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/.