Trump officials made a big splash with proposals to curb drug costs. But the benefits may not match the rhetoric from either the administration or Big Pharma. As is often the case, it's a bit more complicated than what we're getting as a first impression.
Using patient safety as a bargaining chip, and a tactic of delay, is unseemly at best and immoral at worst.
The "American healthcare costs vs the rest of the world" narrative has been with us forever and this is unlikely to change. But it is not a simple problem, even though it is portrayed as just that. Pfizer's Dr. Robert Popovian takes his usual thoughtful look at thorny issues in his latest piece in Morning Consult. Don't miss.
In the 1970s, there was the Ford Pinto and Nehru jackets. In the 80s, pet rocks and the mullet. Since then we've been treated to house flipping, speed dating, Honey Boo Boo, and gluten-free everything. Pretty dumb, no? Not when compared to making your own prescription drugs at home. That's *really* dumb. And real. Sort of.
What explains such a rapid rise in price for a drug that has been off-patent for years?
With the issue of drug pricing currently in the news, The New York Times ran an editorial decrying prices that are "too high," while failing to truly address the real issues. Instead, the paper took the easy way out by linking Turing's price gouging to pricing methods of established pharmaceutical makers.
In August, Jimmy Carter was diagnosed with melanoma in his liver and brain. These lesions were addressed directly, he was put on Keytruda and now the former president is in remission. But since this new drug costs about $150,000 per year, we ask: Shouldn't we be talking about this?
There are expensive drugs and there are expensive drugs. But they can be very different. Two new antibody drugs that drastically lower LDL cholesterol have just hit the market. But they cost about $1,000 per month for life. Hepatitis C drugs have been targeted as too expensive, but this is worse.
Perhaps the Huffington Post which is of questionable value even on a good day simply made a typo. Hard to say.
Earlier this week, we discussed two novel drugs that could potentially revolutionize the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Both drugs are antibodies, and work by an entirely new mechanism by binding to, and inactivating a protein called PCSK9. PCSK9 plays a part in the regulation of circulating cholesterol (homeostasis).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution (1787) "[T]he Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." If you're going to break the law, you might as well do it in style. Why bother speeding, shoplifting, or stealing cable service, when the sky's the limit? Aim high. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) aimed high, and did so with style. He wants to violate the Constitution by ignoring the concept of intellectual property rights, which has been in effect for 228 years.
Few industries evoke an emotional response greater than the pharmaceutical industry. This cannot be surprising, since drug companies are typically viewed by the public as either providing miraculous life-altering therapies, or greedy instruments of Satan. There is little middle ground. So, it is rather surprising that a new law, called the 21st Century Cures Act, has been overwhelmingly approved by the House, 344-77 on July 10th. The new law, also known as H.R. 6, gives more latitude to the FDA in tailoring its safety and efficacy requirements for the approval of breakthrough medicines. Such drugs (as well as breakthrough medical devices) that are given this designation will no