Publisher of RxforAmericanHealth urges President to Stand up to Pharma, take a stand for American Patients’ Health

President Trump urged to end opportunity for Pharma to extend control of drug prices, prescription medicine policy in US 

 ST. LOUIS, MO, USA, June 19, 2017 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The publisher of the TodaysSeniorsNetwork chain of advocacy websites, including TodaysSeniorsNetwork, RxforAmericanHealth and AmericanRxBillofRights, has urged President Donald Trump to “stand up for Americans’ health by standing up to Pharma” with the issuance of his plans to issue an executive order to lower drug prices.

Daniel Hines says that the President should implement such policies as personal importation of brand-name medicines form licensed registered pharmacies in Tier One countries whose standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S., price negotiation for Medicare, reciprocal agreements with regulatory agencies in Tier One Countries to ensure medicines meet standards of safety, and rules to ensure pricing transparency by Pharma.

“During the election, and since taking office, the President has, on the one hand, attacked the predatory pricing practices of Pharma, while continuing to meet with pharmaceutical representatives, making appointments of key policy makers such as Healthy and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and FDA Commission Scott Gottlieb, both of whom disdain such readily available relief from high prices as price negotiation and personal importation of medicines,” says Daniel Hines.

“That is why, after the initial rush of optimism about the President’s decision to issue executive orders to lower drug prices, news stories that the President’s actions would favor Pharma are troubling and would, if factual, continue to deny patients access to the vital lifeline of maintenance medicines that help ensure the continued health and well-being of Americans, leading to even more serious health issues that can only be addressed by catastrophically priced drugs and treatments that are beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of Americans.”

In a blog on RxforAmericanHealth, Hines offers insights into a ‘chain of events’ that has allowed Pharma to “thumb its collective nose” to the American public and the U.S. Congress, explaining that:

“For more than a quarter-century, Americans have been victims of the predatory pricing practices of Pharma.
• Americans pay the highest prescription prices in the industrial world
• This is based upon a national policy of allowing the industry to ‘charge what the traffic will bear’
• The Pharmaceutical Industry has created alliances, influenced governmental policy, colluded with regulatory agencies designed to ensure prices are unaffordable, and literally ‘bought’ the U.S. Congress with the most contributions of any industry segment in the U.S.

• Result #1—A denial for an estimated 55 million Americans to be able to exercise their right to the health benefit made possible from access to a regimen of vital life-line medicines, simply because they are unaffordable;
• Result # 2—The ‘hoped-for’ answer to the scourge of unaffordable medicines—generic medicines—has seen price spikes that have made many of them equally unavailable to American patients;
• Result # 3—Literally millions of Americans suffer from diseases—many of them life-threatening—raising the question of a possible link to the cause-effect impact of unaffordable but vital maintenance medicines that could have benefitted patients and deterred the harmful effects of their disease;
• Result # 4—Pharma raises prices on specialty medicines to thousands of dollars for treatments, even though many of the costly medicines are older, lower-cost medicines, and manufacturers are simply taking advantage of the illness of Americans;
• Result # 5—Congress becomes indignant, holds hearings, witness testify, advocacy groups coalesce to ‘address’ price challenges, but prices remain high, Congress continues with more hearings…and Americans continue to pay the highest prices in the world…WHY?
• RESULT #6--Because Pharma and its allies in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who are the beneficiaries of Pharma’s extensive contributions have controlled the discussion on how to lower prescription and health care costs while Pharma continues to rake in obscene profits, and American patients continue to be denied their medicines.

“This is more than unfortunate, it is tragic because it illustrates what can only be considered the politicization of an important American healthcare issues, e.g., the beneficial impact upon the health and well-being of American patients from access to adherence to a regimen of authentic prescription medicines,” Hines explains.

He notes that the estimates vary, but the undeniable fact is that millions of American patients forego such adherence simply because the medicines themselves are so high-priced that they are unaffordable, making them, in and of themselves, unavailable.
“We are faced with the spectacle of an ineffective response from Congress, which continues to offer narrowly defined proposals ranging from personal importation to transparency to more generics to penalties for Pharma price gouging, and conducting time-consuming hearings that result in nothing, while Pharma continues to thumb its collective nose to the American people and sets prices beyond the reach of patients,” Hines continues.

“At the same time, a score of group and organizations issue periodic statements, collective letters and develop positions that address the costs and availability of medicines that cost thousands of dollars, all the while ignoring the fact that these commendable efforts are not mutually exclusive from the inclusion as part of recognition of the harmful impact of lack of access to any medicine, and that an unaffordable maintenance medicine is just as unavailable to untold numbers of patients as a medicine that costs $120,000 a year.

“It is time for a change! American patients can’t wait any longer!,” Hines says. “It is incumbent upon President Trump to take decisive actions that will stand up to Pharma and for the American patient.”

Daniel Hines
TodaysSeniorsNetwork
636-399-2849 email us here

Making the case for Personal Importation as a tool to lower drug costs—an open appeal to President Trump as he formulates executive orders

(Part 1 of 2-parts: )

President Donald Trump, whose administration has been hamstrung in keeping one of his most significant campaign pledges—to lower the cost of prescription medicines--, now has apparently decided to take the course of issuing executive orders to end the tragedy  that continues to plague American patients, namely living in the country with the highest costs prescription medicines of any industrialized nation in the world and being denied access to vital medicines.

We have issued news releases and blogs urging that the President take such action, and move it out of the purview of members of the U.S. Congress who receive millions of dollars from Pharma in campaign contributions. 

At the same time, we believe the President must accept some of the burden of the blame for the inaction.  He has appointed a Health and Human Services Secretary, former Representative Tom Price, who is decidedly pro-Pharma, and who, many believe, even profited from stock purchases of a Pharma stock that increased tremendously in value based upon inside knowledge.

Also, the President’s appointee (Scott Gottlieb) as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), apparently believes that the ‘free market’ is the primary tool to lower the costs of over-priced medicines, and opposes personal importation of safe, affordable brand-name medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries whose standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S. He also opposes negotiation by the government with Pharma, choosing instead to look to stepped-up introduction of generics as the primary route to lowering the costs of medicines.

As for Congress, it continues to stumble along with plan after plan, proposed legislation, including the fatally flawed S. 469, hailed by many Democrats as the save-all concept to lower prescription drug costs.  The bill is based upon an equally flawed effort of 2003 when it was first introduced. The legislation has already raised vigorous opposition among groups not only in the U.S. but also in Canada because it would impose U.S. oversight on Canadian-based operations such as provincial licensing authorities in Canada, and even Health Canada.

This is more than unfortunate, it is tragic because it illustrates what can only be considered the politicalization of an important American healthcare issues, e.g., the beneficial impact upon the health and well-being of American patients from access to adherence to a regimen of authentic prescription medicines.

The estimates vary, but the undeniable fact is that millions of American patients forego such adherence simply because the medicines themselves are so high-priced that they are unaffordable, making them, in and of themselves, unavailable.

While we are faced with the spectacle of an ineffective response from Congress, which continues to offer narrowly defined proposals ranging from personal importation to transparency to more generics to penalties for Pharma price gouging , and conducting time-consuming hearings that result in nothing, while Pharma continues to thumb its collective nose to the American people and set prices beyond the reach of patients.

At the same time, a score of group and organizations issue periodic statements, collective letters and develop positions that address the costs and availability of medicines that costs thousands of dollars, all the while ignoring the fact that these commendable efforts are not mutually exclusive from the inclusion as part of recognition of the harmful impact of lack of access to any medicine, and that an unaffordable maintenance medicine is just as unavailable to untold numbers of patients  as a medicine that costs $120,000 a year.

As an advocate for role for Personal Importation of brand-name prescription medicines, and as a supporter of a comprehensive approach to address all elements of the negative impact of Pharma pricing abuses, and the rapidly evolving record of abuses by huge pharmacy benefit managers, I believe it is tragic that the discussion about the costs and availability of any medicine has become so highly segmented. 

That is why it is incumbent upon the President to provide  leadership by creating policies that will result in a truly comprehensive solution with personal importation being recognized as not only a part of his strategies, but as the only offering a degree of immediate relief to the dilemma of 55 million Americans not being able to afford their medications.

While many of the challenges of new medicines, value, and prices will be met in the future, the fact is that personal importation is a readily, safe available strategy that has already been embraced by millions of Americans, and has received support from policy-makers at local, state and Federal levels, even in the face of Pharma opposition and Congressional inaction!

Why then, has the personal importation of safe, brand-name medicines from licensed registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries whose standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S. not become a part of the solution when an examination of the facts makes the case for such a strategy from to allow personal importation of prescription and offer benefits to the health and well-being of Americans.

For more than a quarter-century, Americans have been victims of the predatory pricing practices of Pharma. 

•        Americans pay the highest prescription prices in the industrial world

•        This is based upon a national policy of allowing the industry to ‘charge what the traffic will bear’

•        The Pharmaceutical Industry has created alliances, influenced governmental policy, colluded with regulatory agencies designed to ensure prices are affordable, and literally ‘bought’ overwhelmed the U.S. Congress with the most contributions of any industry segment in the U.S.

•        Result #1—A denial for an estimated 55 million Americans to be able to exercise their right to the health benefit made possible from access to a regimen of vital life-line medicines, simply because they are unaffordable

•        Result # 2—The ‘hoped-for’ answer to the scourge of unaffordable medicines—generic medicines—have seen price spikes that have made many of them equally unavailable to American patients.

•        Result # 3—Literally millions of Americans suffer from diseases—many of them life-threatening—raising the question of a possible link to the cause-effect impact of unaffordable but vital maintenance medicines that could have benefitted patients  and deterred the harmful effects of their disease.

•        Result # 4—Pharma raises prices, on specialty medicines to thousands of dollars for treatments, even though many of the costly medicines are older, lower-cost medicines, and manufacturers are simply taking advantage of the illness of Americans.

•        Result # 5—Congress becomes indignant, holds hearings, witness testify, advocacy groups coalesce to ‘address’ price challenges, but…prices remain high, Congress continues with more hearings…and Americans continue to pay the highest prices in the world…WHY?

•        RESULT #6--Because Pharma and its allies in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who are the beneficiaries of Pharma’s extensive contributions have controlled the discussion on how to lower prescription and health care costs while Pharma continues to rake in obscene profits, and American patients continue to be denied their medicines.

It is time for a change!  American patients can’t wait any longer!

Comp leaders warn against misuse of drug compounding

June 6, 2017--Workers compensation leaders say the common practice of compounding medications for injured workers can be costly and dangerous if not done appropriately and is not guided by regulation, according to a paper released by CompPharma, L.L.C. 

CompPharma, a consortium of workers compensation pharmacy benefit managers, analyzed compounding for its paper “Compounds in Comp: A New Look at Patient Safety, Efficacy and Cost” to “clear up confusion surrounding compounding medications in workers’ compensation.

It clarifies research on the efficacy of compounds and explores how a pricing benchmark that was never intended to be applied to pharmaceutical grade chemicals has been manipulated to drive compounding prices and profits,” according to the text. 

In it, authors wrote they support traditional compounding, which FDA defines as “the extemporaneous combining, mixing or altering of ingredients by a pharmacist in response to a physician’s prescription to create a medication tailored to the specialized needs of an individual patient.” 

Yet much compounding in workers’ compensation involves creating a compounded product, marketing it to prescribers and billing “exorbitant prices,” according to the authors.

The paper also shows how the average wholesale price benchmark — the universal benchmark for prescription drug reimbursement in the United States today — has been manipulated to “drastically inflate compound prices and outlines state legislative and regulatory controls.” It is also a practice that can be wrought with fraud, according to the authors.

Not only is cost an issue but so is safety, according to lead author Phil Walls, Tampa, Florida-based chief clinical officer for pharmacy benefit manager Matrix Healthcare Services Inc., which does business as myMatrixx.

“Exposure to high concentrations of local anesthetics found in some compounded creams can cause seizures and irregular heartbeats, and there have been deaths associated with their use,” he said in a statement.

Klobuchar, McCain, Grassley Urge OMB Director Mulvaney to Use Existing Executive Authority to Bring Down Prescription Drug Costs

In a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mulvaney, Klobuchar, McCain, and Grassley encourage executive or administrative action to reduce the ever-increasing financial burden of prescription drugs for millions of Americans

Klobuchar, McCain, and Grassley have worked together on bipartisan legislation that would address skyrocketing prescription drug prices, including bills to allow for personal importation of medications from Canada and bills that would deter pharmaceutical companies from blocking cheaper generic alternatives from entering the marketplace

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John McCain (R-AZ), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have urged Office of Management (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney to use existing executive authority to bring down prescription drug costs, including by certifying importation of prescription drugs from Canada. According to media reports, Mulvaney said last week that he has been actively discussing potential executive or administrative solutions with the President to address rising prescription drug costs. Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has been holding “listening sessions” to discuss possible solutions.

Klobuchar, McCain, and Grassley have also worked together on bipartisan legislation that would address skyrocketing drug prices, including bills to allow for personal importation of medications from Canada, where drug prices are, on average, half the cost they are in the United States, and bills that would deter pharmaceutical companies from blocking generic alternatives from entering the marketplace. In their letter, Klobuchar, McCain, and Grassley detail how the Administration could use executive or administrative action to reduce the ever-increasing financial burden of prescription drugs for millions of Americans.

“According to media reports, you said on Thursday that you have been actively discussing potential executive or administrative solutions with the President to address rising prescription drug costs. Similarly, Secretary Price has been holding ‘listening sessions’ to discuss possible solutions. We write to express our support for such efforts that could provide immediate relief to Americans,” the senators wrote. “Consistent with your comments last week, the Administration has an opportunity to use existing statutory authority to quickly restore competition to the market with the introduction of cheaper, imported alternatives.”

The senators continued, “We urge you to seriously consider this existing statutory authority as well as explore other options for executive action. We also ask that you please provide your recommendations as to what additional authority you would require to protect American consumers. Of course, we would welcome your support of our legislation to bring down the costs of prescription drugs as well.” 

Klobuchar and McCain introduced the Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act to require the Food and Drug Administration to establish a personal importation program that would allow individuals to import a 90-day supply of prescription drugs from an approved Canadian pharmacy. The bipartisan Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act Klobuchar and Grassley introduced would crack down on anti-competitive “pay-for-delay” deals in which branded companies pay their generic competitors not to compete as part of a patent settlement. These pay-for-delay agreements delay consumer access to generic drugs, which can be as much as 90 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs. The legislation would help make sure consumers have access to the cost saving generics they need by stopping these anti-competitive pay-off agreements that keep more affordable generic equivalents off the market. In addition, Klobuchar and Grassley introduced the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Mike Lee (R-UT). The CREATES Act would combat anticompetitive practices used by some brand-name pharmaceutical and biologic companies to block or delay entry of lower-cost generic drugs in the marketplace. 

The full text of the senators’ letter is below.

Dear Director Mulvaney:

According to media reports, you said on Thursday that you have been actively discussing potential executive or administrative solutions with the President to address rising prescription drug costs. Similarly, Secretary Price has been holding “listening sessions” to discuss possible solutions. We write to express our support for such efforts that could provide immediate relief to Americans. 

We have worked together on bipartisan legislation that would address skyrocketing drug prices, including bills to allow for personal importation of medications from Canada, where drug prices are, on average, half the cost they are in the United States, and bills that would deter pharmaceutical companies from blocking cheaper generic alternatives from entering the marketplace.

While we pursue these legislative options in Congress, we strongly encourage you to take executive or administrative action to reduce the ever-increasing financial burden of prescription drugs for millions of Americans. We have previously outlined ways that the Administration could implement such strategies in a targeted manner that satisfies rigorous safety standards.

Specifically, we wrote to Secretary Price in February urging him to utilize authority the Administration already has under law. Our letter highlighted that Congress enacted legislation in 2003 that would enable importation of less costly medications from abroad. Under this law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can permit pharmacists and wholesale retailers to import prescription drugs from Canada. Additionally, the FDA can issue a waiver to allow individuals to import prescription drugs for personal use. However, this law stipulates that the provisions related to importation do not become effective until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the implementation of importation would pose no additional risk to the public's health and safety and would result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer.

Consistent with your comments last week, the Administration has an opportunity to use existing statutory authority to quickly restore competition to the market with the introduction of cheaper, imported alternatives. Under the statute, the Secretary has the authority to issue the certification in a targeted manner to address the current market conditions in a way that readily meets safety standards. The policy can also be expressly limited so that it does not negatively affect innovator companies that invested in the development of the drug.

We urge you to work with Secretary Price to immediately begin considering certifying importation of prescription drugs from Canada in the following circumstances:

1.               The drug is off patent or no longer marketed in the United States by the innovator company that initially developed the drug;

2.              In cases where there are significant and unexplained increases in price;

3.              No direct competitor drug is currently in the market and introduction of a competitor drug will benefit the prices paid by taxpayers and consumers; or

4.              The drug is produced in another country by the name brad manufacturer that initially developed the drug or by a well-known generic manufacturer that commonly sells pharmaceutical products in the United States.

We urge you to seriously consider this existing statutory authority as well as explore other options for executive action. We also ask that you please provide your recommendations as to what additional authority you would require to protect American consumers. Of course, we would welcome your support of our legislation to bring down the costs of prescription drugs as well. 

We look forward to your timely response to this request.

Grassley, Klobuchar, Gardner Introduce Legislation to Help Rural Hospitals Stay Open, Focus on Emergency Room Care, Outpatient Services

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2017 – Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado today re-introduced legislation to help rural hospitals stay open while meeting the needs of rural residents for emergency room care and outpatient services. 

“A car accident or a heart attack is dangerous under the best of circumstances, but it’s a lot more dangerous for someone who’s far away from an emergency room,” Grassley said.  “When a rural hospital closes, its emergency room closes with it. This proposal will fill a pressing need, help keep hospital doors open, and offer hospital services where and when people need them most.”

“Our rural hospitals are essential institutions in communities across Minnesota. They don’t just provide vital health services, they employ thousands of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health care workers,” Klobuchar said. “Millions of people depend on keeping these hospitals open. Our bipartisan legislation will help ensure that rural Minnesotans and Americans across the country have access to medical care when and where they need it most.”

“Coloradans living in rural communities should not be denied access to healthcare simply because they do not live in a large metropolitan area,” Gardner said.  “This commonsense, bipartisan legislation provides rural hospitals an option to continue providing emergency services to rural America even if they do not meet Medicare’s criteria for inpatient beds. During an emergency, time is of the essence, and it is critical that we maintain access to life-saving treatment regardless of your zip code.”   

The senators noted that 60 percent of trauma deaths in the United States occur in rural areas, where only 15 percent of the population is represented.  The pace of rural hospital closures is accelerating, and many other hospitals that haven’t closed are struggling to keep their doors open.

Under Medicare, many rural hospitals are designated as Critical Access Hospitals, meaning they have to maintain a certain amount of inpatient beds as well as an emergency room.  Many hospitals struggle to attract enough inpatients to keep their Critical Access Hospital status.  When they close their doors, it often means a community loses its emergency services.  Studies show that proximity to an emergency room often means the difference between life and death.   

The senators’ bipartisan bill, the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital (REACH) Act, would create a new Rural Emergency Hospital classification under Medicare.  The hospital would have an emergency room and outpatient services.  It would not have the inpatient beds that many hospitals are struggling to maintain.  For example, a patient in a rural hospital with kidney disease might go to his community hospital for dialysis as an outpatient service.  He would go to a separate major hospital for specialized care such as a kidney operation.  He would go to his community hospital for emergency care for an acute episode, when time is of the essence.

The bill wouldn’t force any new requirements on hospitals.  It simply would offer them a new option. The hospitals would have to maintain some protocols in exchange for removing inpatient services, such as being able to rapidly move a patient to a larger hospital elsewhere that offers more services.

The bill text is available here. 

Kaiser Poll: Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents Support Actions to Lower Drug Costs, Including Allowing Americans to Buy Drugs from Canada

Most Say Importing Canadian Drugs Would Lower Costs Without Affecting Quality, Though Some Have Concerns About Unsafe Drugs and Disincentives for Research and Development

May 01, 2017--When asked about a series of health care priorities facing President Trump and Congress, six in 10 Americans (60%) identify lowering the cost of prescription drugs as a “top priority” for President Trump and Congress – including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Survey examines the public’s views on potential policies to address drug costs – and finds majority support for nine different potential actions. 

This includes overwhelming support for allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on medications for people on Medicare (92%), making it easier for generic drugs to come to market (87%), and requiring drug companies to release information to the public on how they set drug prices (86%).

Other proposals with significant majority support include allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from Canada (72%) or from online pharmacies based in Canada (64%).

A majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents favor eight of the nine specific policies.  The lone exception is encouraging people to buy lower-cost drugs by requiring them to pay a higher share if they choose a similar, higher-cost drug – favored by majorities of Republicans (57%) and independents (60%) but a smaller share of Democrats (40%).

The poll also probes more deeply into the public’s views of how allowing Americans to import drugs from Canada or purchase drugs through online Canadian pharmacies would impact costs, quality and safety.

Most think that each of these policy changes would make medicines more affordable without sacrificing safety or quality (76% say this about imported drugs; 68% say so about online pharmacy sales).

Fewer say either change would expose Americans to unsafe medicines from other countries (35% and 39%, respectively) or lead U.S. drug companies to do less research and development (29% and 33%, respectively).

The findings come from the late April Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and conducted from April 17- April 23 among a nationally representative random digit dial telephone sample of 1,171 adults. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by landline (421) and cell phone (750). The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

NuView Life Sciences Calls for Solutions as Cancer Drug Costs Escalate

 The out-of-pocket price of many life-saving cancer medications continues to grow, while insurance companies continue to raise deductibles and copays. Patients, who are paying more for their prescriptions than ever before, need solutions that offer cost-effective treatment.

April 20, 2017--Cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States, and more often than ever before, patients are feeling the financial burden of obtaining potentially life-saving cancer drugs. Newer cancer medications can cost patients over $100,000 each year, and it’s not uncommon for patients to spend an average of $8,700 each month on the medications they need to fight the disease.

Drug costs are skyrocketing as many insurance companies raise deductibles and copayments, forcing many patients to pay more out-of-pocket for the medications that could save their lives. In response, companies such as NuView Life Sciences are calling for drug cost solutions that give patients a more affordable way to receive the treatment they need.

Only 50 years ago, it was common for new anticancer drugs to cost an average of $100 each month, but now many patients regularly pay close to $10,000 every month.

 Many patients—especially those under age 65 with no access to Medicare or high-deductible insurance plans—simply cannot afford these drugs.

Due to financial concerns, 32% of individuals recently diagnosed with cancer and 28% of individuals with a past history of cancer ask their doctors for lower-cost medications.

Unfortunately for some patients, some lower-cost cancer medications simply slow the progression of cancer rather than providing effective, disease-halting treatment.

Lower-cost drugs, such as those that are off-brand or generic, can also come with a range of possible side effects the patient might experience, from no effect at all to death.

Paul Crowe, CEO of NuView Life Sciences, said, “We’re experiencing a healthcare crisis in which patients are diagnosed with a potentially deadly disease and offered a treatment option, only to find out they can’t afford the treatment.

“ This financial stress can be extremely demoralizing at a time when it’s crucial that the patient is in the right state of mind to fight the disease. These patients need solutions when it comes to paying for the medications that could save their lives.”

Companies like NuView are at the forefront of the movement to find better, more cost-effective solutions that enable patients to achieve the best possible outcomes from treatment. In the future, NuView hopes its NV-VPAC1 technology platform could be used to deliver targeted, highly-effective anticancer drugs directly to cancer cells.

There is also some push to take the production of anticancer medications out of the hands of the pharmaceutical industry. In attempts to curb the rising costs of these drugs, some hospitals are beginning to purchase cancer medications collectively.

 Additionally, physicians and other professionals are calling for a review of the way many cancer drugs are packaged.

Some cancer drugs come in vials that contain more medication than the patient actually needs. Even though leftover medication must often be discarded for safety reasons, the prices of these drugs have not fallen to reflect the amount of medication wasted. It’s estimated that up to $2.8 billion is wasted every year simply because of the way cancer drugs are packaged.

Crowe said, “If we can find different ways to provide patients with much-needed anticancer drugs that are more affordable and ensure the patient receives proper care, we would be doing patients across the world a disservice by choosing not to explore those options.

“Companies and drug manufacturers must take the initiative to find ways to lower the cost of these medications while giving patients the life-saving treatments they need.”

About NuView Life Sciences:

Founded in 2005, NuView Life Sciences is a biotechnology company located in Park City, Utah, working to improve the way cancer is diagnosed and treated in our modern healthcare system. NuView is focused on creating precision cancer diagnostics and therapeutics to improve patient outcomes while reducing healthcare costs through the development and clinical application of its exclusive peptide analog technology, NV-VPAC1. Led by a team of industry experts with decades of combined experience in healthcare and medical imaging technologies, NuView is poised to change how we look for and respond to cancer. To learn more about NuView Life Sciences, please visit http://nuviewinfo.com/site/3/.

Nonprofit working to block drug imports has ties to pharma lobby

Business, Emily Kopp , Rachel Bluth · Kaiser Health News · Apr 18, 2017

A nonprofit organization that has orchestrated a wide-reaching campaign against foreign drug imports has deep ties to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the powerful lobbying group that includes Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Bayer.

The nonprofit, called the Partnership for Safe Medicines, has recently emerged as a leading voice against Senate bills that would allow drugs to be imported from Canada.

Both the lobbying group and the nonprofit partnership have gone to great lengths to show that drugmakers are not driving what they describe as a grass-roots effort to fight imports, including an expensive advertising blitz and an event last week that featured high-profile former FBI officials and a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

However, a Kaiser Health News analysis of groups involved in the partnership shows more than one-third have received PhRMA funding or are local chapters of groups that have received PhRMA funding, according to PhRMA tax disclosures from 2013 to 2015.

Forty-seven of the organizations listed in the ads appear to be advocacy organizations that received no money from PhRMA in those years.

A PhRMA senior vice president, Scott LaGanga, previously led the Partnership for Safe Medicines for 10 years. At PhRMA, LaGanga was responsible for the lobbying group's alliances with patient advocacy groups, and he was simultaneously listed as the executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines on each of that group's annual tax filings since 2007, the earliest year for which they are available from ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer.

LaGanga wrote a 2011 article about the partnership's origins. Published in the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, it described "public-private partnerships in addressing counterfeit medicines." His PhRMA job was not disclosed in the article.

From 2010 to 2014, the organization hosted a conference called the Partnership for Safe Medicines Interchange. In a video from a 2013 event, LaGanga thanks pharmaceutical companies, most of them PhRMA members, for sponsoring the event.

In February, LaGanga moved to a senior role at PhRMA and stepped down as executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines, just as the group's campaign to stop import legislation was revving up.

The partnership's new executive director, Shabbir Safdar, said LaGanga resigned from the group to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"That's why Scott's not executive director anymore," he said. PhRMA declined to make LaGanga available for an interview.

Considering Legislation

The Senate push to allow Americans to buy pharmaceuticals from Canada comes as more patients balk at filling prescriptions because of soaring drug prices. Prescription medicines purchased in the U.S. can run three times what they cost in Canada, data from the company PharmacyChecker.com show.

In 2016, about 19 million Americans purchased pharmaceuticals illegally from foreign sources through online pharmacies or while traveling, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Many survey respondents cited pricing disparities as the reason.

A bill cosponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would provide a mechanism for Canadian drug manufacturers to sell to U.S. consumers and pharmacies. Sanders introduced the bill in February. In January, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also introduced a bill to allow drug imports from Canada.

In the House, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) introduced a similar bill to Sanders', along with 23 other Democrats.

The U.S. drug industry has strongly opposed efforts to open the borders to drug imports, but the PhRMA lobbying group is not mentioned in the nonprofit partnership's recent advertising blitz against the proposed legislation. The nonprofit says its grass-roots effort is supported by 170 members, including professional organizations and trade groups.

The nonprofit describes PhRMA as a dues-paying member with no larger role in shaping the group's activities. Partnership spokeswoman Clare Krusing would not say how much each member contributes. PhRMA spokeswoman Allyson Funk declined to say whether PhRMA funds the partnership.

"PhRMA engages with stakeholders across the health care system to hear their perspectives and priorities," Funk said. "We work with many organizations with which we have both agreements and disagreements on public policy issues, and believe engagement and dialogue are critical."

Campaigning Against Drug Imports

The partnership recently launched its ad campaign, warning against the alleged dangers of legalizing Canadian drug imports. It includes television commercials, promoted search results on Google and a full-page print ad in The Washington Post and The Hill. The group's YouTube page shows recent commercials targeted to viewers in 13 states.

"We don't disclose specific ad figures, but the campaign is in the high six figures," Safdar said.

The commercials ask voters to urge their senators to "oppose dangerous drug importation legislation."

The newspaper ad reads, "Keep the nation's prescription drug supply safe. Urge the Senate to reject drug importation measures." Its headline declares that "170 healthcare advocacy groups oppose drug importation," noting a letter to Congress signed by its members. The ad lists 160 members who signed the letter, and PhRMA's name is not included.

"Having a big membership allows the coalition to present what looks like a unified show of grass-roots support ... but it does raise questions about which members of the coalition are really driving and funding the group's policy-making," said Matthew McCoy, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania who studies patient advocacy groups.

The list of groups includes at least 64 trade organizations representing the biomedical industry, professional associations representing pharmacists, a private research company and two insurance companies.

One group that signed the letter, the "Citrus Council, National Kidney Foundation of Florida Inc.," represents a single volunteer, according to an email from the group. A spokesman for the National Kidney Foundation of Florida said the volunteer's views contradict the position of the umbrella group, and said the foundation supports "any sort of drug importation that allows our patients to have access to drugs at the best price."

Two of the hepatitis patients' advocacy groups that were listed, the National Association of Hepatitis Task Forces and the California Hepatitis C Task Force, are run by the same person, Bill Remak. Remak said the groups receive small amounts of PhRMA funding.

"I don't enjoy having to take this extreme position of saying we shouldn't import at all, but until we have some oversight regime, some way of protecting consumers, it's a really tough call," he said.

"Current drug importation proposals do not appear to have equal safety and chain-of-custody accountability laid out adequately for patient safety concerns," said William Arnold, president of the Community Access National Network, which is also listed in the ad and is an advocacy and support group for people living with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis in Washington, D.C. His group did not accept money from PhRMA between 2013 to 2015, the Kaiser Health News analysis found.

Concerns About Safety And Price

Last week, the partnership hosted a panel at the National Press Club featuring former FBI director Louis Freeh and former FDA commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach. The discussion focused on the alleged health and legal dangers of online pharmacies.

"You can talk about lowering prices, but if a drug comes with a high probability of toxicity and death, that comes at a high cost to the patient," von Eschenbach said. "That's what's at issue with drug importation."

Each speaker argued that the bill co-sponsored by Sanders would be harmful to patients. Around the same time that bill was introduced, the partnership also sent emails to member organizations seeking help to stop such a measure.

Speakers at the partnership event claimed importation would lead to a flood of counterfeit medicines laced with arsenic, fentanyl and lead paint.

"These drugs are manufactured in jungles, in tin drums, in basements. ... Those are the sort of sanitary conditions we're talking about here," said George Karavetsos, a former director of the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations.

Both von Eschenbach and Karavetsos have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Von Eschenbach left the FDA in 2009 to join Greenleaf Health, which counsels pharmaceutical clients, before starting his own consulting company, and Karavetsos counsels pharmaceutical clients at DLA Piper, a Washington, D.C., law firm.

In an interview, Josh Miller-Lewis, Sanders' deputy director of communications, refuted Karavetsos' arguments. He said Canadian drugmakers can apply for licenses, and all drugs would have to come from FDA-inspected plants.

Politico reported in October that PhRMA is bolstering its war chest by another $100 million per year, suggesting to many industry analysts that drugmakers are gearing up for a ferocious fight.

"I think it's safe to say pharmaceutical corporations are prepared to spend some fraction of their multibillion-dollar profits to fight drug importation and any other policy that might end the plague of overpriced medicine," said Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen, a watchdog group critical of the drug industry.

An Open Letter to President Trump: How personal importation of brand-name medicines can help lower health costs

Dear President Trump:

Recently, you have once again called for measures to lower the costs of prescription medicines for millions of Americans who continue to be denied the health benefits of access to a regime of vital medicines for one reason—they are unaffordable.

Estimates are that as many as 46 million Americans have been forced to make a decision to ‘skip ‘ their medicines because of the predatory pricing practices of Pharma.

All of this is unnecessary. 

If you act in support of a workable legislative bill to allow the personal importation of brand-name prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries—including but not limited to Canada—whose standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S., there could be almost immediate relief from what are the highest drug prices in the industrial world.

However, recently, a great deal of attention has been directed towards a proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ),  Rep. Elijah Cummings (D MD 24)and others  to pass what was a failed model when it was first introduced in 2003, and then brought forth again a few years later.

The irony of Senator Booker’s sponsorship of the bill should be a red flag.  He represents New Jersey, which is nicknamed the United State of Pharma due to the presence of 46 Pharma companies, leading to Pharma’s long-standing influence upon New Jersey politics. 

Senator Booker, who before the 2016 elections had received $239,000 from Pharma-related contibutions voted against an amendment to allow personal importation offered by Senator Sanders during the recent budget reconciliation process, one of 13 Democrats to do so,  a vote which drew a great deal of criticism from media, the public and Democrat Party members.

He said he would support personal importation IF the proper safety standards were included.  Instead, he and others have come together in support  of the fatally flawed 2003 legislation.  (To review the built-in failings of the bill S. 469  click here, published in RxforAmericanHealth.)

Simply put, this is not legislation based upon the right and ability of American citizens to make independent, informed healthcare decisions.    It is not a personal importation bill.   Rather,  it is an awkwardly written set of procedures that could actually lead to higher prices as it calls for wholesaling of medicines from Canada to wholesalers in the U.S., with no guarantee that they would pass along savings to American patients.

It would also impose  U.S. oversight and approval of the safety, efficacy and validity of medicines approved by the Canadian system, which is widely recognized as being on par with the U.S. and other Tier One Countries. 

The solution is not that difficult.  There are bills offered by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Rep. Keith Ellision (D MN 7) that would allow American patients to personally import medicines from Canada (and/or) other countries whose standards of safety and efficacy are recognized as being equal to those of the U.S.

Recently, the FDA has announced the launch of a series of reciprocal agreements with a number of Tier One Countries so the structure for guaranteeing the safety of medicines from those countries is already in place.

So, Mr. President when supporters of S. 469 come to you, we recommend you ask some straight questions that demand straight answers:

1. Does anyone truly believe that Canadian provincial licensing authorities will cede any of that authority to allow the FDA to come into Canada to provide what is basically an oversight of the authority/ability of licensing procedures? As Senator Sanders has often said, “Show me the Dead Canadians” a reference to those who have died from non-existent  failures of the Canadian system.

2. How will personal importation into the U.S., which has been identified with Canada for more than 17 years be defensible within Canada if wholesaling is allowed, reviving an old argument about Canadian objections to the Country becoming 'America's Drugstore'? 

3.  In a related issue, there is a continuing push for Pharmacare in Canada.  Will S. 469 become the cause of what could be viewed in Canada as a threat to its ability to address its own challenges and problems of pharma costs and availability?

4.  S. 469 is not personal importation, but is instead a push for a different, unworkable, doomed-to-failure importation strategy.

5.  You have suggested that you want to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Perhaps you should consider  the recommendation from more than 14 yearsa go that personal importation should be a ‘trade issue,’  a recommendation from no less an authority than  then-Pfizer CEO Kimball.   

5.  A fatal flaw of S. 469 is that it is a mistaken claim that without FDA approval (US Approval), the regulatory agencies in Tier One countries are not capable of determining the safety and efficacy of medicines, despite their  record that proves that  the medicines from Tier One Countries are  safe,  and their regulatory agencies are capable of guaranteeing the safety, efficacy and authenticity of medicines on a par with U.S. authorities.  

6.  Some proponents of  S.  469 say or hope it is a shift of the determination of safety, efficacy and authenticity of medicines and sources from countries of origin to the dispensing entity, such as pharmacies who dispense the medicines.

7.  Perhaps you should ask the supporters of S. 469 if they will guarantee that any savings they claim from wholesale operations will be shared with American patients.

So, Mr. President, we urge you: Be alert as to what policy or combination of policies you might choose to end the predatory pricing of Pharma. 

With that, we respectfully  suggest that you consider the provisions in the AmericanRxBillof Rights.  And, as a first ‘baby’ step,  that you consider issuing an executive order for HHS Secretary Price to implement reciprocity (the framework is now in place for Memorandums of Understanding ) with Tier One countries. By allowing true personal importation for individuals, you will plant the seeds for lowering other health care costs thanks to the improved health of American patients who will thereby avoid worsening medical conditions that can be avoided by access to the benefits made possible by access to a regimen of  authentic, safe and affordable prescribed medicines.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel Hines
Publisher
TodaysSeniorsNetwork
RxforAmericanHealth
AmericanRxBillof Rights

• Breaking News about Prescription Medicine Prices, Affordability
  

Top 15 pharma companies by 2016 revenue

by Eric Palmer | 

Mar 14, 2017 12:00pm  (From Fierce Pharma)

The biopharma industry is so dynamic and has had so many watershed moments for one reason or another that for someone to proclaim a new one is pretty pointless. And so I won’t. Still, it does feel as if something's happening here. The building tensions over pricing, and a review of the top 15 companies by 2016 revenues, suggests the relentless march forward of drug prices and profits may have slowed...(read more)

1. Johnson & Johnson Headquarters:  New Brunswick, New Jersey 2016 revenues: $71.89 billion 2015 revenues: $70.04 billion	2. Pfizer Headquarters: New York City 2016 revenues: $52.82 billion 2015 revenues: $48.85 billion		3. Roche Headquarters: Basel, Switzerland 2016 revenues: CHF 50.576 billion (about $50.11 billion) 2015 revenues: CHF 48.145 billion (about $47.70 billion)		4. Novartis Headquarters: Basel, Switzerland 2016 revenue: $48.52 billion 2015 revenue: $49.41 billion
5. Merck & Co. Headquarters: Kenilworth, NJ 2016 revenues: $39.8 billion 2015 revenues: $39.5 billion	6. Sanofi Headquarters: Paris 2016 revenue: €34.708 billion (about $36.57 billion) 2015 revenue: €34.861 billion (about $36.73 billion)		7. GlaxoSmithKline Headquarters:  Brentford, U.K. 2016 revenues: £27.889 billion (about $34.79 billion) 2015 revenues: £23.923 billion (about $29.84 billion)		8. Gilead Sciences Headquarters: Foster City, California 2016 revenues: $30.39 billion 2015 revenues: $32.15 billion
9. AbbVie Headquarters: North Chicago, Illinois 2016 revenues: $25.56 billion 2015 revenues: $22.82 billion	10. Bayer (healthcare businesses) Headquarters: Leverkusen, Germany 2016 revenues: €23.98 billion ($25.27 billion) 2015 revenues: €22.87 billion ($24.09 billion)		11. AstraZeneca Headquarters: London 2016 revenues: $23.00 billion 2015 revenues: $24.71 billion		12. Amgen Headquarters: Thousand Oaks, California 2016 revenues: $22.99 billion 2015 revenues: $21.66 billion
13. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Headquarters: Petah Tikva, Israel 2016 revenues: $21.90 billion 2015 revenues: $20.00 billion		14. Eli Lilly & Co. Headquarters: Indianapolis, Indiana 2016 revenues: $21.22 billion 2015 revenues: $20 billion		15. Bristol-Myers Squibb Headquarters: New York City 2016 revenues: $19.427 billion 2015 revenues: $16.56 billion