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

Not a day goes by without some report about pharma’s ongoing problems with illegal drug promotions, class action suits against blockbuster medications or civil or criminal settlements with state and federal governments. A quick perusal of articles posted to the Pharmalot Blog in November alone revealed no fewer than eight big pharma companies including Lilly, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis and Amgen that were involved in some sort of legal action regarding inappropriate marketing claims or failure to disclose potential side effects of blockbuster drugs. To make matters worse, a larger than usual number of pharma companies have experienced manufacturing problems that have resulted in drug recalls or shortages. This list includes companies such as Genzyme, Baxter, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and most recently Boehringer Ingelheim. While chronic legal and manufacturing problems are extremely troubling (some assert it is just the cost of doing “business”), I believe that the amount of money spent lobbying Congress for legislation favorable to the industry is even more egregious.

According to a recent post on Knowledge Ecology International, the pharma industry has so far spent $115,571,832 on lobbying in 2011 (this number is sure to go higher by the end of this fiscal year). Interestingly, the biggest year for pharmaceutical industry lobbying was in 2009—a year after the Affordable Health Care Bill was passed—with totals in excess of $186,000,000. Just think about how many jobs could have been saved if companies reinvested the money into R&D rather than greasing the palms of lobbyists to induce Congress to pass laws to continue to get favorable tax rates, improve ROI and bolster the stock prices of those companies! To wit, Newt Gingrich, a Republican Presidential candidate and Former Speaker of the House has been accused of lobbying former congressional colleagues to vote for a Medicare drug subsidy while he was a paid consultant to AstraZeneca. Gingrich vehemently denies these allegations; probably because he realizes that most Americans don’t like big pharma and may vote against him if the claims are proven to be true and he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Not withstanding the legal issues and unnecessary lobbying, what is really hurting the pharmaceutical industry is its lack of communication and transparency with patients and its unfailing practice of putting profits before healthcare. While every big pharma company I know always talks about fulfilling unmet medical needs, meeting those needs always comes at great costs (literally) to patients. Sadly, many patients can no longer afford the costs of potentially lifesaving medicines and treatments. Unless pharma begins to change the way it presents itself to the American public, it will continue to suffer the lost of confidence and trust of the American people. And, if the industry is unable to regain the public’s trust, its inability  will ultimately result in legislation that allows the US government to control drug prices: something that exists in most other countries in the world and big pharma has been desperately trying to prevent for the past 50 years!

Until next time...

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

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

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

There was an illuminating review today in the New York Times of a new book entitled “Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids-and What We Can Do About it.” Its authors are two longtime faculty members Andrew Hacker (tenured professor) and Claudia Dreifus (a freelance writer and adjunct instructor).

While I haven’t read the book, some of the problems with higher education asserted by the authors (and mentioned in the review) are consistent with my observations and experience. For example the review mentions that:

“Mr. Hacker and Ms. Dreifus list a host of crimes, or at least flaws in the system, some in the control of universities and others built into the external political, cultural or economic environment, or indeed into human nature. These include the narrow self-interestedness of academic departments; the greed of faculty members and administrators alike; the near-universal hypertrophy of “the athletics incubus”; unfunded government mandates; lifetime employment for pampered professors (thanks to the combination of tenure and Congressional abolition of mandatory retirement); and the demands of students and their parents for frivolous extras (driving what the authors call “the amenities arms race”).

The authors raise interesting questions about tenure and its alternatives. Like many critics of tenure, though, they have a keen eye for abuses of power but are remarkably sanguine about the capacity of the First Amendment to shield scholars from pressure exerted by those with the power to fire them.

The authors’ deepest scorn is reserved for the claim that good teaching depends on research, and their most extreme proposal is that universities drastically reduce the amount of research they support, by “spinning off” medical schools and research centers, discontinuing paid sabbaticals and abolishing the current system of promotion and tenure, a system that tends to reward research productivity more than effective teaching.”

While I tend agree that the emphasis on research, the pressure to publish and obtain extramural funding has had a negative impact on teaching, I disagree that teaching isn’t positively impacted by faculty members who are actively involved in scholarly research-what a conundrum!

Nevertheless, this book written by two long-time academicians provides compelling arguments for abolition of tenure and the need to improve teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Until next time...

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

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

The conversation about follow-on biologics became extremely muted after passage of the US Healthcare Reform Act which included a 12 year period of data exclusivity for innovator company products. This provision inhibits biosimilar manufacturers from introducing generic versions of branded biologics for 12 years from the date the US Food and Drug Administration granted a license for the branded product. While this may effectively limit activity in the follow-on biologics space in the US, it didn’t stop Merck from launching its BioVentures Division (dedicated to follow-on biologics development) almost two years ago.

At the time of the announcement Merck executives in charge of the BioVentures Division divulged that its first product would be a PEGylated version of Amgen’s anemia drug Epogen (EPO). Unfortunately, a PEGylated version of EPO doesn’t qualify as a follow-on biologics because PEGylated proteins are considered new molecular entities (NMEs) by regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, Merck also said it would develop other follow-on products and that its efforts would be based primarily on the proprietary humanized yeast biomanufacturing platform it acquired after purchasing Glycofi, a New Hampshire-based biopharmaceutical company that developed the technology. Interestingly, two weeks ago Merck announced that it was abandoning the PEGylated-EPO product that it mentioned two years ago at the BioVentures kick off press conference.

It isn’t clear whether or not Merck jettisoned the project because of patent infringement litigation, regulatory concerns or possibly because of the increasingly fierce competition in the EPO space. Another possibility is that pharmaceutical companies have finally realized that biologically-active proteins are costly to manufacture and have limited therapeutic applicability as compared with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) which are taking the biopharmaceutical industry by storm. At last count, there were over 300 MAbs in various phases of pre-clinical development with and about 125 in late stage clinical development. Last week, Teva and Lonza announced plans to develop a biosimilar version of Roche’s anti-inflammatory and cancer MAb Rituxan (rituximab)—kicking off a new era in the biosimilar industry.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with or remain interested in the follow-on biologics debate, I came across a nice PowerPoint presentation given by Teruhide Yamaguchi at the Division of Biological Chemistry and Biologicals at the National Institutes of Health.

Quality Safety and Efficacy of Follow-on Biologics

Until next time...

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

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

While I was pleased that President Obama and the Democrats were finally able to deliver much needed reform to an ailing American healthcare system, the compromises that were made to pass the bill are troubling. First, language allowing reimportation of lower cost drugs from Canada and other developed nations was eliminated from the bill. Second, the provisions allowing the contentious 12 year data exclusivity provision for generic versions of biologic and biotechnology drugs remained in the final bill. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, any language alluding to or implying that the US government, may, in the future, be able to negotiate or regulate drug prices was obliterated. In short, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received all of the assurances and guarantees that were in the deal brokered by Billy Tauzin, the former head of the lobbying group PhRMA, between the White House and PhRMA over a year ago. Surprisingly, Tauzin was fired by PhRMA several weeks ago because its leadership mistakenly thought that Tauzin conceded “too much” to the Obama Administration when he brokered the original health reform package with the White House. (At the time that Tauzin was fired, health care reform legislation appeared to be on life support and all but dead).

In the final analysis, big pharma and biotech will give back $85 billion over ten years —largely by agreeing to give back some of the profits it was allowed to collected from the egregiously flawed Medicare Part D legislation passed during the odious Bush Administration. While $85 billion may seem like a lot (to the average American citizen) to give back, it is important to note, that the size of the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets is over $600 billion per year. Although growth in these markets is beginning to slow in developed nations like the US and Japan (to high single digits), it is beginning to explode in heavily populated developing nations like China, India and Brazil where it is roughly $12-18%. Put simply, despite assertions to the contrary, business in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical markets is booming and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In other words, the newly passed healthcare reform legislation is a “sweetheart deal” for the US life sciences industry.

Ironically, while the healthcare reform bill insures that almost all Americans will be entitled to healthcare coverage and that insurance companies cannot deny healthcare benefits to persons with pre-existing medical conditions, the legislation may actually limit the access of Americans to potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. This is because the 12 year data exclusivity period for generic versions of branded, biotechnology drugs (otherwise know as follow-on biologics or biosimilars) remained in the final version of the healthcare reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, this provision disallows approval of follow-on biologics for a period of 12 years from the data that the original biologic received US regulatory approval. For example, if a branded biologic or biotechnology product garners US regulatory approval in 2010, the earliest date that a generic version of this product would be able to appear on the US market would be 2022. Moreover, in some instances, the 12 year data exclusivity provision may extend the so-called patent life of a product. Using the example above, if the patents protecting the product happen to expire in 2019, the innovator company is guaranteed an additional three years of marketing exclusivity before generic versions of the product can appear on the US market. Finally, the 12 year data exclusivity provision effectively prevents foreign biosimilar manufacturers from competing in the US biotechnology market until about 2018; a strategy designed to allow the US to maintain its dominance of the global biotechnology market. Interestingly, despite the approval of six or more biosimilars in Europe, these products have failed to catch on and are not able to compete with their branded, innovator counterparts.

In conclusion, I laud President Obama’s persistence and give him props for his ability to deliver (as promised) health reform to the American public. I have no doubt that the legislation will help to improve the delivery of healthcare in the US and hopefully improve the overall health of Americans. However, while the new healthcare reform legislation is a first, positive step, the American healthcare system will never entirely be “fixed’ until US drug prices are regulated—like they are in the rest of the world. Then, and only then, will the US government be able to control and contain healthcare costs in America.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

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

Billy Tauzin, a former Congressman and high profile lobbyist, unexpectedly resigned as President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (PhRMA), a pharmaceutical industry lobby and trade organization. According to a report in today’s New York Times, his resignation resulted from internal disputes over PhRMA’s pact with the White House to trade political support for favorable terms in the proposed health care reform bill. The trade group issued a news release on Thursday night confirming Mr. Tauzin’s departure, effective June 30.

When he first took the helm at PhRMA in 2005, Tauzin’s publicly-stated goal was to improve the group’s image and reduce the “number of its enemies.” Prior to Tauzin’s arrival at PhRMA, it was an obscure lobbying group that was little more than a “rubber stamp” for the agenda set by pharmaceutical companies. Under Tauzin's tutelage, the trade group adopted a more progressive strategy and tried to set a new agenda for the pharmaceutical industry.

In exchange for favorable terms in the original Obama healthcare reform package, PhRMA spent more than $100 million on ads to promote the overhaul. But after healthcare reform stalled, some industry leaders felt the trade group had gone too far giving concessions and could lose on some important legislative issues without gaining the political protection it had sought.

Despite publicly accusing the White House of reneging on its original deal, Tauzin’s willingness and zeal to help to reform healthcare ultimately led to his demise. I suspect that the next person chosen to lead PhRMA will likely be a pharma insider willing to "tow the party line."  While I wasn’t originally keen on Tauzin’s appointment, he proved to be an extremely effective  leader, who unlike most of his PhRMA predecessors, was forward-thinking and had a clear vision for the future of an industry currently in transition.

Tauzin’s departure signals that many pharma executives believe that healthcare reform is dead and companies can continue with “business as usual.” While failed healthcare reform may be beneficial to big pharma in the short term, it ultimately may lead to pharmaceutical price control legislation. This is because—in the absence of healthcare reform— drug and devices prices will continue to skyrocket and  legislators will have little choice but to regulate and cap drug and devices prices.

Until next time,

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

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

Many progressives and left-leaning individuals (like me) voted for President Obama because he presented himself as somebody who will stand up for what he believes. Until recently, I, along with others, have been deeply disappointed in his performance and it was no longer clear to me what he truly believes in. However, his recent stand on healthcare reform (sadly without a public option), his performance at the global warming summit and most recently his quick response and unequivocal support for Haitian earthquake victims suggest to me that we are finally beginning to see what President Obama believes and what he is made up. To that end, Obama has turned up the heat to reduce the proposed 12 period of data exclusivity for biosimilars (aka follow-on biologics) in the bill that was passed by both the US House and Senate. Both the President and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA (of Hatch-Waxman fame) are trying to reduce the 12 year exclusivity 10 years or less. Obama previously went on record saying that he favored a 7 year exclusivity period for biosimilars.

Not surprisingly, the move has met with fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries that argue the longer period is needed to encourage investment and R&D required to produce biopharmaceutical products. Lobbying by both sides has dramatically increased as healthcare reform is pretty much a done deal. However, brand companies have spent many millions more than generic manufacturers to lobby Congress on the 12 year period.

It is about time that an American President is willing to do what is in the best interest of the American public instead of what lobbyists and special interests are demanding. And, to those companies that steadfastly hold to the notion that biopharmaceuticals take an inordinately long time to bring to market I ask: “What’s in your pipeline?”

Until next time...

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

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

It has been a long time coming, but legislation reforming the US healthcare system will likely be realized in 2010. While the law will likely be passed in 2010, many of its provisions and actionable items won’t be enacted until 2014 (at least in the current bill). I hope that negotiations between the House and Senate change the start date and that the law takes effect in 2010.

I refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because, as a progressive who vehemently supports a public option (at the very least), I was very angry and frankly, let down by the unfulfilled promises made by President Obama during his presidential campaign. However, after seeing the despicable and repugnant exhibited by both Republican and Democratic senators (most notably Lieberman and Hogan) during the debate on healthcare reform, it finally dawned on me that Obama had little choice but to chart the course that he ultimately chose to follow to insure that healthcare reform became a reality. Put simply, it is obvious to me, that congressional not presidential reform will be necessary to right a broken system and put the US back on a track to prosperity. It has become increasingly obvious that lobbying by special interest groups has corrupted the system and our congressional representatives are no longer voting their conscience but voting on behalf of the powers at be who finance their re-election campaigns. While seasoned politicos will argue that I am naive and that this is the way that business has always be done, there comes a time when a system is so broken that it simply needs to be changed in the best interests of ALL Americans.

Earlier in the year, I had a discussion with a friend who, despite his undying support for a public opinion, suggested to me that any legislation passed to reform healthcare wouldn’t contain one. In response, I quipped, “then I hope that there isn’t any healthcare reform at all!” Since that declaration, my opinion (and that of some other progressives) has changed—mostly because I and others have come to realize that from a historical perspective, fundamental change in America doesn’t usually come neatly packaged in a single bill or law. Instead, change occurs incrementally and evolves over time. Realizing this, and the likelihood that the Democrats may lose their 60 vote majority in the senate in midterm elections, President Obama divined a healthcare reform strategy that he knew he could deliver by 2010. His informed and pragmatic approach to healthcare may not be what progressives like me envisioned but he will be the first US President to accomplish healthcare reform in almost 80 years! And, at the very least, 30 million Americans who previously didn’t have any health insurance will now be covered under the new law. This will be an important first step in the process to begin to overhaul the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to President Obama!

Until next time....

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

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

A post on the Pharmalot blog today reports that spending on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising came bounding back in the third quarter —rising 15 percent to $1.16 billion, according to DTC Perspectives (which cited data from TNS Media Intelligence).

The increased spending marks the first quarterly gain in nearly two years after slumping 6.4 percent earlier this year from January to June. According to the Pharmalot post, “Internet spending increased the most—more than tripling between January and September to $221 million (display ads only). And, more ads were placed in newspapers, which showed a 25 percent gain to $104 million during the same period.

During the first nine months of 2009 the leading advertisers by brand (each of which spent more than $125 million each) were:

1. Lipitor (Pfizer)
2. Abilify (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka America)
3. Cymbalta (Eli Lilly) and
4. Advair (GlaxoSmithKline)

Could this be a sign that the pharmaceutical industry thinks that the economy is improving? Alternatively, maybe pharma marketers think that people might become increasingly stressed by the economy and drugs like Abilify and Cymbalta (a variety of psychiatric indications) and Lipitor (high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease ands stroke) may be in greater demand. And finally, from a completely cynical perspective, maybe drug makers want to sell as many drugs as possible before healthcare reform and possible price controls kick in?

Hat tip to Ed!!!!

Until next time...

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

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

Much has been written about how supportive the pharmaceutical industry has been about US healthcare reform. Prior to the debate, the Obama administration gleefully announced that pharma will give $80 billion in drug discounts in exchange for certain assurances that weren’t publicly disclosed. As most of us know, the US House of Representatives passed historic healthcare reform legislation last week and in addition to a public option it stipulates that pharma will be required to give $140 billion in drug discounts. According to Ed Silverman over at the newly reinstated Pharmalot blog, AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan, who is also this year’s chair of the industry trade group PhRMA, vowed that pharma would fight the house healthcare reform legislation. 

While Brennan’s statement isn’t surprising nor particularly noteworthy, his comments explaining pharma’s position on healthcare reform are revealing and important to understand. He told the Huffington Post “We said there were principles we didn’t want to see violated. And if those principles - price controls, Medicare rebates, moving dual eligibles back from Medicare and back into the Medicaid discount program - if those things happen, I can’t see how we could be supportive of the program.” In other words, we will support anything you propose— and may even be willing to kick in another $60 billion or so to support healthcare reform— but any discussion about government regulation of drug prices is a deal breaker! 

To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of price controls by any pharmaceutical executive during the almost year long debate on healthcare reform. The reason that I find Brennan’s statement interesting is that I have long contended that pharma will give the Obama administration and Congress anything it wants in exchange for assurances that the government will not attempt to control drug prices. For those of you who don’t know, the US is one of the only countries in the world where the government is prohibited from setting drug prices. This means that US drug makers in concert with insurance companies and third party payors can set drug prices based on what the American pharmaceutical market can bear. Not surprisingly, the profit margins on drugs sold in the US are the highest in the world. Obviously, pharma doesn’t want the US government hindering or limiting their profits by setting or capping drug prices. 

I am glad that pharma has finally decided to publicly “come clean” on the price control issue. The public option and issues surrounding data exclusivity for follow-on biologics pale in comparison to the financial havoc that price controls would wreak on the pharmaceutical industry. And, I suspect that pharma and its lobbyists will do whatever it takes to insure that price controls never become a reality in the US. However, at the end of the day, government regulation of drug and device prices will ultimately be required for any meaningful changes to take place to the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to Ed!

Until next time...

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

Addendum: After writing this post this weekend, an article appeared in Monday's New York Times that revealed that the drug industry has quietly been raising its wholesale prices on prescription drugs over the past year.  This, of course, was done in anticipation of possible federal legislation that might impose some government controls on drug pricing.  According to the Times article: "In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.  Not surprisingly, the US pharmaceutical industry justifies the practice because as an industry spokesperson put it  "they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years."  Hmmmm, interesting comment considering the US pharmaceutical industry has layed off over 180,000 employees over the past three years, a majority of whom are R&D scientists...go figure!

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

I have refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because there wasn’t much I could add to the debate. That said, while reading an article in a local paper on bacterial antibiotic resistance and how to minimize it, the author—an infectious disease doc—offered a telling statistic that identified the root problem with our current healthcare system. According to the article, 65% of the time, physicians will prescribe antibiotics to patients suffering from upper respiratory tract infections who demand them, whether or not they are warranted. In marked contrast, 12% of patients with upper respiratory tract infections who don’t ask for antibiotics receive antibiotic prescriptions. The bottom line: physicians give patients the drugs and treatment they demand because they are afraid of losing them as customers knowing full well the patients will go to another physician who will give them what they want! After all, physicians are in business and to stay in business they need to make enough money to cover their overhead and make a profit. However, over prescribing antibiotics is one of the main reasons why we are in the midst of an epidemic of infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. In my opinion, business outcomes should never supersede or trump medical or public health outcomes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an entrepreneur and believe that people with good ideas ought to be rewarded for their efforts and make as much money as they can. However, in my opinion, for profit business practices and healthcare haven’t historically worked well for the American healthcare system. Removing profit incentives from healthcare would be an important first step to begin to repair our broken healthcare system. Can anybody say public option?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Support the Public Option!!!!

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

BioJobBlog and BioCrowd along with the Business Development Institute, the Journal of Communication in Healthcare and others are co-sponsoring a meeting entitled “Social Media and Healthcare” that will be held on July 23, 2009 in NYC at the Graduate Center of The City University of NY (365 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street). Topics that will be covered include:  

1. Managing regulatory and legal issues when planning and implementing social media strategies
2. Is there a role for social media in President Obama’s healthcare reform plans?
3. Why real-time social media tools like Twitter are gaining momentum and when it makes sense to use them
4. How social media has affected crisis communications in the healthcare industry
   
5. Selling social communications projects and proving ROI to senior management
   
6. Creating and participating in communities to achieve communication, educational and branding objectives
7. Planning and executing a social communications plan with little or no budget
8. Building relationships and partnerships with new healthcare media leaders beyond advertising
9. Best practices for using social communications to connect internally with employees and stakeholders
   
10. Tools, technologies, and best practices for monitoring and measuring social communications

The meeting’s agenda features case study presentations and a series of roundtable discussions on social media topics. I will be leading a roundtable discussion called “How to Build a Social Networking Site for Bioscientists.” Approximately 300 senior marketing, communications and media professionals from Fortune 1000, middle market and emerging growth companies are expected to attend from leading pharmaceuticals, medical technology/device companies, managed care providers, hospitals, healthcare media companies, government and nonprofit organizations.  

BioCrowd members can register for the meeting at a discounted rate of $155. Check it out—it will be money well spent!

Hat tip to Steve Etzler at the BDI and Mario R. Nacinovich Jr., Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Communication in Healthcare for organizing this topical and important meeting.

I hope to see you at the meeting next Thursday!!!!

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

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) inked a deal yesterday with the Indian generics manufacturer Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories giving it access to over 100 future generic drugs and a gateway to Asia’s emerging pharmaceutical markets. The therapeutic areas covered under the agreement include diabetes, cardiovascular, pain management, gastroenterology and oncology. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories is one of India’s largest generic drug manufacturers. Like many of its competitors, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories also have active development programs for new biotechnology drugs and biosimilar products.

UK-based, GSK joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and others that have entered into deals with major generic drug manufacturers—or purchased smaller generics companies—to gain access to generics pipelines and an ability to compete in emerging  non-branded pharmaceutical markets. Impending US healthcare reform and downward pricing pressures (resulting from increased global competition) have forced drug makers to reevaluate the role that generic drugs will likely play in future pharmaceutical revenue streams.

While generic drug makers have outstanding manufacturing capabilities, they generally lack the marketing, sales and distribution channels necessary to penetrate foreign markets and quickly ramp up drug sales. I suspect that the number of deals between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers will continue to increase as many of the patents for multibillion, blockbuster drugs continue to expire in the next few years.

Until next time....

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

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

Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, announced on Thursday that it is unveiling a new program that will let people who have lost their jobs and health insurance to keep taking Pfizer medications — for free, and for up to a year. The company will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs ranging from Viagra to Lipitor at no costs to unemployed and uninsured Americans who lost their jobs since Jan. 1 and have been taking Pfizer drugs for me than three months. It is not clear how much Pfizer will spend on the program and whether or not costs will be capped.

The announcement comes amid massive job losses caused by the recession and a campaign in Washington to rein in health care costs and extend coverage. The move could earn Pfizer some goodwill in that debate after long being a target of critics of drug industry prices and sales practices. The program also likely will help keep those patients loyal to Pfizer brands. Don't be surprised if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar program over the next few weeks.

Pfizer and the rest of the drug industry wants is trying to have a voice in the debate over how to overhaul the U.S. health care system, partly by joining in a pledge this week to help hold down inflation of health costs. In the mean time, drug companies have been raising prices on their drugs, partly to offset declines in revenue as the global recession reduces the number of prescriptions people can afford to fill.

Pfizer ought to be commended on the program and its concern for the health and well being of unemployed and uninsured Americans. However, it is important to point out that this is little more than a high profile, marketing campaign designed to improve the image of drug makers. More important, it is the first public acknowledgement that drug makers are willing to engage legislators in discussions about how to reform healthcare to reduce costs and cut expenditures. 

What really is at stake here is whether or not the US government will begin regulating drug prices as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform package. As many of you may know, the US government, unlike most other governments in the world, cannot negotiate or set prescription drugs prices. Not surprisingly, the US prescription drug market is the largest and most profitable in the world. It will be interesting to see how the US healthcare reform discussion unfolds—clearly a lot is at stake for the American prescription drug industry.

Until next time...

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

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

I read today in the New York Times that healthcare costs are expect to ease slightly in 2009 for employers. According to Mercer, a healthcare consulting firm, healthcare benefit costs are expected to rise only 5.7% in 2009. Since 2005, annual increases in healthcare spending have hovered around 6.1%.

At first glance, this ought to be good news for the millions of workers employed by American companies. But, like most other reports and survey conducted during the disastrous Bush Administration, the numbers don’t tell the real story. In reality, employers are aggressively shifting the healthcare burden to employees by raising premiums and pushing deductibles and co-payments to all time record highs. For example, I learned the other day that my good friend Pete, who works as recruiter in the hospitality business, has to pay $50 each time he or any member of his family (he has 5 children) goes to the doctor. Unlike other people who have less onerous co-pays, Pete has to pick and choose which family aliments really require medical attention. These decisions must be extremely difficult and stressful for Pete, who had prostate cancer surgery less than a year ago.

Regardless of your political persuasions, it is obvious to me that healthcare reform is long overdue in the US. I hope that Barack Obama begins to address this ongoing, serious problem shortly after he is elected President in November, 2009.

Until next time….

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

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