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

Until recently, there was little or no mention of business activity within the emerging Chinese life sciences industry. However, as the Chinese middle class continues to grow, the need and demand for pharmaceutical and biotechnology drugs (including vaccines and other biologics continues) to grow at a frenetic pace. Further, a growing abundance of US-trained scientists has allowed the Chinese life science industry to develop much more quickly than anticipated. Also, many major pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Roche and Novartis have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in China and have already established world class Chinese R&D facilities. Finally, unlike in most Western countries, the Chinese government controls roughly 80% of the pharmaceutical and biologics manufacturing that takes place in China. Together, this suggests that China has quietly established itself as a life sciences power to be reckoned with! To that end, there were two reports that came across the transom this morning that piqued my interest. 

The first report was about a company called Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

"Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a growing developer and producer of prescription drugs and licensed national seller of pharmaceutical products in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), reported the groundbreaking ceremony on March 9 to construct a new building complex on the grounds of its production facility in Beijing.

Officials of Beijing municipal and Chaoyang district governments, officers of the China State Food & Drug, and representatives of both state-owned and private pharmaceutical companies attended the ceremony. CEO, Zhongyi Liu, welcomed the guests. "After a year of planning, we are pleased to start the construction of the new building complex and expect to finish the construction by July, interior decoration by September and GMP certification by December of this year," he said. "This is a new page for Lotus' development and it will provide important impetus to profitable growth, which is anticipated to reach $150 million in annual sales during the first year after the facility, is fully operational."

The second reported on plans to build a venture-back, “private” contract manufacturing facility that specializes in biomanufacturing in metropolitan Beijing.

"AutekBio, Inc., SUMA Ventures and Beijing E-Town Harvest International Capital Management Corporation, a venture capital group from Beijing Municipal Government announced a joint investment of more than US$100m to develop a new contract manufacturing organization (CMO) for biopharmaceutical industry in China. This joint effort led by AutekBio represents strong interests from both private investment sector and government to establish world quality capability and capacity in biopharmaceutical manufacturing in China.

The new joint venture will build up a world class R&D and manufacturing center in southern Beijing to service international biologic developments, with combined volumes of bioreactors up to 20,000 liters in multiple production lines (trains). The firm will also benefit from financial, regulatory and other supports from the Chinese government for the biotech industry." 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that China has clearly set its sights on establishing itself as player on the global life sciences stage. After spending a week in China during the country’s preparation for the Beijing Games, I discovered that China can achieve any goal that it sets for itself in very short order.  

Until next time...  

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try China)!!!!!! 

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

In case you did not know, the 12 years of market exclusivity proposed for follow-on biologics by supporters and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is part of the impending US healthcare reform legislation currently pending in Congress. While President Obama has publicly announced that he supports a five year period of data exclusivity for biologics (the same as the exclusivity period for generic small molecule drugs, it is unlikely that the President will be able to convince or coerce legislators to reconsider the 12 year data exclusivity provision. However, there was a brilliant Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times written by Anthony So and Samuel Katz at Duke University which offers a plethora of financial and business reasons why the five year period makes a lot of sense!

1. Generic small molecule drugs have been estimated to save the American healthcare system as much as $734 billion over the past 25 year or so since the inception of the Hatch Waxman Act.
2. Biologics cost on average 22 times more than equivalent brand name prescription small molecule drugs
3. In 2008, 28% of sales of the life science industry’s top 100 products came from biologics and biotechnology products: by 2014 that share is expect to rise to about 50%
4. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the top six selling biologics which include Epogen (Amgen) Avastin (Genentech) and Remicade (Centocor) accounted for $7.0 billion (43%) of Part B drug spending in 2007 (Part B covers the cost of doctor spending and outpatient visits)
5. Between 2006 and 2007, Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) spending on biologics increased by 36% as compared with a 22% increase in spending for small molecule drugs
6. Prices for biologics and biotechnology products have increased more rapidly than those for small molecule drugs
7. While industry leaders and their lobbyist contend that it costs more and takes longer to develop biologics and biotechnology products than small molecule drugs, based on reports by various industry trade groups it costs about $1.2 billion to develop biologics and roughly $1.318 billion for small molecule drugs
8. The US Federal Trade Commission, the independent federal agency whose main goals are to protect consumers and to ensure a strong competitive market by enforcing a variety of consumer protection and antitrust laws, recommended that the data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics should not exceed six years.

Despite the likelihood that follow-on biologics will substantially reduce prescription drug costs and healthcare spending, Congress has chosen to support questionable legislation that will delay access of Americans to less costly, efficacious follow-on biologics until at least 2020.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The rising cost of healthcare, increasing drug prices and the restrictive nature of the formularies of many insurers and third party payers is forcing a growing number of Americans to rely almost exclusively on generic prescription drugs. The trouble is that most Americans know very little about generic drugs; mainly because big pharma has done its best to minimize the discussion about generics and continues to portray generic manufacturers as less than reputable purveyors of prescription drugs. Because of this, I think that American ought to begin to understand an industry that increasingly will play a major role in the US healthcare system. So here goes:

1. According to IMS Health, generic drugs accounted for 70 percent of the 2.9 billion prescriptions filled in the US in 2009
2. Generic drugs accounted for only 15 percent of almost $300 billion spent on prescription drugs last year in the US
3. Since 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 800 new generic drugs applications; up from an average of 330 applications per year in the last decade
4. Five years ago, it took FDA regulators an average of 16.3 months to review and approve generic new drug applications; by 2009 the average time to approval had ballooned to 27.7 months
5. There is a backlog of nearly 2,000 pending generic new drug applications, almost double the backlog at the agency in 2005
6. FDA’s division of generics had a budget of only $41 million in 2009; its budget for 2010 is $511 million
7. Unlike branded pharmaceuticals, companies seeking regulatory approval for new generic drugs don’t pay user fees
8. According to FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg generics saved American consumers almost $750 billion over the last decade.

Based on these facts, it is evident that FDA is seriously under funded, under staffed and overwhelmed by the spike of new generic drug applications in recent years. Interestingly, President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget included $38 million in user fees from generic manufacturers to process new drug applications. Not surprisingly, generic manufacturers are not willing to pay these fees unless the approval time for their products is drastically shortened. To that end, FDA is hiring 50 more reviewers and hopes that personnel increases will eliminate the generic drug application backlog by 2012. 

Dr. Hamburg is also looking to streamline some aspects of the generic drug application review process. For example, she proposed giving higher priority to generic drugs applications for branded drugs whose patent expiry is imminent as compared with applications for drugs that have several more years of patent protection remaining.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the agency needs a much larger budget and staff to keep up with the ongoing torrent of new generic drug application. With this in mind, the agency ought to consider reallocating existing resources—rather than wait for budget increases in these financially uncertain times—to process new generic drug applications in a timely fashion. This may be possible because of the annual number of drug applications for new, branded prescription drugs has steadily been decreasing for the past five years.

Hat tip to the New York Times!

Until next time...

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

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

The loss of over 200,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years has been mainly driven by the anticipated loss of revenue from blockbuster drugs that will lose patent protection by 2013. While drug makers frequently cite blockbuster patent expiry as the reason for the need to downsize, they rarely provide the business and economic metrics, numbers and statistics that have influenced their decisions. 

Patricia Van Arnum, Senior Editor of Pharmaceutical Technology wrote a fascinating article in this month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe that skillfully outlined the economic forces that are driving branded pharmaceutical companies to downsize and reorganize. According to the article, in October 2009 the pharmaceutical intelligence firm IMS estimated that the global pharmaceutical market is expected to growth 4-6% in 2010 and reach $825 billion. Market growth at an annual rate of 4-7% is expected to continue through 2013 and the size of global pharmaceutical market is projected to exceed $975 billion. The US pharmaceutical market, the largest in the world, is expected to drive much of this growth. However, the growth of the American market is only expected to be 3.5% in 2010. In market contrast, China’s pharmaceutical market is expected to increase by a staggering 20% per year and contribute 21% to the overall growth of the global pharmaceutical market by 2013. 

While prospects for the US market are better than originally anticipated, the loss of nearly $137 billion in revenues in 2013— because of patent expiry of blockbuster products—coupled with fewer new drug approvals are the factors that will limit the growth of the global pharmaceutical market to single digits through 2013 and likely beyond. Some of the drugs slated to lose patent protection by 2013 include Lipitor (atorvastatin) by Pfizer, Plavix (clopidogrel) by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seretide/Advair (salmeterol and fluticasone) by GlaxoSmithKline. Lipitor, Plavix and Seretide were the number one-, two- and foruth best-selling drugs in 2008 with global sales of $13.7 billion, $8.6 billion and $7.7 billion respectively.

The increasing growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry is best reflected in the concomitant growth of merchant active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing industry. In the API world, there are two types of manufacturers; the so-called captive API producers or companies that exclusively manufacture APIs for finished, branded products and merchant manufacturers which are third party providers of APIs. Over the past four years or so, the growth of the merchant API market for generic products has substantially outpaced the growth of the API for innovator products. For example, from 2004-2008 the merchant market for generics grew at an average annual rate of 9.1% from $12 billion in 2004 to $17 billion in 2008 according to a recent report by the Chemical Pharmaceutical Association (CPA). In contrast, the CPA determined that the merchant market for innovator/branded APIs only increased at an average annual rate of 4.4% from $16 billion in 2004 to $19 billion in 2008. Looking ahead, the worldwide market for merchant APIs is projected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 6.8% through 2013 to about $50 billion. During this period, growth of innovator APIs is expected to be about 1.8% whereas the growth of generic API is expected to be a robust 11.4%.

The US is currently the largest market for generic APIs and consumed roughly 22.9% of the total global demand for generic APIs in 2008. China, which is the second largest consumer of generic APIs, consumed 19.2%. While the US is expected to remain the largest consumer of both innovator and generic APIs, China is projected to become the largest consumer of generic APIs in 2013 capturing a 26% share of the total generic API market (the US will be number 2 with 20.5% market share).

According to industry analysts, China, India, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe (most notably Russia), represent attractive growth opportunities for generic APIs. India and China now account for roughly 25% of the global generic market and demand in these countries is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future as the middle class continues to emerge. To that end, China is projected to have the highest average annual growth rate at 18.4% and India’s market will grow by 14% through 2013. Similar growth is expected for the Eastern European, Russian and Brazilian generic API markets.

While the economic size of emerging generic markets is still small compared with those of the US, Western Europe and Japan, it signals that generic drugs will likely drive the future growth of the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of innovation and rising costs of branded, prescription drugs in developed nations is the main driving force behind the rapid emergence of the generic drug industry. That said, is it any wonder why Pfizer is thinking about entering the generic pharmaceutical business and that Western drug companies are shedding scientists and sales people in the US and Europe and growing the sizes of their R&D and sales force staffs in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America? Honestly, if I had any money left to invest, I would seriously be considering traded generic pharmaceutical manufacturers—their future success is almost guaranteed!

Until next time...

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

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

Pfizer is one of three companies vying for the opportunity to . Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the Swedish private equity fund EQT and Pfizer are the three finalists to purchase Ratiopharm GmbH which is valued at about €2.8-3 billion. The finalists will make their bids in early February. France’s Sanofi-Aventis SA Euronext and China’s Sinopharm Group Co. Ltd. withdrew from the tender in December

Ratiopharm is a private company owned by the Merckle family. Ludwig Merckle put the company up for sale last year, after his late father Adolf Merckle committed suicide in early 2009 after losing control over his business empire to lenders. If Teva acquires Ratiopharm, it will win a major foothold in the German healthcare market, considered a large and growing market. Teva, the world’s largest generic drug company, is currently not a big player in the German market.

 The rising development and retail costs of name brand prescription drugs and the future possibility of price controls in the US is forcing pharmaceutical companies to reconsider the value of generic drugs. Currently, generic prescriptions are rapidly outpacing those for branded products and the size of the US and international markets for both small and large molecule drugs (biosimilars) growing daily. Previously, most innovator companies didn’t think the profit margins nor returns on investment were sufficient to add generic molecules to their product portfolios. However, a few large pharmaceutical companies have already entered the generics fracas; most notably Sandoz (a division of Novartis) which manufactures both generic small molecule and biosimilar biotechnology products and more recently established Merck BioVentures which aims to compete in the follow-on biologics market. 

Many experts believe that it is only a mater of time before most big pharma companies like Pfizer realize that they have to be in both the branded and generic sides of the business. Don’t be surprised over the coming months if other pharma companies consider doing deals to acquire generic drug manufacturers. Diversification will be the mantra of the next decade or so!

Until next time...

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

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

The generic drug industry didn’t exist until the passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). This piece of legislation, better known in the pharmaceutical industry as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was proposed and adopted by the US Congress because of the escalating costs of brand name drugs manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies (sound familiar?). The act provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a regulatory pathway to approve and bring to market “generic” versions of branded drugs that lost patent protection. During the debate over the amendment, and for many years thereafter, branded pharmaceutical manufacturers tried to stifle the growth of the generic drug industry by suggesting that generic versions of their branded medications were unreliable and unsafe. This tactic was partly responsible for the stinted growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry until the mid 1990s when the price of branded pharmaceutical drugs began to skyrocket and insurance companies began to realize that something had to be done to manage rising drug reimbursement costs. To that end, insurers and third party payors began requiring patients to use generics (when available) instead of branded products to cap rising prescription drug costs. Because of this, the generic industry has grown by leaps and bound over the past decade and now threatens the stability of the branded pharmaceutical industry! 

Unfortunately, while increased generic drug use may be good for generic drug manufacturers and insurance companies, it isn’t always in the best interests of patients who use prescription medications. For example, there are a growing number of stories and complaints from patients who were forced to switch from a brand name drug to a generic one and had side effects, or found that their symptoms returned or may have been worse than before. In fact, this happened to my mother who was switched from a brand name pain reliever that worked to a generic version that no longer controlled her symptoms and induced some untoward side effects. Scientifically, there ought to be little difference in the efficacy, safety or tolerability profiles of a branded drug and its generic equivalent. This is because both medications contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. However, differences in the formulation of the branded and generic versions of the drugs may be responsible for reduced efficacy or safety and tolerability issues.

While clinical studies conducted by the insurance industry suggest there are no safety or tolerability differences between brand name and generic drugs and the American Medical Association’s assertion that, as a whole, generic drugs do work as well as branded drug, there is some evidence to suggest that some generic drugs may not be interchangeable or substitutable for certain branded medications. This appears to be the case for certain drugs that are used to treat neurological conditions and mental health diseases like seizures, depression and bipolar disease. Lesley Alderman, in an article she wrote in today’s New York Time business sections provides excellent examples of this.   

The problems with some generic drugs may arise as a result of the approval process for this class of drugs. According to provisions outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act which stipulate that a generic version must have the same active ingredient, strength and dosage form as the brand name drug or reference product. The generic version must also be demonstrated to be “bioequivalent” to the brand name drug. This means that the generic product must be shown to reach blood levels (drug concentration) that are very similar to the brand name product. This is usually determined by administering the generic and brand name drugs to a relatively small number (24 to 36) of healthy human volunteers. Generally speaking, once bioequivalence is established it paves the way for regulatory approval of the product. Typically, once approved, many generics receive what is known as an AB rating. Generics that are AB-rated can freely be substituted (by a licensed pharmacist) for a brand name product even though the physician may have written the prescription for the branded product.

In the past, patients were usually given a choice between a generic and a brand name drug —a decision that was largely based on the percentage of the cost of drug that would be covered by insurance. These days, patients no longer have a choice and are generally forced to use generic drugs rather than brand name products based on formulary lists compiled by insurance companies. While I am not practically or philosophically opposed to using generic drugs, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that not all patients respond the same way to branded and for that matter generic drugs. Therefore, I contend that allowances ought to be made for these differences and patients who don’t respond to (or experience side effects) after taking generics shouldn't’t be denied access to the branded product that, in most cases, was originally prescribed by that patient’s physician. It is one thing to cut costs; it is another to increase a patients suffering or anxiety. If you are concerned about switching from a branded medication to a generic, please read this for some helpful tips and guidance.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times that W. Scott Harkonen, MD the former chief executive of InterMune, a Brisbane, CA biopharmaceutical company, was convicted yesterday for issuing what federal prosecutors called a misleading press release that contributed to off-label sales of the company’s drug Actimmune.

Actimmune is bioengineered form of interferon gamma approved in 2000 to treat children and adults with chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) and severe, malignant osteopetrosis—two relatively rare genetic diseases. But the main sales of the drug, which peaked at $141million in 2003, came from an unapproved use: treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lungs that can be fatal. While licensed physicians in the US can prescribe approved drugs for off label, it is illegal for drug makers to promote the use of prescription drugs to treat indications for which the drug didn’t receive approval.

According to the Times article, InterMune conducted a large clinical trial testing Actimmune as a treatment for the lung disease. The drug did not achieve the clinical endpoints of the trial, which was to improve lung function of patients receiving Actimmune as compared with patients receiving a placebo. However, a review of the statistical analyses of the trial revealed that if only the patients in the trial with mild or moderate disease were considered, those who got the drug lived longer than those who received the placebo .The company highlighted the “survival benefit” of patients treated with Actimmune in a news release, issued in August 2002.  Following the press release, sales of Actimmune (which costs about $50,000 per year) peak at $141 million in 2003—the drug was mainly being used to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis an indication for which the drug hadn’t received regulatory approval. Because of this, federal prosecutors contended that the news release was part of a scheme to induce off-label sales of Actimmune. Interestingly, in 2007, a second large clinical trial of Actimmune found that the drug didn’t prolong the lives of patients with pulmonary fibrosis.

The InterMune case isn’t unique in the life sciences industry. Time and time again companies are charged with off-label promotional activities and typically these cases are settled before they go to trial. To that end, the InterMune case is an exception but Harkonen’s conviction sends a warn drug company executives that the US government takes off label promotion seriously and it will no longer be tolerated.

While it can be argued that off label drug use can benefit patients and ought to be allowed, off label promotion of previously approved drugs allows drug companies to benefit financially without investing in expensive clinical trials to win regulatory approval for the off label indication. In other words, off label promotion of prescription drugs can be a financial windfall for companies and induce them to place profits ahead of patient safety and drug efficacy. This is why promotion of off label use of prescription drugs is illegal and a prosecutable crime. 

It is important to remember that prescription drugs are required to undergo a rigorous regulatory review to insure that they are safe and efficacious. While the use of approved drugs to treat off label indications may benefit some patients, the drugs in question must be rigorously tested for safety and efficacy to treat the indication before they are used to in large numbers of patients. And, as we have seen in recent years, even drugs that have gone through clinical testing and garnered regulatory approval may not be as effective or safe when used to treat billions of patients!

Until next time...

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

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

I suspect that a majority of BioJobBlog readers have at one time or another been prescribed a drug to treat a particular medical condition or ailment. Like most of you, I assumed that my prescription information and history was private and that only healthcare professionals were privy to it. However, after reading an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, I learned how wrong I was! Much to my dismay,  I learned that prescription information including the name and dosage of a drug, the name and address of the physician who prescribed as well as a patient’s address and social security number is a commodity that is regularly bought and sold usually with a patients’ knowledge or permission. And apparently, this practice is perfectly legal as long as patient’s names are removed or encrypted before the information is sold, typically to drug manufacturers.

Unfortunately, privacy experts and information technology specialists contend that it isn’t difficult to match names, addresses, and social security numbers to reconstruct information that had supposedly been rendered anonymous. To make matters worse, until very recently, federal patient privacy and data security rules were loosely enforced and frequently abused by medical marketers, advertisers, drug manufacturers and retail pharmacies. Finally, re-identifying a patient’s prescription drug information and history provides drug makers with a powerful tool to target and market drugs to specific patient populations.

Tracking prescriptions and mining prescription data is not new—it has been big business for many decades. The major players in the drug mining business are companies like IMS Health, Verispan and CVS Caremark. Also, large discount pharmacy retailers like Walgreens and Target engage in this practice and they all sell their prescription information data to interested parties. Prescription drug data-mining companies say that their services are valuable and warranted because gathering and analyzing information from tens of thousands of patients helps drug manufacturers to identify trends and potential safety and tolerability issues with prescription drugs. Nevertheless, despite assertions that prescription drug data are anonymous when it is sold, class action and private lawsuits alleging this not to be the case have been filed against some of the major players including Walgreens, IMS Health and CVS Caremark. While this is troubling, loopholes in the current prescription drug data mining regulations allow pharmacy companies like Walgreens and others to accept money from drug manufacturers to mail advice and reminders to customers to take their medications without first obtaining their permission. The loopholes also allow drug makers to send customers’ promotional information and materials about drugs other than the ones that they are already taking.

Under the Obama Administration’s $19 billion healthcare stimulus package, selling prescription drug data to drug makers will still be allowed (only if patient’s names are removed). Also, subsidized marketing by drug makers will be allowed to continue but companies will no longer be able to promote drugs other than those the customer already buys. While the new legislation allows data mining and the sale of prescription drug information to continue, its primary goal is to tighten and insure patient privacy so that personal prescription drug history and information can no longer be used to exploit the buying habits and behaviors of individual American consumers.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I was in the gym the other day, trying to regain my “girlish figure,” and I happened to see Brooke Shields in television ad hawking Latisse, the new eye lash-enhancing prescription medication from Allegan. For those women (or men for that matter) who haven’t heard, Latisse was recently approved for hypotrichosis of the eye lashes. Hypotrichosis is medically-defined as a reduced amount of hair, and in this case, it refers to eyelashes. Who knew that reduced eyelash hair was a burgeoning unmet medical need? Anyway, back to Brooke.

I like Brooke Shield and I think that her very personal and public account of her struggles with postpartum depression after the birth of her first child was courageous and laudable. And, I thought she was pretty damn good in Pretty Baby and the Blue Lagoon too. But, I question her decision to use her celebrity among women to promote a prescription drug that was approved almost exclusively for cosmetic use. Yes, I know that women’s cosmetics are a multibillion industry and woman worldwide work hard to get longer and fuller lashes. But, this begs the question: Are the possible health risks associated with Latisse—an attenuated form of botulism toxin used in Allergan’s anti-wrinkle treatment Botox—worth it, simply to get longer and fuller lashes; a look that can be achieved by daily application of non prescription and much cheaper mascara? Again, as is the case with most women’s healthcare choices, the decision should be left up to individuals.

Personally, I hope that Brooke’s eyebrows—which were quite formidable back in the day—remain as manageable as they appear to be today after using Latisse to thicken her eyelashes. Not that there is anything wrong with thick eyebrows!

Until next time...

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

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

We in America have grown accustomed to the constant barrage of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs provided to us daily by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. That said, some of you may be surprised to learn that DTC advertising of prescription drugs is only permitted in two countries in the world: New Zealand and the US.

According to William Burns, an executive at Roche Pharmaceuticals, “Direct-to-consumer promotion was the single worst decision for the industry." He added, "When industry says we're spending all the money on R&D but actually it's spending it on TV advertising to preserve margins, it doesn't get much credibility." It may not provide much credibility to the industry but is sure does help sales.  reported that a total of $4.2 billion was spent on DTC drug ads in the U.S. in 2005, up 330 percent from 1996.

Apparently Mr. Burns is not alone in his opinion. Angus Russell, chief executive of Britain's Shire Pharmaceuticals also condemned DTC.  As many of you know, I ‘m not a big fan of DTC nor am I flag-waving American but I find it rather curious that after almost 12 years of DTC advertising that European pharma executives are suddenly speaking out against the practice. Could this be little more than a ploy to get the European Commission to re-examine and possibly loosen it restrictions on the way prescription drugs are promoted in the EU? Quite coincidentally, the European Commission is in the process of drawing up legislation that would allow a degree of information to be disseminated about medicines by their makers, although advertising pharmaceuticals would remain banned. The legislation was initially expected to be unveiled by the European Union's executive arm last week but has been delayed.

Drug makers have long campaigned against rules that prevent them from talking directly to consumers in Europe, despite a wealth of often unreliable information being available on the Internet. I think this statement by Mr. Burns sums up the situation "You've got the two extremes on the planet, where we (drug makers) are given access to the public in America, which is too much, and in Europe we're not given access to information" (sounds like sour grapes to me).

Maybe a compromise between the two extremes would be a solution acceptable to both American and European regulators? 

Until next time…

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

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

Just when you thought the obvious couldn’t be anymore obvious to US lawmakers, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released a long-awaited assessment of the cost of a biogenerics bill and found that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce total expenditures on biologics in the US by $25 billion over the next decade—duh!!!  

According to a post over at Pharmalot, “The report comes as a growing group of drugmakers, insurers and employers agitate over the high cost of biologics, which may only be rectified if Congress passes legislation that would give the FDA guidance on creating a so-called pathway to approve biogenerics, or follow-on biologics. Two House bills have been proposed that are similar to the Senate bill reviewed by the CBO, although the looming summer recess and election-year politics suggest passage may not occur this year.”

Unfortunately, as I suggested in a previous post, the bills currently under consideration are flawed and would give unwarranted patent exclusivity to innovator companies if enacted. Nevertheless, as Kathleen Jaeger, head of the GPHA (a generic manufacturing trade group) aptly stated “We are still reviewing the analysis, but we are pleased that CBO agrees that significant savings will be achieved by bringing biogeneric medicines to consumers and that even greater savings will result from removing harmful barriers to access, including brand evergreening and unprecedented market exclusivity provisions. With Americans growing increasingly concerned about health care costs, we should be increasing access to affordable medicines while fostering competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace. “

By the time that a US approval pathway for biogenerics is divined, European and Asian biogeneric manufacturers will already control the market and the “new” (what took you so long) American legislation will provide little financial incentive for US companies to enter the biogenerics market space.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Unlike many other countries with national healthcare systems, US healthcare and prescription drug costs are primarily shouldered by employers. As healthcare costs continue to rise, many American employers are calling for the US government to assume more of the costs through nationalized healthcare. The opposite situation is unfolding in the rest of the world, where overburdened nationalized healthcare systems are forcing employers to pay for workers supplemental health care costs.

A recent survey conducted by Watson Wyatt found that in countries like India, China and Russia healthcare is the number 1 benefit desired by a majority of workers. Globally, companies are projecting large year-to-year increases in medical and healthcare costs. In many places, medical and healthcare costs are rising faster than inflation.

Contrary, to popular belief, it appears that the US is not the only country struggling with skyrocketing healthcare and prescription drug costs. The graph below shows the expected increases in national healthcare costs from 2007 to 2008 (source Watson Wyatt).

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

Health care spending in the United States grew 6.7 percent in 2006 to $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per person. This represents a slight increase over the 6.5 percent rate in 2005 (which was the slowest growth since 1999). Health spending accounted for 16 percent of US gross domestic product in 2006, outpacing overall nominal GDP growth by 0.6 percent. However, total health care spending in the US is not the real story here.

The federal government reported that the new Medicare drug benefit called Part D, which was implemented in early 2006, contributed to an 18.7 percent increase in Medicare spending that year, the fastest rate of growth since 1981 and double the rise in 2005.  In 2006, Medicare spending rose to $401.3 billion, up from $338.0 billion a year earlier, according to the government’s annual health spending report.

The impact on funding sources that paid for prescription drug benefits varied. The public share of spending (federal and state)  increased from 28 percent in 2005 to 34 percent in 2006, while funding from private sources (insurers) fell from 72 percent to 66 percent.  The shift in funding was most dramatic for Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare’s share of total retail prescription drug spending surged from just 2 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2006, following Part D implementation. Meanwhile, Medicaid’s share fell from 19 percent to 9 percent.

At present, the US government cannot negotiate prescription drug pricing with drug companies that produce the medications–only drug distributors and third party insurers can do that! As the baby boomer retirement continues, the amount of government spending on prescriptions drugs will increase exponentially and ultimately cause healthcare costs in this country to explode. In my opinion there are two options: impose price controls on prescription drugs or provide all US citizens with a national healthcare system that allows the government to negotiate drug pricing directly with drug manufacturers. And for those of you who think national healthcare is a fantasy–over 60% of all healthcare claims in the US are currently handled and paid by Medicare–a federally finaced and run government healthcare system!  We are closer to a national health insurance program than you think!

Until next time...

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

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