Latest Drugwonks' Blog
According to a WSJ.com/Harris Interactive health-care poll U.S. adults are divided on whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs to treat diseases or conditions other than those for which they have been approved.
45% of those surveyed say doctors "should be allowed to decide which prescription drug treatments to use with their patients regardless of what diseases they have or have not been approved for by the FDA," compared with 46% who said this shouldn't be allowed.
Frighteningly, nearly two-thirds say they would agree to prohibit off-label prescribing unless it is part of a clinical trial, while 28% wouldn't support such limitations. Attention must be paid – this is the slippery slope that the Apostles of Evidence-based Medicine would have us follow – to disastrous consequences.
Fortunately, when put into the appropriate perspective, Americans don't want to hamper innovation. 55% believe that if doctors aren't allowed to prescribe freely that it will be much more difficult to find new and innovative ways to treat diseases vs. 35% who disagree.
More than two-thirds believe drug companies shouldn't be “allowed to encourage†off-label use vs. 12% who disagree and 20% who aren't sure. Perhaps a better way to have framed that question would have been to have asked if drug companies should be “allowed to share valid clinical information†about off-label use?
One wonders if the pollsters screened out as respondents patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. and their family members. And, if not, how that segment answered the questions.
For that we do not need a research project – we need a robust Critical Path program.
45% of those surveyed say doctors "should be allowed to decide which prescription drug treatments to use with their patients regardless of what diseases they have or have not been approved for by the FDA," compared with 46% who said this shouldn't be allowed.
Frighteningly, nearly two-thirds say they would agree to prohibit off-label prescribing unless it is part of a clinical trial, while 28% wouldn't support such limitations. Attention must be paid – this is the slippery slope that the Apostles of Evidence-based Medicine would have us follow – to disastrous consequences.
Fortunately, when put into the appropriate perspective, Americans don't want to hamper innovation. 55% believe that if doctors aren't allowed to prescribe freely that it will be much more difficult to find new and innovative ways to treat diseases vs. 35% who disagree.
More than two-thirds believe drug companies shouldn't be “allowed to encourage†off-label use vs. 12% who disagree and 20% who aren't sure. Perhaps a better way to have framed that question would have been to have asked if drug companies should be “allowed to share valid clinical information†about off-label use?
One wonders if the pollsters screened out as respondents patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. and their family members. And, if not, how that segment answered the questions.
For that we do not need a research project – we need a robust Critical Path program.
"The newly empowered Democrats' vow to cut healthcare costs might spell bad news for the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, but could provide new momentum for generic drug rivals, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Tuesday. "
.How could more competition be bad? Unless of course Dems want to protect generic companies from competition in the process,.,,If the GOP is smart, they will respond with measures to accelerate and encourage development of new drugs too -- as well as protect authorized generics -- since new drugs are the source of generic profits in the final analysis and authorized generics ultimately promote more price competition!
.How could more competition be bad? Unless of course Dems want to protect generic companies from competition in the process,.,,If the GOP is smart, they will respond with measures to accelerate and encourage development of new drugs too -- as well as protect authorized generics -- since new drugs are the source of generic profits in the final analysis and authorized generics ultimately promote more price competition!
I was in Montreal yesterday giving a lecture on why ideas -- and not just politics -- matter in health care. On my way to the hotel where the conference was being held I saw the headline of the Canada's newspaper of record, The Toronto Globe and Mail. In bold type, across the entire width of Page One was the headline:
Vow Broken on Cancer Wait Times
"It was a bold promise backed by billions of dollars in new government funding: Cancer patients should not have to wait longer than four weeks to obtain critical radiation treatment."
"Four weeks. That's double the maximum waiting time oncologists recommend but still seemingly better than the cancer-care limbo many patients faced when Liberal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and his provincial counterparts made the announcement last December."
"But figures obtained by The Globe and Mail show a staggering 70% of Canadian hospitals surveyed are unable to meet that standard for prostate cancer patients."
You get the picture?
And yesterday was only the most recent installment of a weeklong series on how the Canadian health care system is failing cancer patients.
Today's headline reads:
Provincial drug disparity a roadblock to cancer research
"For the first time, Canada is unable to participate in a key clinical cancer trial because patients are not getting the best known treatment."
"Since most provinces don't fund Avastin, a crucial drug in the fight against colorectal cancer, Canadian patients could not join a trial run by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, which is studying what drug is most effective with chemotherapy — Avastin or Erbitux — or if they work best given together."
Please pass along this important and devastating series to anyone who recommends that what we need in the US is a system "just like Canada."
Here's a link to the series:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cancer
It's a worthwhile, disturbing read.
Vow Broken on Cancer Wait Times
"It was a bold promise backed by billions of dollars in new government funding: Cancer patients should not have to wait longer than four weeks to obtain critical radiation treatment."
"Four weeks. That's double the maximum waiting time oncologists recommend but still seemingly better than the cancer-care limbo many patients faced when Liberal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and his provincial counterparts made the announcement last December."
"But figures obtained by The Globe and Mail show a staggering 70% of Canadian hospitals surveyed are unable to meet that standard for prostate cancer patients."
You get the picture?
And yesterday was only the most recent installment of a weeklong series on how the Canadian health care system is failing cancer patients.
Today's headline reads:
Provincial drug disparity a roadblock to cancer research
"For the first time, Canada is unable to participate in a key clinical cancer trial because patients are not getting the best known treatment."
"Since most provinces don't fund Avastin, a crucial drug in the fight against colorectal cancer, Canadian patients could not join a trial run by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, which is studying what drug is most effective with chemotherapy — Avastin or Erbitux — or if they work best given together."
Please pass along this important and devastating series to anyone who recommends that what we need in the US is a system "just like Canada."
Here's a link to the series:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cancer
It's a worthwhile, disturbing read.
What can you get for four bucks these days? Cheese in a spray can? Cinnamon dental floss?
How about a month's supply of life-saving prescription drugs?
Have a look at this new op-ed in today's edition of The Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.walmart22nov22,0,6905737.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
And have a very happy Thanksgiving.
How about a month's supply of life-saving prescription drugs?
Have a look at this new op-ed in today's edition of The Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.walmart22nov22,0,6905737.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
And have a very happy Thanksgiving.
New Hearing for Suit Against FDA
Associated Press
A federal court agreed yesterday to rehear a case that aims to get terminally ill patients early access to experimental drugs unlikely to be approved before they die.
The full 10-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will probably hear the case next summer, said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
The group, with the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2003. It is seeking broader access to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety testing in as few as 20 people and have yet to be approved by the FDA.
In 2004, a district court dismissed the case. In May, a three-judge appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 decision.
The FDA, in turn, appealed and asked for the full court to rehear the case.
Associated Press
A federal court agreed yesterday to rehear a case that aims to get terminally ill patients early access to experimental drugs unlikely to be approved before they die.
The full 10-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will probably hear the case next summer, said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
The group, with the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2003. It is seeking broader access to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety testing in as few as 20 people and have yet to be approved by the FDA.
In 2004, a district court dismissed the case. In May, a three-judge appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 decision.
The FDA, in turn, appealed and asked for the full court to rehear the case.
Yesterday the New York Times published a few letters pertaining to the issue of Medicare reform and specifically the issue of non-interference.
My letter, alas, was not chosen. (My mother-in-law was very upset.)
Here is what I wrote:
To the Editor:
Your editorial (Lowering Medicare Drug Prices, November 14, 2006) suggests that the Veteran’s Administration “negotiates†prices for prescription drugs. Not so, it mandates them – and that’s more than a rhetorical finesse.
Under rules set by Congress, to sell drugs to the VA, companies must offer each drug at a price that “represents the same discount off a drug’s list price that the manufacturer offers its most-favored nonfederal customer under comparable terms and conditions.†The medication must be offered “at a discount of at least 24 percent off [the] nonfederal average manufacturer price (NFAMP). An excess inflation rebate is also required, equal to the percentage by which the price increase for [the] drug has exceeded the consumer price index (CPI) in the prior period.†The manufacturer must make all of its drugs available through the Federal Service Schedule for any of its drugs to be eligible for reimbursement under the VA and Defense Department health systems, the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), the Coast Guard, and the various state Medicaid programs.
A study by Professor Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University found that the majority of the VA formulary’s drugs are more than eight years old and more than 40 percent are 16 years old or more. Just 19 percent of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available to veterans; only 38 percent approved during the 1990s are.
There’s a big difference between negotiating and mandating – and it’s not a thin line. My fear is that a government negotiated Part D plan is but the first step towards a more strident program of government price controls.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Pitts
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
My letter, alas, was not chosen. (My mother-in-law was very upset.)
Here is what I wrote:
To the Editor:
Your editorial (Lowering Medicare Drug Prices, November 14, 2006) suggests that the Veteran’s Administration “negotiates†prices for prescription drugs. Not so, it mandates them – and that’s more than a rhetorical finesse.
Under rules set by Congress, to sell drugs to the VA, companies must offer each drug at a price that “represents the same discount off a drug’s list price that the manufacturer offers its most-favored nonfederal customer under comparable terms and conditions.†The medication must be offered “at a discount of at least 24 percent off [the] nonfederal average manufacturer price (NFAMP). An excess inflation rebate is also required, equal to the percentage by which the price increase for [the] drug has exceeded the consumer price index (CPI) in the prior period.†The manufacturer must make all of its drugs available through the Federal Service Schedule for any of its drugs to be eligible for reimbursement under the VA and Defense Department health systems, the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), the Coast Guard, and the various state Medicaid programs.
A study by Professor Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University found that the majority of the VA formulary’s drugs are more than eight years old and more than 40 percent are 16 years old or more. Just 19 percent of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available to veterans; only 38 percent approved during the 1990s are.
There’s a big difference between negotiating and mandating – and it’s not a thin line. My fear is that a government negotiated Part D plan is but the first step towards a more strident program of government price controls.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Pitts
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
Health Affairs is running a study showing that most seniors have a coverage gap...what is left out or unstated or misconstrued is that fact that most seniors have chosen to have a coverage gap....Here is what the study notes but fails to highlight...
“United’s AARP product leverages beneficiaries’ recognition of the AARP ‘brand’,†while “Humana attracted high enrollment in its Standard PDP with an aggressive low-premium strategy.â€
In otherwords, people are choosing coverage based on values that matter to them, not what matters to elites. That was the point of competition. Also unstated is the fact that copays in the plans with most customers have declined as have the price of drugs outside the coverage period. That is also in response to demand.
How soon people forget that consumers, not policy elites, are in the drivers' seat here. Will people like it if the elites rob them of their choce o f plans, deductibles and drugs to satisfy elite concerns about "coverage"?
I don't think so...
“United’s AARP product leverages beneficiaries’ recognition of the AARP ‘brand’,†while “Humana attracted high enrollment in its Standard PDP with an aggressive low-premium strategy.â€
In otherwords, people are choosing coverage based on values that matter to them, not what matters to elites. That was the point of competition. Also unstated is the fact that copays in the plans with most customers have declined as have the price of drugs outside the coverage period. That is also in response to demand.
How soon people forget that consumers, not policy elites, are in the drivers' seat here. Will people like it if the elites rob them of their choce o f plans, deductibles and drugs to satisfy elite concerns about "coverage"?
I don't think so...
This is my next to last post from Israel....
Since everyone who supports the government getting into the business of compraing the effectiveness of drugs have assured me that the methodological issues are quite easy to address I am announcing a pre-Thanksgiving comparative effectiveness contest to come up a way of establishing the comparative effectiveness of using different cancer drugs with the technological advance described in this article:
Toward Reducing The Toxic Side Effects Of Cancer Chemotherapy
An advance that may speed the use of "prodrug chemotherapy" -- one of the most promising new strategies for reducing the side effects of anti-cancer drugs -- is being reported by scientists from Johns Hopkins University's In Vivo Cellular and
This two-part chemotherapy involves giving patients the inactive form of an anti-cancer drug (the "prodrug") and an enzyme that changes the prodrug into an active, cancer fighting form. Patients first get the enzyme, which is gradually eliminated from normal tissue but builds up and remains in the tumor. Then patients get the prodrug, which changes into its active and toxic form only upon encountering the enzyme in the tumor.
"Determining the optimal time-window for prodrug injection is therefore of utmost importance for success of these strategies," Zaver M. Bhujwalla, lead author Cong Li and their colleagues note in a report scheduled for the Nov. 29 issue of the weekly Journal of the American Chemical Society.
If the prodrug were injected before all the enzyme cleared from normal tissue, it could damage normal tissue and cause body-wide side effects, they say.
The report describes the synthesis and early laboratory testing of the first prodrug-activating enzyme that can be imaged in tissue to time administration of the prodrug. The enzyme produces the active form of the common anti-cancer drug 5-fluorouracil. Its elimination from normal tissue can be monitored with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or optical imaging, according to the researchers."
Anyone want to come up with a method of comparing the effectiveness of delivering 5-F with side effects and without that a) does not delay access to new technologie, b) captures individual response to pro-drug injection since that will be key to optimal treatment and c) determine whether alternative drugs delivered in pro-drug or non-pro-drug fashion are the best for a particular cancer at a particular state? And extra credit for figuring out a way to continually add new drugs and new approaches in real time as opposed to when it is convenient for bureaucrats and politiciians
The comparative effectiveness crowd wants to spend a billion a year on this approach as a cure all for drug costs and a filter for setting up drug formularies AND it will be proposed as a way to set government prices for breakthrough drugs.. A Dunkin Donuts coupon for the winner of contest....We promise to post the results and responses...
Bonus question
Come up with a comparative effectiveness method for evaluatng the folowing advance:
Nanoparticle-Arsenic Combination Makes for More Potent Anticancer Agent
Arsenic trioxide, one of most promising drugs for treating acute
promyelocytic leukemia, encapsulated in lipid-based nanoparticles
designed to release their cargo inside tumor cells.
Since everyone who supports the government getting into the business of compraing the effectiveness of drugs have assured me that the methodological issues are quite easy to address I am announcing a pre-Thanksgiving comparative effectiveness contest to come up a way of establishing the comparative effectiveness of using different cancer drugs with the technological advance described in this article:
Toward Reducing The Toxic Side Effects Of Cancer Chemotherapy
An advance that may speed the use of "prodrug chemotherapy" -- one of the most promising new strategies for reducing the side effects of anti-cancer drugs -- is being reported by scientists from Johns Hopkins University's In Vivo Cellular and
This two-part chemotherapy involves giving patients the inactive form of an anti-cancer drug (the "prodrug") and an enzyme that changes the prodrug into an active, cancer fighting form. Patients first get the enzyme, which is gradually eliminated from normal tissue but builds up and remains in the tumor. Then patients get the prodrug, which changes into its active and toxic form only upon encountering the enzyme in the tumor.
"Determining the optimal time-window for prodrug injection is therefore of utmost importance for success of these strategies," Zaver M. Bhujwalla, lead author Cong Li and their colleagues note in a report scheduled for the Nov. 29 issue of the weekly Journal of the American Chemical Society.
If the prodrug were injected before all the enzyme cleared from normal tissue, it could damage normal tissue and cause body-wide side effects, they say.
The report describes the synthesis and early laboratory testing of the first prodrug-activating enzyme that can be imaged in tissue to time administration of the prodrug. The enzyme produces the active form of the common anti-cancer drug 5-fluorouracil. Its elimination from normal tissue can be monitored with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or optical imaging, according to the researchers."
Anyone want to come up with a method of comparing the effectiveness of delivering 5-F with side effects and without that a) does not delay access to new technologie, b) captures individual response to pro-drug injection since that will be key to optimal treatment and c) determine whether alternative drugs delivered in pro-drug or non-pro-drug fashion are the best for a particular cancer at a particular state? And extra credit for figuring out a way to continually add new drugs and new approaches in real time as opposed to when it is convenient for bureaucrats and politiciians
The comparative effectiveness crowd wants to spend a billion a year on this approach as a cure all for drug costs and a filter for setting up drug formularies AND it will be proposed as a way to set government prices for breakthrough drugs.. A Dunkin Donuts coupon for the winner of contest....We promise to post the results and responses...
Bonus question
Come up with a comparative effectiveness method for evaluatng the folowing advance:
Nanoparticle-Arsenic Combination Makes for More Potent Anticancer Agent
Arsenic trioxide, one of most promising drugs for treating acute
promyelocytic leukemia, encapsulated in lipid-based nanoparticles
designed to release their cargo inside tumor cells.
This is not a real news story -- it's from today's edition of The Onion.
But it could be real if we don't address the building momentum towards evidence-based medicine and its cost-centric vs. patient-centric worldview.
End-Life Crisis Marked By Extravagant Spending Spree
The Onion, November 20, 2006
TOLEDO, OH—Ever since his retirement nearly a decade ago, area resident Oscar Subitzky just hasn't been the same. What began as a single, uncharacteristic extravagance—the payment of $15,000 for a coronary angioplasty to expand his narrowing arterial wall—has given way to a growing number of personal luxuries, from the latest brand-name heart medications to the most advanced palliative care. The unusual developments have led concerned family members to suspect that the once prudent and conservative 74-year-old widower is undergoing an acute end-life crisis.
"Sure, the operation seemed a little indulgent at first, but we could tell it was really important to Dad, so we didn't try to stop him from having it," said daughter Martha Welsch, 46, who can still remember when her father didn't need "pricey doodads" like defibrillators and cardiopulmonary-resuscitation devices to be content. "We all thought this was going to be a one-time thing, that it was just something Dad had to get out of his system, and then things would go back to normal," she said.
"Unfortunately, one surgery quickly became two surgeries, which soon turned into three surgeries," Welsch added. "That's when we realized the whole thing was a lot more serious than Dad just wanting to get a clogged artery cleared."
Subitzky's end-life crisis began when he suddenly left a secure job as an accountant at the age of 65. Welsch admitted she didn't quite understand what had come over Subitzky until he announced six months after his retirement that he had started seeing a cardiologist nearly half his age.
"You hear those stories about men in their late 60s all of a sudden coming home with an expensive new pacemaker or deciding to get work done on their kidneys out of the blue, but Dad just never seemed like the type," Welsch said. "If he honestly thinks that spending thousands of dollars on blood transfusions is going to change the way he feels inside, I'm afraid he's got another think coming."
Lately, Welsch said, between "all those fancy new breathing tubes he now wears," and the company of a new live-in nurse only a few years older than some of his grandchildren, she sometimes doesn't recognize her father.
"What's he going to do next, gallivant off to some $10,000-a-day, all-inclusive hospice?" she wondered.
In addition to throwing money around "like there's no tomorrow," as Welsch puts it, Subitzky has also reportedly grown obsessed with his appearance, examining his body for lumps, bruises, or signs of congested veins dozens of times a day. According to son Patrick Subitzky, 39, who admits to being a little embarrassed by his father's newfound vanity, the older man's obsession with his looks has also resulted in a "ridiculous new diet" of only dark-green leafy vegetables, fruits high in citric acid, whole-grain cereals, and absolutely no meat or dairy products.
"I love him and everything, but I don't know who my father thinks he is anymore," said Subitzky, who cringes every time his elderly father speeds around town in that "loud and flashy" ambulance. "He's even talking about a trip to Denver to see some heart specialist there. Whatever happened to the Oscar Subitzky who hated to travel?"
According to psychologist Elizabeth Schulz, who specializes in mortality-identity issues, an end-life crisis is an emotional state of fear and anxiety that often affects men and women between the ages of 65 and 100, and is usually sparked by the uncomfortable realization that one's time on earth is limited.
"Individuals in the middle of an end-life crisis are usually easy to spot, as they tend to foolishly acquire big-ticket items such as liver transplants to compensate for feelings of growing inadequacy," said Schulz, who in the past several years has observed increasing numbers of clients suffering from the common disorder wheeling themselves into her office. "While these shortsighted material purchases will often work at first, leaving the individual feeling rejuvenated and even energized, in the long term they have very little effect."
In the meantime, Welsch is hopeful that her father will eventually move beyond his present situation into a better place.
"I'm praying this is just a phase that will pass," Welsch said. "Hopefully in a couple of months this will all be over."
But it could be real if we don't address the building momentum towards evidence-based medicine and its cost-centric vs. patient-centric worldview.
End-Life Crisis Marked By Extravagant Spending Spree
The Onion, November 20, 2006
TOLEDO, OH—Ever since his retirement nearly a decade ago, area resident Oscar Subitzky just hasn't been the same. What began as a single, uncharacteristic extravagance—the payment of $15,000 for a coronary angioplasty to expand his narrowing arterial wall—has given way to a growing number of personal luxuries, from the latest brand-name heart medications to the most advanced palliative care. The unusual developments have led concerned family members to suspect that the once prudent and conservative 74-year-old widower is undergoing an acute end-life crisis.
"Sure, the operation seemed a little indulgent at first, but we could tell it was really important to Dad, so we didn't try to stop him from having it," said daughter Martha Welsch, 46, who can still remember when her father didn't need "pricey doodads" like defibrillators and cardiopulmonary-resuscitation devices to be content. "We all thought this was going to be a one-time thing, that it was just something Dad had to get out of his system, and then things would go back to normal," she said.
"Unfortunately, one surgery quickly became two surgeries, which soon turned into three surgeries," Welsch added. "That's when we realized the whole thing was a lot more serious than Dad just wanting to get a clogged artery cleared."
Subitzky's end-life crisis began when he suddenly left a secure job as an accountant at the age of 65. Welsch admitted she didn't quite understand what had come over Subitzky until he announced six months after his retirement that he had started seeing a cardiologist nearly half his age.
"You hear those stories about men in their late 60s all of a sudden coming home with an expensive new pacemaker or deciding to get work done on their kidneys out of the blue, but Dad just never seemed like the type," Welsch said. "If he honestly thinks that spending thousands of dollars on blood transfusions is going to change the way he feels inside, I'm afraid he's got another think coming."
Lately, Welsch said, between "all those fancy new breathing tubes he now wears," and the company of a new live-in nurse only a few years older than some of his grandchildren, she sometimes doesn't recognize her father.
"What's he going to do next, gallivant off to some $10,000-a-day, all-inclusive hospice?" she wondered.
In addition to throwing money around "like there's no tomorrow," as Welsch puts it, Subitzky has also reportedly grown obsessed with his appearance, examining his body for lumps, bruises, or signs of congested veins dozens of times a day. According to son Patrick Subitzky, 39, who admits to being a little embarrassed by his father's newfound vanity, the older man's obsession with his looks has also resulted in a "ridiculous new diet" of only dark-green leafy vegetables, fruits high in citric acid, whole-grain cereals, and absolutely no meat or dairy products.
"I love him and everything, but I don't know who my father thinks he is anymore," said Subitzky, who cringes every time his elderly father speeds around town in that "loud and flashy" ambulance. "He's even talking about a trip to Denver to see some heart specialist there. Whatever happened to the Oscar Subitzky who hated to travel?"
According to psychologist Elizabeth Schulz, who specializes in mortality-identity issues, an end-life crisis is an emotional state of fear and anxiety that often affects men and women between the ages of 65 and 100, and is usually sparked by the uncomfortable realization that one's time on earth is limited.
"Individuals in the middle of an end-life crisis are usually easy to spot, as they tend to foolishly acquire big-ticket items such as liver transplants to compensate for feelings of growing inadequacy," said Schulz, who in the past several years has observed increasing numbers of clients suffering from the common disorder wheeling themselves into her office. "While these shortsighted material purchases will often work at first, leaving the individual feeling rejuvenated and even energized, in the long term they have very little effect."
In the meantime, Welsch is hopeful that her father will eventually move beyond his present situation into a better place.
"I'm praying this is just a phase that will pass," Welsch said. "Hopefully in a couple of months this will all be over."
What a difference a day (or two) makes.
On 11/15 Senator Grassley wrote to Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy that the FDA “needs and deserves a strong permanent Commissioner.â€
On 11/17 he placed a “hold†on the nomination of Dr. von Eschenbach.
Maybe he’ll change his mind again tomorrow.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe he needs to stop playing politics with the public health.
Maybe isn't good for the public health or the future of the FDA.
On 11/15 Senator Grassley wrote to Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy that the FDA “needs and deserves a strong permanent Commissioner.â€
On 11/17 he placed a “hold†on the nomination of Dr. von Eschenbach.
Maybe he’ll change his mind again tomorrow.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe he needs to stop playing politics with the public health.
Maybe isn't good for the public health or the future of the FDA.
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.
