Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Marcia Angell claims that Medicare Part D was a giveaway to brand name drug companies and me-too drugs....
According to Business Monitor International..."The US-based Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) has announced that around 60% of all prescriptions on the Part D benefit programme are for generic drugs."
I wonder if Ms. Marcia's fact checking was any better when she was riding the bull at NEJM
According to Business Monitor International..."The US-based Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) has announced that around 60% of all prescriptions on the Part D benefit programme are for generic drugs."
I wonder if Ms. Marcia's fact checking was any better when she was riding the bull at NEJM
Wikipedia is running out of money. But instead of accepting ads it will pull the plug if it doesn't receive enough donations to keep it going. Which means that the founders will put to sleep the fastest growing common grounds for sharing information around the globe out of principle.
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/10/wikipedias-got-3-4-months-to-live-and-wikipedias-technolo/
Sounds a lot like the purists who continue to seek a purge of all industry "sponsored" support of any kind of any medical research or activity. At some point the lack of commercial investment and the possibility of return will cause new information to dry up.
Non-profits and generic firms have much difference incentives. They don't need to "market" new medicines or even want to. They spend very little here or overseas training or explaining to doctors how to use drugs. You won't see Teva investing in new uses for the generic form of Lovenox (regardless of how valid it's recent patent challenge might be) . And you would not see them invest any time or money in putting together the efficacy and safety data for a priority review of a new indication as Sanofi did.
http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=DDDCA11E-497B-4979-A659-B8759752875E
The zealots don't care, either because they are healthy (and don't care about the need to commercialize innovation) or driven by drug company hatred. That's a disease too.
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/10/wikipedias-got-3-4-months-to-live-and-wikipedias-technolo/
Sounds a lot like the purists who continue to seek a purge of all industry "sponsored" support of any kind of any medical research or activity. At some point the lack of commercial investment and the possibility of return will cause new information to dry up.
Non-profits and generic firms have much difference incentives. They don't need to "market" new medicines or even want to. They spend very little here or overseas training or explaining to doctors how to use drugs. You won't see Teva investing in new uses for the generic form of Lovenox (regardless of how valid it's recent patent challenge might be) . And you would not see them invest any time or money in putting together the efficacy and safety data for a priority review of a new indication as Sanofi did.
http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=DDDCA11E-497B-4979-A659-B8759752875E
The zealots don't care, either because they are healthy (and don't care about the need to commercialize innovation) or driven by drug company hatred. That's a disease too.
Shades of Chavez. And so much for the rule of law in Thailand.
According to the military junta in Bangkok, Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs.
The 14 drugs targeted by the Health Ministry also included antibiotics.The ministry has announced compulsory licences for three of the 14 drugs, allowing it to buy or make generic versions of the two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease medicine.
Foreign drug makers say Thailand's military-appointed government gave no notice to the affected companies before issuing the compulsory licences.
Last month, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licences for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS, after a similar move on another AIDS drug last year.
Under World Trade Organization rules, a government is allowed to declare a national emergency and license the production or sale of a patented drug without the permission of the foreign patent owner.
I suppose a health care system that is a total disaster is an emergency -- but I don't think this is what the WHO had in mind.
According to the military junta in Bangkok, Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs.
The 14 drugs targeted by the Health Ministry also included antibiotics.The ministry has announced compulsory licences for three of the 14 drugs, allowing it to buy or make generic versions of the two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease medicine.
Foreign drug makers say Thailand's military-appointed government gave no notice to the affected companies before issuing the compulsory licences.
Last month, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licences for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS, after a similar move on another AIDS drug last year.
Under World Trade Organization rules, a government is allowed to declare a national emergency and license the production or sale of a patented drug without the permission of the foreign patent owner.
I suppose a health care system that is a total disaster is an emergency -- but I don't think this is what the WHO had in mind.
Please join FDA Commissioner Andy von Eschenbach, Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, Frank Burroughs of the Abigail Alliance, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and many notables from the worlds of media and medicine for a day-long conference on how the media reports on medicine. The date is February 21. The place is the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. For more details and a full agenda, please click on the icon on the top of this page.
(We did invite Senator Grassley, but he hasn't sent in his RSVP yet.)
(We did invite Senator Grassley, but he hasn't sent in his RSVP yet.)
Great commentary piece on expanding access to experimental therapies by CMPI board member Mark Thornton MD.
Drugwonks understands the need for well designed studies to prove safety and efficacy. But given the extent to which political pressure shapes what tools are used, we are skeptical when demands for longer, slower studies of the randomized type are constantly invoked. And when such studies turn away patients willing to enroll and ignore molecular /genetic diversity that can lead to better treatment, quality of life and knowledge, we are downright cynical...
We have to turn the tide against those who want to spend more gathering data on drugs we already know how to use safely -- starting with the imperious IOM report written by it's conflicted panel ( I will get to this issue, I promise!) --- and increase spending on tools that allow more people to become an "army of one" in the war to defeat cancer and other illnesses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117124379156005353-search.html?KEYWORDS=disease&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
Drugwonks understands the need for well designed studies to prove safety and efficacy. But given the extent to which political pressure shapes what tools are used, we are skeptical when demands for longer, slower studies of the randomized type are constantly invoked. And when such studies turn away patients willing to enroll and ignore molecular /genetic diversity that can lead to better treatment, quality of life and knowledge, we are downright cynical...
We have to turn the tide against those who want to spend more gathering data on drugs we already know how to use safely -- starting with the imperious IOM report written by it's conflicted panel ( I will get to this issue, I promise!) --- and increase spending on tools that allow more people to become an "army of one" in the war to defeat cancer and other illnesses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117124379156005353-search.html?KEYWORDS=disease&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
Thailand confiscates patents before talking to drug companies -- 20 patents under consideration and counting. No doubt the principal beneficiary will be the corrupt and poorly run government drug monopoly. Meanwhile, the military junta is eagerly reaching out to boost it's economic ties to one of the great democracies on the planet...Iran.
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Thailand's Commerce Minister Kroekrai Chiraphaet stressed his country's strong support for Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Speaking in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen, the Thai official noted Iran's economic potentials and underlined, "Not only Thailand, but also all other Asian states view Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization positively."
He further voiced pleasure for the increasing volume of the two countries' trade exchanges, and welcomed endorsement of cooperation agreements by Iran and Thailand, particularly in the area of trade.
Chiraphaet reiterated that endorsement of trade contracts by Iran and his country can play a significant role in the boosting of the two sides' trade exchanges.
Highlighting the role of the private sector in the growth of the two sides' trade exchanges, he called for the reinvigoration of trade cooperation and frequent mutual visits by the two countries' private sectors.
For his part, Iran's Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen wished success for the new government of Thailand, and expressed the hope that the two sides' growing trend of relations and cooperation would continue.
He stressed the need for the development of Iran-Thailand trade ties, and viewed holding of the 8th joint economic commission meeting in Bangkok as a crucial step for the strengthening of the two countries' trade cooperation.
Pak Ayeen further underscored that consolidation of relations with Asian countries, particularly with ASEAN member states, sets a priority for Iran's foreign policy.
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=5773
Meanwhile, Israel's Natan Sharansky is calling for a world-wide mobilization against Iran and it's economy similar to that brought against South Africa and the USSR for its policies of repression. In Iran's case, it is leading a global effort to wipe out Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1170359835461&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Where do the NGO's stand on this important issue?
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Thailand's Commerce Minister Kroekrai Chiraphaet stressed his country's strong support for Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Speaking in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen, the Thai official noted Iran's economic potentials and underlined, "Not only Thailand, but also all other Asian states view Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization positively."
He further voiced pleasure for the increasing volume of the two countries' trade exchanges, and welcomed endorsement of cooperation agreements by Iran and Thailand, particularly in the area of trade.
Chiraphaet reiterated that endorsement of trade contracts by Iran and his country can play a significant role in the boosting of the two sides' trade exchanges.
Highlighting the role of the private sector in the growth of the two sides' trade exchanges, he called for the reinvigoration of trade cooperation and frequent mutual visits by the two countries' private sectors.
For his part, Iran's Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen wished success for the new government of Thailand, and expressed the hope that the two sides' growing trend of relations and cooperation would continue.
He stressed the need for the development of Iran-Thailand trade ties, and viewed holding of the 8th joint economic commission meeting in Bangkok as a crucial step for the strengthening of the two countries' trade cooperation.
Pak Ayeen further underscored that consolidation of relations with Asian countries, particularly with ASEAN member states, sets a priority for Iran's foreign policy.
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=5773
Meanwhile, Israel's Natan Sharansky is calling for a world-wide mobilization against Iran and it's economy similar to that brought against South Africa and the USSR for its policies of repression. In Iran's case, it is leading a global effort to wipe out Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1170359835461&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Where do the NGO's stand on this important issue?
Wounded in battle, Alexander the Great's last words were, "I am dying at the hands of too many doctors." I know how he feels.
Marcia Angell weighs in on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, predictably calling it a giveaway to drug companies, claiming that the VA drug lists -- as well as drug formularies throughout the world -- only ditch drugs that are not cost-effective. Like Herceptin, Lipitor, Avastin, Gleevec... Angell is the only person in the world who doesn't know that Medicare Part D is ruthlessly shifting patients to generic medicines by the way, which is why she continues to flog me too drugs..
And she continues to talk about drugs that were first discovered 25 years ago instead of what companies are investing in now. Talking about the future means talking about genomics, targeted therapies, personalized medicine, translational research...all the activities companies are spending dough on. And she continues to perpetuate the lie that companies spend more on things other than R&D by lumping in the total cost (administration) of running a corporation to the cost of marketing.
My question is: what new drug has Dr. Angell invested in, worked on, discovered or developed in her lifetime? How would she make drug discovery and development more effective and efficient? Does she have special pre-knowledge about which medicines will work that other scientists do not? If so, I wish she would stop recycling the same old crappy op-ed and share the recipe for developing breakthrough drugs without have to develop all those me-too medicines...
High cost for me-too drugs
And speaking of recycling crap...Steve Nissen is once again claiming that he courageously warned America about the cardiovascular dangers of taking drugs for ADHD, drugs he still claims -- as someone who knows nothing about ADHD -- are way too overused. This time he is claiming this in front of Bart Stupak's Health subcommittee Feb 13th, joining other luminaries such as David Graham to trash the FDA.
I post a response from Dr. Joseph Biederman from Mass General Hospital, one of the nation's expert on treatment of ADHD and use of stimulants for treating the disease to Nissen's nonsense. I have sent it to members of the Health subcomm so they have an idea of what the facts about the risks and benefits of ADHD meds really are.
http://www.massgeneral.org/pediatricpsych/docs/NEJMltr.pdf
Marcia Angell weighs in on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, predictably calling it a giveaway to drug companies, claiming that the VA drug lists -- as well as drug formularies throughout the world -- only ditch drugs that are not cost-effective. Like Herceptin, Lipitor, Avastin, Gleevec... Angell is the only person in the world who doesn't know that Medicare Part D is ruthlessly shifting patients to generic medicines by the way, which is why she continues to flog me too drugs..
And she continues to talk about drugs that were first discovered 25 years ago instead of what companies are investing in now. Talking about the future means talking about genomics, targeted therapies, personalized medicine, translational research...all the activities companies are spending dough on. And she continues to perpetuate the lie that companies spend more on things other than R&D by lumping in the total cost (administration) of running a corporation to the cost of marketing.
My question is: what new drug has Dr. Angell invested in, worked on, discovered or developed in her lifetime? How would she make drug discovery and development more effective and efficient? Does she have special pre-knowledge about which medicines will work that other scientists do not? If so, I wish she would stop recycling the same old crappy op-ed and share the recipe for developing breakthrough drugs without have to develop all those me-too medicines...
High cost for me-too drugs
And speaking of recycling crap...Steve Nissen is once again claiming that he courageously warned America about the cardiovascular dangers of taking drugs for ADHD, drugs he still claims -- as someone who knows nothing about ADHD -- are way too overused. This time he is claiming this in front of Bart Stupak's Health subcommittee Feb 13th, joining other luminaries such as David Graham to trash the FDA.
I post a response from Dr. Joseph Biederman from Mass General Hospital, one of the nation's expert on treatment of ADHD and use of stimulants for treating the disease to Nissen's nonsense. I have sent it to members of the Health subcomm so they have an idea of what the facts about the risks and benefits of ADHD meds really are.
http://www.massgeneral.org/pediatricpsych/docs/NEJMltr.pdf
The VA is in full retreat about it's penny-wise pound foolish formulary approach. It presented a power point presentation at an AEI summit on price controls in Medicare and then exported the propaganda to a meeting on drug formularies in Helsinki which is ironically the namesake of protocols designed to protect patients from getting screwed without their knowledge.
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1447,filter.all/event_detail.asp
Here's a breakdown of the myth's and fact's that the VA is now pushing:
1. VA offers more individual drugs that Part D
Fact: The VA offers more different varieties of the SAME drug but (formulations, doses, etc). Part D offers more unique new molecular entitites.
2. The VA formulary is not restrictive
Fact: The VA quotes a report written in 1998 (published in 2000) before it began an effort to push prescribers to adhere more tightly to closed formularies.
3. VA system participants live longer lives
Fact: The VA outright lies and uses a chart that is an outright mischaracterization of Frank Lichtenberg's study Older Drugs, Shorter Lives? An Examination of the Health Effects of the Veterans Health Administration Formulary (which I commissioned when at the Manhattan Institute).
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_02_f4.htm
Frank's chart is above. As you can see, he never claims that people in the VA don't live longer than people not in the VA. And he explains why in a footnote to the paper.
While there are some reasons to expect the mean value of Et to be lower than the mean value of the life expectancy of all U.S. males at birth-serving in the military may impair one's future health-there are other reasons to expect it to be greater. Et is based on a population of individuals who have been veterans, i.e., who lived long enough to serve in the armed forces (e.g., did not die in infancy) and who survived serving in the armed forces. It would be more appropriate to compare Et with the life expectancy of all U.S. males at age twenty, for example. Such data are available for some years (it was 73.25 for 1989-1991 and 75.6 in 2002) but are not available annually (Arias, 2004, Table 11).
What Lichtenberg shows is that after the VA formulary was introduced, the increase in life expectancy at any given period declined. He did not compared differences in LE.
But that's not good enough for the VA. It had to fudge the chart itself. So it introduced a chart that compared periodic life expectancy of vets to life expectancy of all Americans at birth in a way that erases the decline in life expectancy.
4. The VA claims it provides better pharmaceutical care.
Fact. There are many health care services that the VA does extremely well. However to the extent that the VA itself seeks to reduce hospitalizations and prevent disease the use of the best pharmaceuticals is critical to maximizing these goals. The failure of the VA to devote its considerable health IT resources to determine what the best drug for the right patient is reflects an insular and outdated view of medicine. It is very good at achieving better results on process measures relative to some commercial health plans and some evidence that the care it provides is a good as private hospitals. But the VA refuses to allow outside researchers examine the impact of formulary restrictiveness on patient outcomes and total health care costs.
5. The VA doesn't use mail order pharmacy.
Fact: According to GAO and the VA itself, the VA fills 83 percent of its prescriptions through mail order.
6. The VA claims newer is not always better
Fact: Does that mean the VA has more older drugs than Medicare Part D. Does that mean older is always better? In fact, most new drugs are associated with an increase in well-being and clinical improvement with some subpopulation. And in the case of the VA it has not added drugs even the FDA regarded as priority medicines, drugs that have a significant therapeutic value, to its formulary.
7. The VA does not have have a three year wait on all new drugs.
Fact: The VA is right on this count. Sort of. It generally waits a year. Or longer. It was only recently, under pressure from Part D, that it began adding new medicines in a timely fashion. It still hasn't added many new cancer drugs.
8. There have not been 1 million Part D defections
Fact: No defections. But 2 million have signed up for Part D in addition to the VA benefits they receive. Why can't the VA just be honest. There are plenty of people who double dip...
9. Drugs not on the VA formulary are in fact available.
No one said they are unavailable. That's a VA strawman. Drugs not on the formulary are just hard to get. It takes anywhere from 3 days to a week to get an answer. Often you have to try a drug for a while before you can ask for a change, which means traveling to see a doctor. As a result, even the VA's own numbers show that less than 5-10 percent of its patients get medicines like Lipitor, Ambien or Protonix.
10. Doctors are satisfied with the restrictive formularies.
Fact. Fully a third of all doctors who took the time to respond to a VA run survey complained it took too long to get requests answered. (Provider perceptions of pharmacy management: lessons from the military health system.
Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):361-6. )
Another survey (also self-selected respondents) found that 35 percent of doctors believed the national formulary restricted access to important drugs. Glassman PA, Good CB, Kelley ME, Bradley M, Valentino M, Ogden J, Kizer KW. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Physician perceptions of a national formulary.
Am J Manag Care. 2001 Mar;7(3):241-51.
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1447,filter.all/event_detail.asp
Here's a breakdown of the myth's and fact's that the VA is now pushing:
1. VA offers more individual drugs that Part D
Fact: The VA offers more different varieties of the SAME drug but (formulations, doses, etc). Part D offers more unique new molecular entitites.
2. The VA formulary is not restrictive
Fact: The VA quotes a report written in 1998 (published in 2000) before it began an effort to push prescribers to adhere more tightly to closed formularies.
3. VA system participants live longer lives
Fact: The VA outright lies and uses a chart that is an outright mischaracterization of Frank Lichtenberg's study Older Drugs, Shorter Lives? An Examination of the Health Effects of the Veterans Health Administration Formulary (which I commissioned when at the Manhattan Institute).
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_02_f4.htm
Frank's chart is above. As you can see, he never claims that people in the VA don't live longer than people not in the VA. And he explains why in a footnote to the paper.
While there are some reasons to expect the mean value of Et to be lower than the mean value of the life expectancy of all U.S. males at birth-serving in the military may impair one's future health-there are other reasons to expect it to be greater. Et is based on a population of individuals who have been veterans, i.e., who lived long enough to serve in the armed forces (e.g., did not die in infancy) and who survived serving in the armed forces. It would be more appropriate to compare Et with the life expectancy of all U.S. males at age twenty, for example. Such data are available for some years (it was 73.25 for 1989-1991 and 75.6 in 2002) but are not available annually (Arias, 2004, Table 11).
What Lichtenberg shows is that after the VA formulary was introduced, the increase in life expectancy at any given period declined. He did not compared differences in LE.
But that's not good enough for the VA. It had to fudge the chart itself. So it introduced a chart that compared periodic life expectancy of vets to life expectancy of all Americans at birth in a way that erases the decline in life expectancy.
4. The VA claims it provides better pharmaceutical care.
Fact. There are many health care services that the VA does extremely well. However to the extent that the VA itself seeks to reduce hospitalizations and prevent disease the use of the best pharmaceuticals is critical to maximizing these goals. The failure of the VA to devote its considerable health IT resources to determine what the best drug for the right patient is reflects an insular and outdated view of medicine. It is very good at achieving better results on process measures relative to some commercial health plans and some evidence that the care it provides is a good as private hospitals. But the VA refuses to allow outside researchers examine the impact of formulary restrictiveness on patient outcomes and total health care costs.
5. The VA doesn't use mail order pharmacy.
Fact: According to GAO and the VA itself, the VA fills 83 percent of its prescriptions through mail order.
6. The VA claims newer is not always better
Fact: Does that mean the VA has more older drugs than Medicare Part D. Does that mean older is always better? In fact, most new drugs are associated with an increase in well-being and clinical improvement with some subpopulation. And in the case of the VA it has not added drugs even the FDA regarded as priority medicines, drugs that have a significant therapeutic value, to its formulary.
7. The VA does not have have a three year wait on all new drugs.
Fact: The VA is right on this count. Sort of. It generally waits a year. Or longer. It was only recently, under pressure from Part D, that it began adding new medicines in a timely fashion. It still hasn't added many new cancer drugs.
8. There have not been 1 million Part D defections
Fact: No defections. But 2 million have signed up for Part D in addition to the VA benefits they receive. Why can't the VA just be honest. There are plenty of people who double dip...
9. Drugs not on the VA formulary are in fact available.
No one said they are unavailable. That's a VA strawman. Drugs not on the formulary are just hard to get. It takes anywhere from 3 days to a week to get an answer. Often you have to try a drug for a while before you can ask for a change, which means traveling to see a doctor. As a result, even the VA's own numbers show that less than 5-10 percent of its patients get medicines like Lipitor, Ambien or Protonix.
10. Doctors are satisfied with the restrictive formularies.
Fact. Fully a third of all doctors who took the time to respond to a VA run survey complained it took too long to get requests answered. (Provider perceptions of pharmacy management: lessons from the military health system.
Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):361-6. )
Another survey (also self-selected respondents) found that 35 percent of doctors believed the national formulary restricted access to important drugs. Glassman PA, Good CB, Kelley ME, Bradley M, Valentino M, Ogden J, Kizer KW. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Physician perceptions of a national formulary.
Am J Manag Care. 2001 Mar;7(3):241-51.
Here's something I would like the opponents of authorized generics to explain: Why is it ok for generic drug companies to divy up the profits during the exclusivity period after a Para 4 challenge but not for an innovator company to introduce it's own generic version that does the same thing?
To wit from Beth McClean's article about Apopletic's Bernie Sherman in Fortune:
"Because they (meaning the generic firms) had all filed on the same day, they would have had to share the 180-day period - meaning profits would have been slim even during the period of supposed exclusivity."
The high price of drug patents
To wit from Beth McClean's article about Apopletic's Bernie Sherman in Fortune:
"Because they (meaning the generic firms) had all filed on the same day, they would have had to share the 180-day period - meaning profits would have been slim even during the period of supposed exclusivity."
The high price of drug patents
I've been in Helsinki for the past few days attending a conference entitled, "Financing Sustainable Healthcare in Europe." My fear was that it would devolve into a conference on Sustainable Healthcare Financing in Europe. It didn't.
It didn't, even though there was a presentation by the US Veterans Administration on, among other things, their wonderful formulary.
It didn't, even though there were more than a few presentations on both evidence-based medicine and healthcare technology assessment.
It didn't, even though the issue of information-to-patients and the "empowered consumer" were discussed.
And this was in Europe! A good sign that sanity may yet prevail in the land that brought us such wonderful acronyms as NICE and IQWIG.
It might be overly optimistic to say this was the beginning of a continental debate on ways to save the future of health care in Europe in ways other than just saving money.
It might be overly optimistic -- but it's worth hoping for the best. And the best and the brightest were in attendance in Helsinki.
The event was sponsored by SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund, Luxembourg's Ministry of Health, and Pfizer. Attendees came from across Europe and included health ministers and senior government advisors (the health ministers of Finland and Poland and a former prime minister of Finland attended and participated) along with leading academics, decision-makers and thought leaders from both "New" and "Old" Europe, and other points on the map (Finland, Sweden, Demmark, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Cyprus, France, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Albania, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Germany).
There was also a minyan or more of senior officials from the European Commission and the European Parliament. In fact, the conference was chaired (and expertly so) by Pat Cox, the former President of the European Parliament.
The bonus of having so many high-profile government types in one room at the same time is that they tell memorable stories. The best came from Aho Esko (the former Finnish PM) who recalled the time when the Premier of Iceland said to the Prime Minister of Israel that their two nations were very different -- Israel being the nation chosen by God. Iceland the one frozen by God.
The presentations from the event should be shortly available at http://www.sustainhealthcare.org
The most important take-away was that many of the presentations focused on the theme that "health is wealth" -- and that, as such, health care is a worthwhile investment.
Wither such positive momentum? Time will tell.
It didn't, even though there was a presentation by the US Veterans Administration on, among other things, their wonderful formulary.
It didn't, even though there were more than a few presentations on both evidence-based medicine and healthcare technology assessment.
It didn't, even though the issue of information-to-patients and the "empowered consumer" were discussed.
And this was in Europe! A good sign that sanity may yet prevail in the land that brought us such wonderful acronyms as NICE and IQWIG.
It might be overly optimistic to say this was the beginning of a continental debate on ways to save the future of health care in Europe in ways other than just saving money.
It might be overly optimistic -- but it's worth hoping for the best. And the best and the brightest were in attendance in Helsinki.
The event was sponsored by SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund, Luxembourg's Ministry of Health, and Pfizer. Attendees came from across Europe and included health ministers and senior government advisors (the health ministers of Finland and Poland and a former prime minister of Finland attended and participated) along with leading academics, decision-makers and thought leaders from both "New" and "Old" Europe, and other points on the map (Finland, Sweden, Demmark, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Cyprus, France, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Albania, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Germany).
There was also a minyan or more of senior officials from the European Commission and the European Parliament. In fact, the conference was chaired (and expertly so) by Pat Cox, the former President of the European Parliament.
The bonus of having so many high-profile government types in one room at the same time is that they tell memorable stories. The best came from Aho Esko (the former Finnish PM) who recalled the time when the Premier of Iceland said to the Prime Minister of Israel that their two nations were very different -- Israel being the nation chosen by God. Iceland the one frozen by God.
The presentations from the event should be shortly available at http://www.sustainhealthcare.org
The most important take-away was that many of the presentations focused on the theme that "health is wealth" -- and that, as such, health care is a worthwhile investment.
Wither such positive momentum? Time will tell.
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.
