Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Ed Silverman, the intrepid author of the Pharmalot Blog, reported today that the average price of prescription drugs through last month rose 7.2 per cent; which tops the annual price rate increases over the past decade. The cost analysis was done on 130 prescription drugs.

The biggest winners were: Suboxone, marketed by Reckitt Benckiser to treat opioid addiction which rose 21 percent. Cephalon raised the price of its Provigil narcolepsy pill by 15 percent and Sunovion Pharma hiked the prices of its Xopenex asthma and COPD med by 9.8 percent. Other drugmakers on the list included Genentech, Merck and Abbott Laboratories.

Ed cautioned that “the price changes are based on WAC, or wholesale acquisition cost, for more than 90 percent of the drugs, which means that less than 10 percent of increases are based on direct price or suggested wholesale price” Nevertheless, any wholesale price increases are always passed on to the end users aka patients!

It is troubling that in these tough economic times that drug prices continue to rise at unprecedented rates. And access to reasonably priced medicines continues to diminish.  Not surprisingly, prices continue to rise in advance of healthcare reform legislation that doesn’t kick in entirely until 2014.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like to distinguish themselves from companies that manufacture consumer products because their products have the potential to save the lives of patients suffering from a plethora of illnesses. While a life-saving cancer treatment may inherently be more valuable than a pair of snow tires, the goal of the companies that manufacture them is to sell enough products to remain profitable. To that end, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have an edge over consumer products companies because drug makers can use altruism and philanthropy to market their drugs. In fact, many drug manufacturers play up their commitments to altruism and philanthropy to justify high drug prices because of the enormous costs associated with drug discovery and development. This tactic begs the question: “Just how philanthropic are drug makers?”

To answer this question The Access to Medicine Foundation created the Access to Medicine Index .which provides a benchmark on the access to medicine policies and practices of the largest global pharmaceutical companies.The index is designed to offer stakeholder and prospective investor ways to compare pharma’s social responsibility records by measuring 106 indicators that examine activities across seven criteria such as philanthropy, patents, pricing and management (see more here)

The 2010 index (only the second of its kind) ranked 26 pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to provide access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tests to people living in 88 countries. The companies included 20 originator (branded) companies – those who primarily market patented drugs they have developed – andsix companies whose primary business is the production and sale of generic medicines. The results are shown below:

Branded Pharmaceutical Companies

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Merck
3. Novartis
4. Gilead Sciences
5. Sanofi-Aventis
6. Roche
7. AstraZeneca
8. Novo Nordisk
9. Johnson & Johnson
10. Abbott Labs
11. Pfizer
12. Boehringer Ingelheim
13. Eli Lilly
14. Bayer
15. Bristol-Myers Squibb
16. Eisai
17. Merck KGA
18. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
19. Astellas Pharma
20. Daiichi Sankyo

Generic Manufacturers

1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited
2. Cipla Limited
3. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
4. Mylan, Inc
5. Sun Pharmaceuticals
6. Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

While the lists may seem impressive, Index founder Wim Leereveld cautions: “…the industry as a whole still has a long way to go.”

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot Blog, offered his insights about the list and the foundation’s findings: “The report, of course, will be used to defuse critics, such as non-governmental organizations and activist groups, who say not enough is done to make meds accessible in poor countries. The arguments often center on compulsory licensing and free-trade agreements, as well as intellectual property disputes, pricing and donations. Pharma, you may recall, has been on the defensive ever since they fought South Africa over HIV meds, and is now ramping up operations in so-called emerging markets, many of which are low-margin operations where incomes are lower. “

I don’t fault drug makers for aggressively marketing their products to generate revenues to insure profits and growth. After all, business is business. However, I think that it is disingenuous to use altruism and philanthropy as a means to market and sell high priced drugs. Ironically, this practice tends to limit the access of poor and disenfranchised patients who might benefit the most from these medicines.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most scientists fantasize about that so-called eureka moment when, after years of hard work, academic challenges and mental anguish, it all makes sense. While I have experienced these moments from time to time during my career as a scientist, it has happened less frequently as a lay person. This morning, while reading a Science Times article on Thomas R. Friedan , former New York City health commissioner and current head of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA, I had one of those moments.

After reading the passage:

campaigns to ban trans fats, post calorie counts in chain restaurants, reduce salt in processed food and tax high-calorie sodas. He had a supportive boss in Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and a receptive populace in New York, but if he were to try anything similar at the C.D.C., tough Congressional hearings could be in his future because conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill often oppose such measures

it finally dawned on me that conservatives, in general, don’t give a damn or care about human health. Or perhaps, the underlying message may be: “don’t tell me how to eat or take care of myself; it’s my life and I know what is best for my health and me.” Unfortunately, since over half of the American population is obese or overweight and the incidences of diabetes and hypertension among younger and older adults has reached unprecedented epidemic proportion it is becoming increasingly evident that most Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, don’t know how to adequately manage their health.  And, to make matters worse, the inability or unwillingness of these individuals to maintain their health increases the cost and may block access of otherwise healthy Americans to adequate healthcare.

As an American, I strongly believe in individuals’ rights and freedom of expression. However, I also believe that summarily opposing unobtrusive measures to improve human health—based almost exclusively on political philosophy or personal financial gain—is morally bankrupt and overtly un-American!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Eating!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any stranger, a new pharmaceutical assessment tool called the Access to Medicine Index (ATMI) was unveiled earlier this week. The ATMI is the brainchild of Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical marketing entrepreneur who is CEO of the  based in the Netherlands. 

According to Leereveld, the ATMI can be used to evaluate, rate and rank a pharmaceutical company’s commitment and ability to deliver, drugs, vaccines and other medicines to patients in poor countries. In other words, the ATMI helps analysts and interested parties determine whether or not a company is doing its share to be a good corporate citizen.

The rankings are based on eight, sometimes difficult-to- interpret variables that include; 1) management; 2) influence (huh?); 3) patents (access to?) 4) R& D, 5) pricing, 6) drug donations, 7) philanthropy (isn’t this what the index is really measuring?) and 8) capacity (for what?). At present, GSK has the highest ranking and Schering Plough is dead last.

Whether or not you believe the analysis or think that the ATMI has any socially-redeeming value (remember it was developed by a former marketing executive), it is still a pretty fun tool to monkey around with. Check it out….

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try non-profits) !!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link