will be one big HMO. Even GM's employees are cutting back. You see health care as an all you can eat buffet, not as personal responsbility.
Ultimately, Cohn misrepresents the conservative position on health care. It is not opposition to making coverage affordable. Rather, the conservative position is to take the favorable tax breaks and purchasing power corporations have and give it to individuals. So instead of SCHIP why not advanceable tax credits and purchasing pools, prefunded HSAs? Why is Cohn so opposed to that? For the same reason liberals are hysterical about declining Medicaid enrollment and opposed Part D. They want people dependent.
The fight is not about a family and whether they should have access to affordable and convenient care. That's a given. The fight is about whether Americans should be herded into a single payer system supported by Hillary, Cohn and others where the sort of high tech care Graeme Frost needs and deserves will be denied him regularly. With HSAs, tax credits and consumer choice he and his family will have control over the medical decisions that shape his life, not a bureaucrat or some comparative effectiveness institute. In Britain, Germany, Canada or even France where the doctors strike more than they see patients, Graeme would get inferior care. He would be less cared for and less valued.
In the final analysis, conservative care more about his future than Cohn, Ezra Klein and his kind ever will. Klein, Cohn and Families USA just want to expand the welfare state. I dare say my conservative colleagues want to preserve the possibilities that medical progress offer to extend life and enhance the human condition.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=150639
So of course Cohn tries to blame "right wingers" for picking on a kid. Let's be clear. The issue is whether SCHIP should be expanded to middle income families. At least that's what Cohn is saying:
"We know that people with modest incomes are having a harder time paying their medical bills, because insurance is getting so pricey and--increasingly--the benefits available leave them exposed to high out-of-pocket expenses. We also know this is particularly true of people who can't get coverage through large employers--a class of people that is expanding as the business community slowly extricates itself from the mess of providing workers with insurance.
In other words, it's not just the most destitute Americans who need assistance getting health insurance. It's people who have jobs, make a decent living, and own their homes. And when medical crisis hits, they're forced to take drastic steps--like selling their homes, depleting life savings, declaring bankruptcy, or simply going without the care they and their loved ones need. Unless, of course, the government provides them with insurance at affordable rates. "
First of all, Cohn is immune to the facts: many people simply don't buy insurance that is affordable (and it is affordable) in many cases so they create a medical crisis in many cases.... The fastest growing segment of the uninsured are people making $70k or more and whose incomes are growing. Explain that. Meanwhile Medicaid roles are declining.
Cohn also sees health insurance as a big pre-paid security blanket. Zero deductibles. No copays. Coverage for everything. Dream on boychick. That does not even exist in France, your health care wet dream. That system is broke so Sarkozy is installing gatekeepers, co-pays, the works. Soon France will be one big HMO. Even GM's employees are cutting back. You see health care as an all you can eat buffet, not as personal responsbility.
Ultimately, Cohn misrepresents the conservative position on health care. It is not opposition to making coverage affordable. Rather, the conservative position is to take the favorable tax breaks and purchasing power corporations have and give it to individuals. So instead of SCHIP why not advanceable tax credits and purchasing pools, prefunded HSAs? Why is Cohn so opposed to that? For the same reason liberals are hysterical about declining Medicaid enrollment and opposed Part D. They want people dependent.
The fight is not about a family and whether they should have access to affordable and convenient care. That's a given. The fight is about whether Americans should be herded into a single payer system supported by Hillary, Cohn and others where the sort of high tech care Graeme Frost needs and deserves will be denied him regularly. With HSAs, tax credits and consumer choice he and his family will have control over the medical decisions that shape his life, not a bureaucrat or some comparative effectiveness institute. In Britain, Germany, Canada or even France where the doctors strike more than they see patients, Graeme would get inferior care. He would be less cared for and less valued.
In the final analysis, conservative care more about his future than Cohn, Ezra Klein and his kind ever will. Klein, Cohn and Families USA just want to expand the welfare state. I dare say my conservative colleagues want to preserve the possibilities that medical progress offer to extend life and enhance the human condition.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=150639
WSJ blogger Peter Loftus writes, “Meter Set to Run on J&J’s Cash-Back Deal†– but it’s the meter on physician empowerment and patient choice that is already ticking.
In an attempt to get NICE to reimburse Velcade, Johnson & Johnson made the UK regulatory body an offer they couldn’t refuse – the “Velcade Response Scheme†-- a money-back guarantee for the cancer drug.
The scheme changed the equation. “For those who may get a full response or a partial response … it’s a cost-effective intervention for the National Health Service,†Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, told Dow Jones Newswires. “Narrowing down to patients getting the best response makes it worth it.†A government proposal formalizing the deal is expected to become final on Oct. 24.
But the measures of “success,†are debatable. A “response†would be considered to be when a patient achieves a 50% or more overall reduction in their paraprotein after four cycles of Velcade. Only patients who achieve this 50% plus reduction in their paraprotein will continue on Velcade. No rebates will be issued for patients who achieve a full or partial response. Also, the drug is recommended only for people who are having their first relapse, who have received one prior therapy and who have undergone a bone marrow transplant or have been deemed unsuitable for a transplant.
Non-responders at 4 cycles will not have the option of continuing therapy because NICE does not consider that there is sufficient clinical evidence to show that those patients who have not responded well after four cycles, would gain any benefit by having four further cycles. Hmm.
Loftus write that, “The Velcade rebate program is the first of its kind in the U.K. and may be a harbinger of things to come there and elsewhere.â€
Translation – “in the United States.â€
In a matter of weeks, J&J is expected to be on the hook for the full cost of Velcade treatment for multiple myeloma patients who don’t improve "sufficiently" after four cycles of treatment with medicine.
But just what does “sufficiently mean? What type of "evidence" should be used? And who defines it, physicians or the government? That question has been asked and answered in Great Britain.
There may very well "always be an England," but there won't always be the drugs you need to survive if you live there. Welcome to the world of heathcare technology assessment aka comparative effectiveness aka evidence-based medicine.
When it comes down to brass tacks, what all these fancy phrases means for patients is "sorry -- no medicines for you." So much for "universal" health care. "Government" health care is more like it
In an attempt to get NICE to reimburse Velcade, Johnson & Johnson made the UK regulatory body an offer they couldn’t refuse – the “Velcade Response Scheme†-- a money-back guarantee for the cancer drug.
The scheme changed the equation. “For those who may get a full response or a partial response … it’s a cost-effective intervention for the National Health Service,†Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, told Dow Jones Newswires. “Narrowing down to patients getting the best response makes it worth it.†A government proposal formalizing the deal is expected to become final on Oct. 24.
But the measures of “success,†are debatable. A “response†would be considered to be when a patient achieves a 50% or more overall reduction in their paraprotein after four cycles of Velcade. Only patients who achieve this 50% plus reduction in their paraprotein will continue on Velcade. No rebates will be issued for patients who achieve a full or partial response. Also, the drug is recommended only for people who are having their first relapse, who have received one prior therapy and who have undergone a bone marrow transplant or have been deemed unsuitable for a transplant.
Non-responders at 4 cycles will not have the option of continuing therapy because NICE does not consider that there is sufficient clinical evidence to show that those patients who have not responded well after four cycles, would gain any benefit by having four further cycles. Hmm.
Loftus write that, “The Velcade rebate program is the first of its kind in the U.K. and may be a harbinger of things to come there and elsewhere.â€
Translation – “in the United States.â€
In a matter of weeks, J&J is expected to be on the hook for the full cost of Velcade treatment for multiple myeloma patients who don’t improve "sufficiently" after four cycles of treatment with medicine.
But just what does “sufficiently mean? What type of "evidence" should be used? And who defines it, physicians or the government? That question has been asked and answered in Great Britain.
There may very well "always be an England," but there won't always be the drugs you need to survive if you live there. Welcome to the world of heathcare technology assessment aka comparative effectiveness aka evidence-based medicine.
When it comes down to brass tacks, what all these fancy phrases means for patients is "sorry -- no medicines for you." So much for "universal" health care. "Government" health care is more like it
You would expect fewer people to be on Medicaid with a growing economy even after a decade of hectoring people to sign up government run health care...but people actually leaving an entitlement especially when liberals are trying to override a presidential of SCHIP expansion to cover people making $83k with billions in assets....
So unfair.
Which explains why the Kaiser folks are getting a bit nervous about the latest data showing a decline in Medicaid enrollment and translated into some, uh, confused explanations for the drop in program participation...
"Enrollment in Medicaid declined for the first time in nearly a decade, according to a new 50-state survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU). But faced with an improving economy, 42 states expect to expand coverage to the uninsured in the next year.
The survey reports a 0.5 percent enrollment decline in fiscal year (FY) 2007 driven primarily by two factors. States reported that the new documentation requirements were causing significant delays in processing applications, affecting mostly individuals already eligible for the program. State officials also cited the good economy and lower unemployment for reducing enrollment."
Yeah, those new documentation requirements. That explains it. Never had paperwork in the Medicaid program before.
And how do you expand coverage to the uninsured when a good economy reduces unemployment and enrollment?
http://www.kff.org
So unfair.
Which explains why the Kaiser folks are getting a bit nervous about the latest data showing a decline in Medicaid enrollment and translated into some, uh, confused explanations for the drop in program participation...
"Enrollment in Medicaid declined for the first time in nearly a decade, according to a new 50-state survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU). But faced with an improving economy, 42 states expect to expand coverage to the uninsured in the next year.
The survey reports a 0.5 percent enrollment decline in fiscal year (FY) 2007 driven primarily by two factors. States reported that the new documentation requirements were causing significant delays in processing applications, affecting mostly individuals already eligible for the program. State officials also cited the good economy and lower unemployment for reducing enrollment."
Yeah, those new documentation requirements. That explains it. Never had paperwork in the Medicaid program before.
And how do you expand coverage to the uninsured when a good economy reduces unemployment and enrollment?
http://www.kff.org
Want a peek at how comparative effectiveness decisions will go down in the American political system? The response to arbitrary CMS decision to ration EPO use in cancer care is a case in point. Member of congress have introduced legislation to override the decision (the Sec of HHS can't) in an effort to pressure CMS to step back. This is not the first time that Congress has mandated coverage of a specific type of care in response to an administrative decision and lobbying.
We think that the CMS decision is a power grab designed to turn CMS into NICE. So it's ironic that it is Senator Baucus -- the advocate of comparative effectiveness in the Senate -- who introduced legislation to slap down the CMS decision that itself was a product of evidence-based, cost-effectiveness analysis!. But it just goes to show you that if you think that technology assessment is objective and not political, think again.
I don't like political micromanagement even when I support the position of the micromanager. CMS should do the right thing and provide continuing coverage of ESAs while conducting a post market search for who benefits most and least from ESAs and why. That's real comparative effectiveness.
We think that the CMS decision is a power grab designed to turn CMS into NICE. So it's ironic that it is Senator Baucus -- the advocate of comparative effectiveness in the Senate -- who introduced legislation to slap down the CMS decision that itself was a product of evidence-based, cost-effectiveness analysis!. But it just goes to show you that if you think that technology assessment is objective and not political, think again.
I don't like political micromanagement even when I support the position of the micromanager. CMS should do the right thing and provide continuing coverage of ESAs while conducting a post market search for who benefits most and least from ESAs and why. That's real comparative effectiveness.
In case you missed the excellent article by Matt Herper and Bob Langreth in Forbes, here are a few sample paragraphs and a link to the complete piece:
Genetics' Super Summer
The hunt for new genes has suddenly gone into overdrive.
Between the end of May and the beginning of September, scientists discovered telltale genetic markers that help predict the risk of nine major diseases, including breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease. Some of these newly discovered markers will be used soon in diagnostic tests; others will help researchers better understand the diseases in order to invent new treatments.
One use for new gene tests that is likely to come fast is in predicting which patients will be helped or harmed by a particular drug. This summer, a Pfizer AIDS drug, Selzentry, is approved only for patients who carry a particular version of an immune system gene, CCR5. The Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve more drugs only for use with people with particular genes, and is drafting guidelines for companies. Clinical Data , the latest effort from billionaire biotech investor R.J. Kirk, is being built around the idea of pairing drugs for depression and schizophrenia with gene tests.
An iffier area is predicting who will benefit or be hurt by a long-existing drug. The FDA added guidance suggesting the use of a gene test in picking the right dose of the blood-thinner warfarin, which is life-saving at the right dose but causes dangerous bleeding if a patient gets too much. Another promising area is the use of a gene test to keep from giving antidepressants to patients who might get suicidal thoughts from the medicines. But often these new findings aren't tested as rigorously.
Here's a link to the complete article:
http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2007/10/01/genetics-disease-cancer-biz-sci-cx_mh_1002genetests.html
The article's final sentence reads as follows, "Janet Woodcock, the FDA's chief medical officer, predicts "a lot of scientific uncertainty."
Indeed. But the Critical Path must not be the one less traveled. Because that will make all the difference.
Genetics' Super Summer
The hunt for new genes has suddenly gone into overdrive.
Between the end of May and the beginning of September, scientists discovered telltale genetic markers that help predict the risk of nine major diseases, including breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease. Some of these newly discovered markers will be used soon in diagnostic tests; others will help researchers better understand the diseases in order to invent new treatments.
One use for new gene tests that is likely to come fast is in predicting which patients will be helped or harmed by a particular drug. This summer, a Pfizer AIDS drug, Selzentry, is approved only for patients who carry a particular version of an immune system gene, CCR5. The Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve more drugs only for use with people with particular genes, and is drafting guidelines for companies. Clinical Data , the latest effort from billionaire biotech investor R.J. Kirk, is being built around the idea of pairing drugs for depression and schizophrenia with gene tests.
An iffier area is predicting who will benefit or be hurt by a long-existing drug. The FDA added guidance suggesting the use of a gene test in picking the right dose of the blood-thinner warfarin, which is life-saving at the right dose but causes dangerous bleeding if a patient gets too much. Another promising area is the use of a gene test to keep from giving antidepressants to patients who might get suicidal thoughts from the medicines. But often these new findings aren't tested as rigorously.
Here's a link to the complete article:
http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2007/10/01/genetics-disease-cancer-biz-sci-cx_mh_1002genetests.html
The article's final sentence reads as follows, "Janet Woodcock, the FDA's chief medical officer, predicts "a lot of scientific uncertainty."
Indeed. But the Critical Path must not be the one less traveled. Because that will make all the difference.
Peter Rost and I do not agree on many things, but here's something we both seem to appreciate -- a good laugh that makes you think.
Such is a "must see" photo and caption titled, "Some People Just Don't Get It." Made me smile ... and then grimace.
Worth a look at http://www.brandweeknrx.com
Peter -- why don't you link to us?
Such is a "must see" photo and caption titled, "Some People Just Don't Get It." Made me smile ... and then grimace.
Worth a look at http://www.brandweeknrx.com
Peter -- why don't you link to us?
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.
