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.

Blog Publisher calls for HHS Designee to state support for President Trump's campaign pledge on Personal Importation

 A medicine that is unaffordable is inherently unavailable, and a medicine that is unavailable and not able to be afforded is a medicine that is denied”

— Daniel Hines

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, USA, January 30, 2017 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The Publisher of  RxforAmericanHealth, AmericanRxBillofRights and TodaysSeniorsNetwork, has sent an open letter to President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Rep. Tom Price of Georgia seeking clarification on whether the designee supports the President’s campaign pledge of a role for personal importation of brand-name prescription medicines from Tier One countries as a way to lower prescription drug costs.

Hines also sent the letter to the members of the U.S. Senate.(To read the letter, click here).

“We applaud President Trump’s continued expressions of support for personal importation as evidenced by his campaign pledge, and more recently, his sharp criticism of the predatory pricing practices of Pharma that deny access to literally millions of Americans to vital medicines because the high prices render the medicines unaffordable and unavailable,” says Publisher Daniel Hines.

But, Hines continues, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Rep. Price, he and Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) engaged in an exchange based upon Rep. Price’s continued references to his goal being ‘accessibility’ to health care for all Americans.

“Senator Sanders correctly pointed out that accessibility is not the same as the ability to purchase or afford adequate medical care,” Hines notes.

The problem, Hines explains, is that “a medicine that is unaffordable is inherently unavailable, and a medicine that is unavailable and not able to be afforded is a medicine that is denied.”

“However, a recent article from Roll Call offers Rep. Price an opportunity to shed light on his definition of accessibility to health care, “Hines says, noting that he sought an exemption from the Food and Drug Administration seizure of medicines of a constituent.

The exemption was sought because the constituent said the price of the medicine in the U.S. was unaffordable and he turned to Canada to personally import the medicine at a much lower cost.

Roll Call noted that “…In February 2006, Rep. Price’s office appealed to the FDA on behalf of a constituent in need of a medicine for a surgery. While both drugs were available for sale in the United States, the patient was trying to import them from Canada, where they were presumably cheaper. The drugs were being held in customs, and the FDA explained to Price that it wasn’t legal to import the drugs manufactured outside of the country, even though there are some exceptions to this policy…”

Ironically, one of the exceptions under which personal importation is allowable is if the medicine is unavailable, Hines explains.

“This directly addresses the question of whether or not a medicine is unavailable if it is unaffordable, or is it ‘accessible’ if available in the U.S., but the patient can’t afford it.”

Hines notes: “When Rep. Price wrote the letter, the FDA and U.S. Customs were engaged in collusion for such seizures which were accompanied by a letter threatening the patient who personally imported their medicines that by signing the letter they were admitting they were guilty of violating the law, that they were pledging that they would not attempt to import medicines in the future, and, if they did, their signature on the Customs letter would constitute an admission of guilt.”

“I and other advocates working on behalf of the rights of Americans to have true access to safe, affordable prescription medicines worked with contacts in the Senate to have the seizures halted, and to also specifically deny funding to Customs for such seizures,” Hines says.

That is why we are asking Rep. Price to now explain if his definition of ‘access ’includes support of the rights of Americans to engage in personal importation as he sought—and failed in-- on behalf of his constituent.

Another question arises from a recent letter from many Democrat members of the U.S. House of Representative to President Barrack Obama, in which they sought to “… encourage your administration to explore implementing drug importation rules that are already part of U.S. law. Under authority from the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can certify the importation of prescription drugs from other countries under specific qualifications. This regulatory action would pose no risk to public health and safety and could result in a significant reduction in the cost of prescription drugs to American families.”

This leads to specific questions that should be addressed by the President and Rep. Price:

1. Will Rep. Price, if confirmed as HHS Secretary, continue his previously stated support of personal importation as exampled by his letter on behalf of a constituent turning to personal importation;
2. Does Rep. Price believe that a prescription medicine is in and of itself unavailable because it is unaffordable, thereby meeting the FDA’s stated and printed decision that a medicine or device that is unavailable is thereby exempt from restrictions of personal importation?
3. Will Rep. Price, if confirmed, follow the directive and intent of Congress as stated in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003?

“The designee’s response to these questions is of prime importance,” Hines concludes. “The fact is that personal importation of safe, affordable medicines from Tier One countries is the most immediate relief from the predatory drug pricing practices of Pharma.”

Daniel Hines
TodaysSeniorsNetwork
6363992849
email us here

Grassley, Casey, Brown Re-introduce Popular Bipartisan Bill to Help Pharmacists Provide Medical Services to Older Americans in Under-served Areas

WASHINGTON, January 14, 2017– Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and fellow senators today re-introduced their popular bipartisan legislation to encourage pharmacists to serve older Americans in communities lacking easy access to doctors or where pharmacists are more convenient to visit for certain services than doctors.

“A lot of people in rural Iowa have easier access to a pharmacist than a doctor,” Grassley said.  “Where that pharmacist is licensed to provide a service, Medicare ought to pay the pharmacist for it.  That’s what this bill does. 

“It’s good for pharmacists because they get paid for providing services to rural seniors.  It’s good for rural seniors because they keep access to their local pharmacist and don’t have to go to the  doctor for straightforward medication management.”

“Across the country and in Pennsylvania pharmacists play a critical role in helping seniors receive access to routine healthcare services like wellness checks,” Casey said.

“This legislation will aid those in rural communities who may not live in close proximity to the doctor but do have regular contact with their pharmacist. I’m hopeful that Congress will move forward on this commonsense legislation in the coming year.”  

“Seniors in rural Ohio shouldn’t have to travel long distances to see their doctor for a simple health screening when the pharmacist down the street can offer the same services,” said Brown.

“We can better serve our seniors and taxpayers by cutting through the red tape and giving seniors more choice on where they go for care”

The Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act, S.109, has 27 original cosponsors.  It encourages pharmacists to offer health care services such as health and wellness screenings, immunizations and diabetes management by authorizing Medicare payments for those services where pharmacists are already licensed under state law to provide them.  Most states already allow pharmacists to provide these services but there currently is no way for pharmacists to receive Medicare reimbursement for providing them.

The bill is supported by organizations including the Iowa Pharmacy Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the Patient Access to Pharmacists’ Care Coalition, the American Pharmacists Association and Kmart.  Hundreds of people, including Iowa pharmacy students, have contacted Grassley’s office in support of the measure,.

A companion bill is planned in the House of Representatives.