Pharma Marketing, Advanced

With the Senate’s bill clearing late night hurdles, the coverage in the mainstream media is, at least for the moment, broad. But there was a segment on NPR’s All Things Considered in the midst of all that Health Reform bill coverage that is well worth a listen. The segment, “How A Bone Disease Grew To Fit The Prescription,” (transcript linked, audio below) functions as a sort of biography of the evolution of both a drug and a disease– which was not, it seems, an entirely independent process.

The drug is Merck’s Fosomax, the disease is Osteopenia. Fosomax had sales in 1996 of $281.8 million; by 2005, on the heels of what qualifies as a comprehensive and wildly successfull marketing effort, the drug had sales of $3.2 billion.  Osteopenia derives its origin as somewhat of an afterthought, when in 1992 “a group of osteoporosis experts gathered under the auspices of the World Health Organization” and drew a somewhat arbitray bright line to determine what level of bone mass loss was normal and what amount constituted a disease. The term “Osteopenia” was coined, on the spot, to give clinical researchers a term which described those whose bone loss was considered normal, but was close to the line. They never imagined that Osteopenia would come to be considered a disease in itself, but it did. Millions of women are said to have it; millions treat it with Fosomax. The story of how this came to be (and the implications regarding the role of Pharma in health care) is fascinating.

New Jersey Medical Marijuana Legislation Update: Poised to Pass?

Supporters are hopeful that before Governor-Elect Chris Christie takes office next month, the New Jersey legislature will pass — and current Governor Jon Corzine will sign — medical marijuana legislation.  In February 2009, the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act,” which would allow patients suffering from “debilitating medical conditions” to treat their symptoms with marijuana without fear of state criminal reprisals, passed the state Senate.

In June 2009, Seton Hall Law’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy issued a position paper calling on the full legislature to pass the Act, arguing that it would “allow New Jersey residents with debilitating medical conditions access to marijuana to ease their suffering without creating an undue risk of abuse or diversion.”  Soon thereafter, the Act cleared the Assembly Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, albeit with a number of amendments, including several bolstering the Act’s already strict safeguards against abuse and diversion.  (For a detailed summary of the differences between the Senate and Assembly versions of the Act, see below.)

According to an article in the New Jersey Law Journal, a legislative aide “says they are trying to get the [Act] posted for a floor vote on Dec. 7, Jan. 7 or Jan. 11, the remaining voting sessions in the current term.  The Assembly is expected to pass it.”  Due to the amendments added by the Assembly Committee, the Senate would need to pass the Act again before it would reach the Governor’s desk.  Even if the Act is not passed during the current lame-duck session, however, there is hope for its passage in sessions to come. Governor-Elect Christie has indicated that, with sufficient restrictions in place, “he would be supportive of such legislation.”

Summary of Differences between Assembly and Senate Versions

Change to definition of “bona fide physician-patient relationship.”

The Senate’s version of the Act (S119) requires that patients who wish to use medical marijuana obtain a “written certification” from a physician with whom they have a “bona fide physician-patient relationship.”  Such a relationship is said to exist whenever a physician has completed a full assessment, including a physical examination, of a patient.  The Assembly’s version (A804) includes a significantly narrower definition, providing that only the physician with “ongoing primary responsibility” for treating a patient’s “debilitating medical condition” can approve that patient to use marijuana.  Such a physician must be “board-certified, if available” in the specialty appropriate for caring for the condition which qualifies the patient to use marijuana.

Changes to list of eligible “debilitating medical conditions.”

• Whereas S119 would have granted eligibility for marijuana to patients suffering from “severe and persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn’s disease,” A804 limits eligibility to those with “intractable skeletal muscular spasticity,” which would, it would seem, include some patients with multiple sclerosis, but exclude those with Crohn’s disease.
• Whereas S119 made all patients with cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe nausea, or severe or chronic pain eligible, under A804 patients with those conditions are only eligible if their symptoms are the result of AIDS or cancer. Concomitantly, neither AIDS nor non-terminal cancer render a patient eligible unless they cause cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe nausea, or severe or chronic pain.
• A804 adds to the list of those eligible for marijuana, patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multiple sclerosis. Patients with cancer that is “terminal” and glaucoma that is “resistant to conventional therapy” are also eligible; under S119 all cancer and glaucoma patients were eligible.
• Notably, both versions include a provision allowing for additional medical conditions to be added by regulation.

Changes to rules governing “medical marijuana alternative treatment centers.”

Under A804, eligible patients will no longer be permitted to grow marijuana.  The statute’s protection will only apply to patients who obtain marijuana from New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services-approved “medical marijuana alternative treatment centers.”  A804 adds as a requirement of approval that such centers be operated on a nonprofit basis.  They do not have to be recognized as such by the IRS but they do need to comply with all state nonprofit laws.  Perhaps in an effort to mitigate hardship that might arise as a result of these, more restrictive, provisions, A804 exhorts DHSS to “seek to ensure the availability of alternative treatment centers throughout the State, including, to the maximum extent practicable, at least two each in the northern, central, and southern regions of the State.”

Other potentially-significant changes.

• Unlike S119, A804 does not protect patients and others from arrest or prosecution; its protection is limited to waiver of applicable “civil or administrative penalties.”
• A804 also eliminates protection for caregivers who assist patients with medical marijuana use. Instead, it provides that “[t]he commissioner shall adopt regulations to: (1) provide for the use by a registered qualifying patient of a designated individual in an emergency situation to transport marijuana to the patient who is otherwise unable to obtain marijuana from an alternative treatment center[.]“

Position Paper In Support of the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act”

[Ed. note: mpp.org: "On February 23, the New Jersey Senate voted 22-16 to pass S119, also known as the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. The Assembly health committee voted 8-1 to pass an amended version of the bill on June 4. It must now pass the full Assembly [If the amended bill clears the Assembly, it would return to the Senate for a second vote because of the changes] before it goes to Gov. Jon Corzine (D), who has said that he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk.”]

Seton Hall University School of Law

Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy

Statement In Support of the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act”

The Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy supports the passage of the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (the “Act”) because the legislation has been carefully drafted to allow New Jersey residents with debilitating medical conditions access to marijuana to ease their suffering without creating an undue risk of abuse or diversion.

• Medical Evidence. Available medical evidence supports the use of marijuana to treat each of the debilitating medical conditions set forth in the Act: AIDS/HIV; cachexia (wasting syndrome); cancer; glaucoma; severe and persistent muscle spasms; severe nausea; severe or chronic pain; and seizures.
• Need for Access to Marijuana Despite Availability of Cesamet and Marinol Pills. While smoking carries with it certain health risks, smoked marijuana has meaningful advantages over the Cesamet and Marinol pills, which contain synthetic compounds that mimic marijuana’s primary active ingredient. Smoked marijuana is faster-acting, allows for more reliable dosing, and has fewer psychoactive side effects than the pills. In addition, smoked marijuana can be the only option for patients who can not swallow pills due to severe nausea and vomiting as a result, for example, of treatment for cancer.
• Abuse and Diversion. No state that has passed a medical marijuana law has subsequently experienced an increase in recreational marijuana use among its children and youth. The Act’s multiple safeguards against abuse and diversion of medical marijuana provide further reassurance. If passed, the Act would be among the most restrictive of all the states’ medical marijuana laws.

Below please find a brief position paper setting forth the medical evidence and policy arguments in support of the Act.

Seton Hall University School of Law

Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy

Position Paper In Support of the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act”

Medical Evidence

Medical evidence supports the use of marijuana to relieve symptoms or ameliorate the side effects of primary treatments of each of the debilitating medical conditions set forth in the Act: AIDS/HIV; cachexia (wasting syndrome); cancer; glaucoma; severe and persistent muscle spasms; severe nausea; severe or chronic pain; and seizures.  While conventional treatments are available for some of these conditions for some patients, smoked marijuana has the potential to help those individuals who do not benefit from, or can not tolerate, currently available therapies.[1]

AIDS/HIV and Cachexia (Wasting Syndrome)

Marijuana is an effective treatment for cachexia, also known as wasting syndrome, an involuntary loss of appetite and weight linked to disease progression and death in patients with AIDS/HIV.  The American College of Physicians has concluded that abundant support exists for the use of the cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (”THC”), one of the primary active ingredients in marijuana, as an appetite stimulant.[2] The FDA concurs, as evidenced by its approval of Marinol, a pill containing a synthetic version of THC, to treat “anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS.”[3]

Marijuana is also an effective treatment for AIDS/HIV-associated sensory neuropathy, a condition characterized by excruciating pain in the nerve endings that afflicts over a third of patients with AIDS/HIV.[4] In the past two years, three placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trials published in the medical literature have demonstrated Read more

Of Doughnut Holes and Simple Math, or, “Even if I Pay Half Price For Brand Name Drugs, Won’t That Still Be $4,350 Out of Pocket Until Medicaid Kicks In?”

Forgive me if I sound naïve, or perhaps a wee bit skeptical, but I’m somewhat perplexed as regards the bottom line of PhRMA’s well cheered announcement to offer a 50% discount on name brand prescription drugs to seniors stuck in the money pit known as the Medicare “Doughnut Hole.”  The New York Times has said that the “Federal Saving From Lowering of Drug Prices Is Unclear” and the Washington Post has said that  ”It was not clear how much of the savings would accrue to the government side of the ledger and how much would represent lower out-of-pocket payments for consumers.” Unclear as it may be, it may be worth a look. This is not to say that this move announced by PhRMA is not a step in the right direction, just that a closer gauge of the step, as it appears at present, would seem to be in order.

First things first, in its 2008 fact sheet, “Prescription Drug Trends, September 2008,” Kaiser Family Foundation found (pdf. page 2) that

“The average brand name prescription price in 2007 was over 3 times the average generic price ($119.51 vs. $34.34).

Kaiser also found that “For products with a large number of generics, the average generic price falls to 20% of the branded price and lower.” And that “Approximately three-quarters of FDA-approved drugs have generic counterparts.”

When considering the approximately 25% of FDA-approved drugs which do not have generic counterparts, and which would figure largely in any savings under the new PhRMA discount plan, it is probably important to remember that pharmaceutical companies often  engage in what is known as “pay-for-delay:” the practice of paying generic drug manufacturers not to market generic drugs which would compete with their own branded drugs.

Might I suggest that without a concomitant decrease in the breadth of the lapse in coverage known as the “Doughnut Hole,” or some after purchase rebate scheme which allows the full price of the discounted drug to count towards satisfaction of the Doughnut Hole requirement, the net result for many of the hardest hit  seniors will be fairly limited? That they will still have to pull approximately $4,350 per year out of their pockets?

What’s a Doughnut Hole?

The PhRMA discount goes to the price of brand name prescription drugs after the initial cap is met on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. This initial cap on prescription benefit coverage can result in what CMS refers to as “the coverage gap” or what is often referred to as the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole.”

As we reported in a post back in February,

The Dallas Morning News has offered this explanation of “the doughnut hole”

Seniors with Medicare’s standard drug benefit for 2008 pay the full price once their total drug expenses — both Medicare’s costs and their own out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments — reach $2,510.

They are then on their own for the next $3,216, until their total drug spending exceeds $5,726. At that point, catastrophic coverage kicks in, and Medicare pays 95 percent of their drug costs.

Some seniors are able to avoid the doughnut hole because they qualify for extra government help or buy extra insurance. But everyone else has to mind the gap, which lawmakers included in Medicare’s drug benefit to hold the line on federal costs.
The WSJ Health Blog reports that in 2009, “The coverage gap will open up after beneficiaries and their drug plans have spent a total of $2,700 on medications…. Seniors are then on the hook for the next $4,350.”

We also noted that “In response to that expense, the Kaiser Foundation has shown that many seniors cease or diminish the use of their medications.”

Some simple, if not rudimentary, math
In order to make a complex matter slightly easier, allow me the liberty of making the numbers even: we’ll use $2,500 for an initial cap, and we’ll use $4,500 for the out of pocket or “on the hook number” — that which one must pay until Medicaid kicks in and pays 95% of the cost. [Because of the wide variation in coverage plans, the actual numbers can vary as well, and there is some fluctuation in the amounts reported.]

Again for even number ease sake, consider someone with a large, constituting catastrophic, $12,000 per year brand name prescription bill. That person, regardless of the discount, will still have to take $4,500 out of his or her own pocket during the Doughnut Hole period of non-coverage-unless the Donut Hole itself is changed or eliminated. Looking at the calendar year, if the Doughnut Hole is not changed or eliminated, with or without the discount, the initial cap ($2500 @ 1000 per month) will be met at around the middle of March. The primary difference with the discount is that instead of making it only to August before Medicaid picks up the tab for the consumer, Medicaid will not kick in until December. Under this scenario, the brand name consumer stands to ultimately save roughly $200 as a result of the 5% Medicaid co-pay,  and Medicaid will have to make a payment for the brand name pharmaceuticals for roughly 3 weeks worth of supply. But the consumer’s out of pocket $4,500 still went to the brand name  pharmaceutical. Read more

PhRMA Shows Its Committment to Transparency With Revised Principles on Conduct of Clinical Trials

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Board of Directors announced yesterday their unanimous endorsement of revised principles to increase transparency in medical research through their newly revised PhRMA Principles of Conduct of Clinical Trials and Communication of Clinical Trial Results.  The revised principles are part of an effort to encourage behavior that benefits the healthcare community and the public through objectivity in research and strengthened transparency in medical studies.

PhRMA states that the Principles of Conduct, which are to take effect on October 1, 2009, will:

Fortify our commitment to patients and healthcare professionals by increasing transparency in clinical trials, enhancing standards for medical research authorship and improving disclosure to manage potential conflicts of interest in medical research.

The pharmaceutical and biotech industries have been under recent pressure to become more transparent, specifically concerning the disclosure and publication of clinical trial results, the disclosure of physician payments/reimbursement for conducting clinical trials, and authorship standards.

Read more

Free Healthcare for the Newly Uninsured?

In a move that has garnered both praise and criticism, Walgreens is offering free health care at its in-store Take Care clinics to patients (and their uninsured children and spouses) who have lost their jobs.  This program, called the Take Care Clinic Take Care Recovery Plan, is designed to assist current and future patients who lose their jobs and health coverage on or after March 31, 2009.

Free services do not include full spectrum preventive care, but do include routine screening and treatment for respiratory illnesses, seasonal allergies, urinary tract infections, etc.  Quest Diagnostics has teamed up with Walgreens to provide free laboratory testing services associated with the care of qualified patients.   A significant item not covered by the program is the cost of any prescription necessary to complete treatment for any of these conditions.

Walgreens warns that “[t]he Take Care Recovery Plan is in no way intended as a substitute to COBRA health benefits or any other insurance” and advises patients to carefully consider all forms of coverage that may be available to them given the limitations of care available for free through a Take Care Clinic.

While many may view the program as an advertising stunt, it is hard not to take solace in the fact that families who might otherwise have to resort to a hospital emergency room, and potentially face an exhorbitantly high bill, may now take refuge in a local clinic.

As the economy continues to sour and the unemployment rate reaches levels not seen in more than a quarter-century (8.5%), the impact on access to healthcare and our economy could prove to be unprecedented.  One study indicates that for every 1% increase in unemployment, Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment would increase “by 1 million (600,000 children and 400,000 non-elderly adults) and cause the number of uninsured to grow by 1.1 million.” And as we noted in a post at the beginning of this year, there are those (including Jane Sarasohn Kahn of The Health Care Blog) who believe that even that dire metric will prove to be  somewhat understated for present conditions.

I am certain that Walgreens is concerned with its bottom-line in this effort: calling it an “experiment,” restricting the hours that non-paying patients can seek care, and noting that every patient who visits a clinic talks to about 8 other people about the experience.  Most people, I am certain, are aware that the move is a mere band-aid on a wound that is hemorrhaging.  But for the families the program helps, these points are probably irrelevant.  What is relevant is the fact that a company is using its own resources to provide free health care to a growing population who need it.

Health Care Costs for Retirees Equals Second Mortgage

Often, the costs of health care can seem abstract: we speak in the aggregate of billions and co-pays and deductibles and the labyrinth which is the “donut hole” formula for Medicare prescription drug payments. But sometimes we get to a number which instantly makes sense and allows us to have some grasp of the actual cost and the impact that health care costs can have. Fidelity Investments has just released such a number. Kaiser.org reports that

Couples Retiring This Year Need $240,000 To Cover Medical Expenses, Study Finds

A 65-year-old retired couple this year would need $240,000 on average to cover medical expenses, according to a recent study by Fidelity Investments, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports. The study assumed that the couple is covered by Medicare and has no employer-provided insurance. It also assumed that the male partner would have a life expectancy of 17 years, while the female partner would have a life expectancy of 20 years. The estimate includes Medicare deductibles, copayments and certain services that might not be covered by Medicare.

That’s out of pocket. That’s a house.

Or at least a house mortgage (not for a particularly big house here in metro New Jersey, but a house nonetheless). And to think that one would have to face that expense– equivalent to the mortgage on a whole other house–after presumably realizing (though the presumption is not as solid as it once may have been)  the American dream of having fully paid off that 30 year mortgage on the “first” house– is daunting to say the least, and arguably unconscionable as part of a social compact.

Kaiser reports that

The $240,000 estimate is a 6.7% increase from last year’s projection. Since Fidelity first released its annual report in 2002, projected medical expenses have increased by 50% (AP/Long Island Newsday, 3/31).

House Subcommittee Hearing Scheduled Today: The End of “Pay to Go Away” Deals Between Drugmakers?

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing was scheduled for today regarding the practice of brand-name pharmaceutical companies paying generic drugmakers to delay the launch of their drugs.  These agreements, sometimes known as “pay to go away” arrangements, allow the brand-name pharmaceutical companies to benefit by keeping the cheaper generic drugs off the market for a period of time,  and essentially holding a monopoly on the drug for longer.  The generic drug company also benefits, as they are paid to simply delay their drug’s entrance into the market.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the FTC has fought these payments for years, Democrats have discussed passing legislation to forbid such deals, and President Obama has promised to stop the arrangements in his budget.  Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) introduced a bill in February to abolish these deals and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced a comparable bill in the House last week.

The WSJ states that generic drugs can cost as little as a quarter of the brand-name drug, which can ultimately save billions of dollars in drug costs.  Eliminating the deals that keep the generic drugs off the market would therefore create significant savings to the country’s health care system.  Scott Hemphill, associate Professor at Columbia Law School, told the WSJ that ten brand-name drugs with about $17 billion in annual sales are now protected by the agreements, including Pfizer’s Lipitor.  Pfizer said that this was not the case.

Since 2001, the FTC has filed six suits to stop these deals, with little success.  However, in February, FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said that he believed Obama’s administration was going take action to stop the “pay to go away” deals.  According to Medical News Today:

Leibowitz said “The new administration does seem to recognize that this is a real problem.”  He added that “fixing it … would actually help pay for health care reform.” Leibowitz said FTC will take a two-pronged approach to stopping “pay-for-delay” settlements. First, the agency will challenge the most anti-competitive settlements in court, and secondly, it will support legislation against such deals. Leibowitz said he expects the Obama Department of Justice to be “much more supportive” of legal challenges to the settlements than the Bush administration. He added that it also is possible “the-pay-for delay settlement issue or problem will get resolved in health care reform, and … if that happens, then it will presumably get resolved more expeditiously.”

Unpublished 1997 Study Linked Drug to Weight Gain and Diabetes, Now Thousands Sue Claiming They Were Not Warned of Side Effects

The Washington Post reported today on the “silenced drug study” of AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic drug, Seroquel.   The study, known as Study 15, was conducted in 1997 and showed an increase in weight gain and diabetes among Seroquel users.  The results were never published and the information was not released to the public or physicians.  The study was, however, provided to the FDA but they did not have the authority to publish the results.  Seroquel was approved by the FDA in 1997 after they received the study’s findings.

AstraZeneca contends that they did disclose the drug’s health risks on the label, as required by the FDA.  Spokesperson Tony Jewell wrote in an email to The Washington Post that the results of Study 15 “did not identify any safety concerns.”  Study 15 compared Seroquel to another similar drug, Haldol.  Jewell also wrote that “A large proportion of patients dropped out in both groups, which the company felt made the results difficult to interpret.”

Over 9,000 lawsuits have been filed against the drug by patients who experienced weight gain, hyperglycemia and diabetes.  It is through these lawsuits that internal documents and details regarding the buried study have emerged.  Internal documents show that AstraZeneca was well aware of the results indicating significant weight gain and worked to spin the results favorably.  The company presented information that Seroquel caused patients to lose weight at two meetings in 1999. This data was based on a much smaller company-sponsored study even though AstraZeneca had concerns with the study and the doctor who conducted it.

The Washington Post says:

The saga of Study 15 has become a case study in how drug companies can control the publicly available research about their products, along with other practices that recently have prompted hand-wringing at universities and scientific journals, remonstrations by medical groups about conflicts of interest, and threats of exposure by trial lawyers and congressional watchdogs.

An obvious concern with unpublished or silenced studies is that they may lead physicians to make medical decisions without all the information that should be available to them.  As the Center for Health and Pharmaceutical Law & Policy recommends in its recently-released whitepaper:

All those engaged in medical research and publication, including medical professionals and institutions, medical journals, and industry, should undertake reforms to ensure the integrity of the medical literature.  Transparency in the relationship of industry and physicians would be critical tool in this effort.

The Life Cycle of Objectionable Drug Marketing Practices

[This is a guest post by Nathan Cortez, assistant professor of law at the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University. Cortez has published in the peer-reviewed Food and Drug Law Journal and teaches international health, pharmaceutical and administrative law. I've learned a lot from his work, and I'm happy he's agreed to let me post this here.]

By Nathan Cortez

The pharmaceutical industry spends some serious coin on sales and marketing-anywhere between $30 billion and $57 billion per year. And this money funds much more than the ubiquitous ad campaigns to which we’ve grown accustomed (sing along if you know the “Viva Viagra” jingle). Over the years, sales and marketing departments have conjured up increasingly creative marketing practices of questionable legality. For example, drug companies have funded “research” and “educational” grants of questionable validity, sponsored continuing medical education (CME), paid ghost writers to generate favorable journal articles, provided free gifts, meals, and entertainment to prescribers, paid prescribers as speakers, consultants, or preceptors, and even hired former college cheerleaders to gain access to prescribers. Most of these practices have been condemned, and many have been prosecuted, resulting in billions in settlements for federal and state governments. The pharmaceutical industry can’t even give away free drugs without being punished.

Last Monday, the New York Times highlighted yet another objectionable drug marketing practice: targeting medical schools. As the article explains, drug companies have long had ties to medical schools and their students by funding endowed chairs, faculty prizes, research grants, capital improvements, and even volunteering employees to teach classes. Students get showered with enough free pizza and trinkets to think that they might already have prescribing privileges. More recently, the Times reports that the faculty at Harvard Medical School has come under fire for its ties to drug companies that hire faculty as speakers, consultants, or even board members. More than 200 Harvard Med students have objected, leading the school to convene a 19-member panel to reevaluate the school’s conflict-of-interest policies (meanwhile, the University of Minnesota Medical School is loosening them).

In the “Life Cycle of Objectionable Drug Marketing Practices,” we’re currently at the “media coverage and public outrage” phase. Gradually, most of the practices listed in the initial paragraph have either disappeared or have lost their allure. Media coverage and public outrage is quickly followed by government outrage (possibly even Congressional hearings) and promises of self-regulation by the drug companies to preempt more stringent regulation. Self-regulatory efforts like the PhRMA Code and the AMA Ethical Guidelines provide some bright-line standards for complying with ridiculously broad laws like the federal anti-kickback statute and its complicated safe harbors. If companies still don’t get the hint, the government simply tells drug companies what not to do.

And if none of these events ends the Life Cycle of the Objectionable Drug Marketing Practice, litigation usually does. Pretty much every major pharmaceutical company has settled a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the government for violating federal drug marketing laws-the latest being a staggering $1.4 billion settlement paid by Eli Lilly to settle claims that it illegally marketed its anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa. By settling, companies thus avoid the “death penalty”–being excluded from Medicare and Medicaid.

Although the drug companies never die, the practices usually do, precipitated by an avalanche of government investigations, whistleblower suits, shareholder suits, and even marginally-related product liability suits. Federal and state lawmakers also pile on. In the last few years, nine states have enacted (and dozens have considered) pharmaceutical marketing laws, requiring disclosures of marketing payments made by drug companies to potential prescribers, in addition to caps on payments, disclosure of sales representative activities, and other prohibitions. Indeed, the Senate Finance Committee is currently considering a federal bill that would explicity preempt state laws.

Thus, the Objectionable Drug Marketing Practice dies a violent death. It can rest in peace, but the sales and marketing departments can’t. Because they have to find new ways to drive market share.

Biopharmaceutical Companies Continue to Advance and Invest In Rough Economic Times

A recent press release from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that pharmaceutical and biotech companies continue to invest substantial amounts of money into research & development, despite the dismal current economic situation.  Research from PhRMA and Burrill & Company shows that “pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies invested a record $65.2 billion last year in the research and development of new life-changing medicines and vaccines — an increase of roughly $2 billion from 2007.”  There are almost 30,000 medicines in development in the country right now.

In a time when most other industries are struggling and the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in 25 years, it is encouraging to see that the biopharmaceutical industry, one whose existence and success directly impacts the health of our nation, is continuing to invest and advance.  For example, this week we saw Merck make a serious investment through its $41.1 billion merger with Schering-Plough.    In addition, as we posted in December, Merck announced its plan to enter the biosimilars market, which will cost an estimated $1.5 billion.

Biopharmaceutical companies are continuing to spend on R & D, and the great majority of their investments are within the US.  According to “The Biopharmaceutical Sector’s Impact on the U.S. Economy: Analysis at the National, State, and Local Levels”, a study out this month by Archstone Consulting and Dr. Lawton R. Burns, this industry creates millions of US jobs and contributed three times as much to the GDP than the average of other industries and sectors in 2006.

Besides the struggling economy, drug companies face other challenges.  As we recently reported, President Obama’s health reform plan may negatively impact pharmaceutical companies through an increased discount to Medicaid (from 15.1% to 22.1% of avg. manufacturer’s price).   Despite the economic crisis and health care reform changes, it is hopeful to hear the industry’s continued commitment to progress. Said PhRMA President and CEO, Billy Tauzin:

America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies are not immune to the challenges presented by our current economic crisis.  However, the important work that we do every day in the battle with disease cannot stop. The U.S. is the world’s hotbed of medical innovation, and throughout the country, we remain committed today to finding tomorrow’s cures, despite the incredible challenges that are posed by the current economy.

Supreme Court Rules that Preemption Does Not Exist in Drug Labeling Case

The Supreme Court held today, in a 6-3 decision, that FDA federal approval of drug warning labels does not preempt state regulations and therefore does not prohibit claims of insufficient drug warnings brought under state law.  The ruling in Wyeth v. Levine upheld a $6.7 million award to Diane Levine, whose arm was amputated after a flawed injection of Wyeth’s anti-nausea drug, Phenergan.

The case centered on the drug’s labeling, as Ms. Levine argued that the label did not warn of the risks associated with administering the drug through “IV push” and that it must contain these warnings in accordance with Vermont law.   The NY Times reported that Wyeth wrote in their brief that they “could not change Phenergan’s labeling to comply with Vermont law without violating federal law.”   They argued that because the drug label was approved by the FDA, a federal agency, Levine’s state law claims were preempted by federal regulations.  The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, holding that Wyeth could have complied with both state and federal regulations, and reaffirmed the ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) filed an amicus brief for this case in August, 2008.  Today he issued the following statement regarding the Court’s decision:

This decision to uphold the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling in Wyeth v. Levine has far-reaching effects on the ability of countless Americans to seek justice in their courts. Diana Levine’s life and career have suffered irreparable - yet preventable - damage. The Court’s decision soundly rejects the anti-consumer position of the Bush administration, and reaffirms Congress’ primacy concerning the extraordinary power to preempt state law. Most of all, the decision reclaims for all American citizens the ability to seek justice in their courts of law.

In the 110th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held several hearings to examine the way in which federal agencies have overstepped their authority in the area of preemption, and, given what I viewed as an untenable position by the drug maker and the former administration, I filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in Ms. Levine’s case. I am gratified that the Court has spoken so clearly on this issue. While recent Supreme Court decisions have shielded big business from accountability and have undermined stronger state consumer protections, this ruling alters that earlier course and affirms that Congress never intended to preempt state laws in the way claimed by Wyeth and the Bush-Cheney administration, claimed. This is a clear victory for Ms. Levine, and for all American consumers. It is also a clear vindication for our own laws and courts in Vermont.

Wyeth’s comments on the decision can be found here.

As the Obama Budget Unfurls, Details About Health Care Reform Emerge

The New York Times has published an article, “Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care” which ably outlines the contours of the emergent health plan–and the way we’ll pay for it. Or at least the way President Obama proposes we’ll pay for it. According to the Times, “Mr. Obama asked Congress to set aside $634 billion in a ‘reserve fund for health care reform.’”

Suffice it to say, for the moment, that there are winners:

Cancer research, a multi-year plan designed to double it; Biosimilars (generic versions of biotech drugs), speeded approval through “a new regulatory pathway” at the Food and Drug Administration;” low-income women, increased access to family planning through Medicaid; and doctors, who will not be subjected to the Medicare cuts in payments scheduled to take effect in 2010 under current law (21% in 2010, 5% for a few years thereafter);

And there are losers:

Drug Companies, an increased discount to Medicaid (from 15.1% to 22.1% of avg. manufacturer’s price); Private Insurers, a cut in payments to Medicare Advantage providers; higher income Medicare recipients, increased prescription drug premiums; Hospitals, a decrease in Medicare payments for those hospitals with a high proportion of re-admits within 30 days of initial release (said to be indicative of  poor initial performance); home health agencies, a $37 billion cut over the next 10 years.

Of course, “loser” is a relative term; and sometimes a gored ox, if it lives, is better than no ox at all. And I would imagine that is easier to bear the loss of  some oxen than it is others: specifically, an increased discount in Medicaid prescription drug pricing, is not the ability of Medicare to bargain for the price of prescription drugs. A topic we wrote about in early January, and a reform which the Obama Health Care campaign plan promised:

“At present, Medicare is itself unable to negotiate drug pricing. In Obama’s campaign health plan, he stated that he would

‘Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug pricing. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality’ (footnotes omitted).”

My guess is that this is an ox the drug companies are trying to save.

Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy Releases White Paper Recommending Reform of Drug and Device Promotion

Seton Hall University School of Law’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has called for broad reforms in the marketing of drugs and devices. In a whitepaper, entitled, “Drug and Device Promotion: Charting a Course for Policy Reform,” the Center proposes legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationship of medicine and industry. “The time is right for reform in the marketing of drugs and devices to doctors,” said Center Executive Director Tracy Miller. “Conflicts of interest have become pervasive in medical practice. Reform is needed to ensure that patients’ interests are at the heart of medical education, practice, and research,” she said.

The Center recommends: (1) making payments by drug and device companies to doctors transparent, with public disclosure by industry and physicians of their financial relationships; (2) adopting federal legislation to ban gifts, meals and other benefits provided to doctors as part of the current marketing model; (3) setting new policies to give FDA the authority to require studies of safety and efficacy of drugs and devices used off-label; and (4) undertaking a fundamental change in funding for continuing medical education to end industry support.

Moving to Transparency. The Center recommends that payments by drug and device companies to doctors should be publicly disclosed. “Transparency is critical to shore up public trust in physicians and the collaboration of industry and medicine,” said Tracy Miller. Transparency would also foster better practices by doctors and industry, advance government oversight, and provide information to the press and public. Pending federal legislation, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, would require industry to disclose payments to doctors.

The Center supports this approach. It also recommends that states undertake disclosure by doctors, and decide how information about physician financial relationships with industry could best be shared with patients. Law Professor Kathleen Boozang adds that, “If doctors had to disclose payments from industry it would prompt them to examine their practices through the eyes of their patients and peers.”

Banning Gifts, Meals, Perks. The Center proposes adoption of federal legislation to ban the use of gifts, meals, and other perks to promote drugs and devices. The states have taken the lead to date–Massachusetts, California, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to limit or ban gifts and meals that are now routine in marketing practices. Concluding that industry self-regulation is not sufficient, the Center calls for national legislation to create uniform practices by industry and physicians. As urged by Professor Boozang, “the benefits of drugs and devices should drive promotion and physicians’ decision to prescribe, not a marketing model that depends on gifts and meals.”

Promoting Scientific Study of Off-Label Uses. The Center proposes that national policy should be redesigned to assure that physicians, patients and government have reliable information to make informed choices about off-label medications. Estimates suggest that as many as 40% of all prescriptions are for off-label uses. The FDA has recently issued guidelines to promote integrity and accuracy in medical articles that drug and device companies give to doctors. The Center urges that this policy guidance, while useful, does not go far enough to provide crucial information about the safety and efficacy of drugs and devices prescribed by doctors for uses other than those approved by the FDA.

The Center proposes giving FDA the authority to mandate scientific studies for off-label medications and devices that have high sales volumes or large profits but lack needed evidence of efficacy or safety. This would protect the interests of patients and advance sound choices about the risks, benefits, and economic value of off-label uses.

Reforming Funding for Continuing Medical Education (CME). Most states require physicians to undertake continuing medical education to maintain their medical license. The drug and device industry currently funds over half of the accredited CME courses available to physicians. The Center recommends that industry funding for continuing medical education should be phased out, and replaced by an educational process driven by physicians. As stated by Tracy Miller, “Physicians need to retake control of their professional education. CME should focus on doctors as professionals caring for the whole patient, not just as prescribers of drugs and devices.” While the transition to new funding occurs, the Center recommends that speakers at CME events should disclose more information about their financial interests, and physicians who are paid to promote drugs and devices should not speak at CME events about those products.

Factual Background for the Recommendations

• Ninety-four percent of physicians have some kind of financial relationship with industry, as reported in a major recent national study.

• Five states–Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia– have required industry to disclose financial relationships with physicians.

• As shown by a recent Congressional investigation of payments by industry to prominent psychiatrists, even at universities with strong disclosure policies, practices have not kept pace, leaving the public in the dark about financial ties between physicians and industry.

• Medications are widely used off-label, especially in certain fields such as psychiatry, pediatrics, and oncology. A recent study found that 73% of off-label uses lack evidence of efficacy.

• Commercial support for accredited CME, nearly all of it from drug and device manufacturers, grew from $302 million in 1998 to $1.2 billion in 2006.

Read Whitepaper here.

Prolegomena to Prononymity: What’s the Worst that Can Happen?

America needs electronic medical records (EMR). There are plenty of reasons why we are so far behind other nations in consolidating medical data: lack of strong central leadership on the issue, unwarranted faith in markets to produce solutions, and overwhelmed medical professionals who have little if any slack time to put a new system into place. Even as President Obama pushes for investment in EMR, privacy concerns are also slowing down progress:

Lawmakers, caught in a crossfire of lobbying by the health care industry and consumer groups, have been unable to agree on privacy safeguards that would allow patients to control the use of their medical records. . . . The data in medical records has great potential commercial value. Several companies, for example, buy and sell huge amounts of data on the prescribing habits of doctors, and the information has proved invaluable to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

“Health I.T. without privacy is an excellent way for companies to establish a gold mine of information that can be used to increase profits, promote expensive drugs, cherry-pick patients who are cheaper to insure and market directly to consumers,” said Dr. Deborah C. Peel, coordinator of the Coalition for Patient Privacy, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union among its members.

Health IT turns out to be one many areas where a drive for prononymity–that is, the de-anonymizing of records of on- and off-line life–is running up against a wall of wary citizens and consumers. In the health field, I think that resistance is only going to end if we have a robust “backstop” of health care in place so that citizens don’t have to worry about losing all coverage if a digital dossier presents them as a bad risk. (Medicaid as presently constituted does not count.) Far from overwhelming the health care system with pent-up demand, universal health coverage may be a prerequisite for generating support for the type of EMR that will provide us all with far better care.

A trend to prononymity in general should be matched with greater commitment to assuring that it won’t result in particularly harsh results. For example, people should not be denied a job for being identifiable as a Democrat in a blog post, whatever Monica Goodling thinks. Nor should doctor’s notes about a patient’s dark thoughts come back to haunt the patient when she or he applies for medical insurance. And if they do, there should be a genuine insurer of last resort available–not the patchwork of Medicaid and charity care that presently leave so many uninsured people falling through the cracks.

That’s one reason why I advocate the development of a Fair Reputation Reporting Act, which would allow individuals to know the documentary basis of certain key adverse decisions. I summarize the proposal here:

Reputation regulation has become essential because traditional restrictions on data flows inadequately constrain decisionmakers and important intermediaries (including search engines and bulletin boards). . . . Persistent and searchable databases now feed unprecedented amounts of poorly vetted information into vital decisions about employment, credit, and insurance. Rumors about a person’s sexual orientation (or experiences), health status, incompetence, or nastiness can percolate in blogs and message boards.

Even if the First Amendment and anonymity protect the authors of such rumors, affected individuals deserve to know whether certain important decisionmakers rely on them. In limited cases, the intermediary source of the information should also provide the target of a derogatory posting with the opportunity to annotate it. A Fair Reputation Reporting Act would empower individuals to know the basis of adverse employment, credit, and insurance decisions-and to go to their source (and the source of their salience) to demand some relief from digital scarlet letters.

In summary, privacy concerns are only likely to die down if individuals know either 1) that the consequences of a privacy breach are not likely to be severe or 2) that they can find out instances of the improper use of data. In the health care context in the US, neither qualifier holds: the individual insurance market routinely denies care to individuals on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and individuals have little sense of exactly how such determinations are made. Prononymity needs to work both ways: if our health conditions are to be the subject of increasing availability, so too must the decision-making processes that could use that data to our detriment become more transparent.

PS: Market mavens may promote a “Google Health Search” as the optimal solution here. If this 800 pound gorilla can get all the publishers in line to settle their copyright claims, perhaps it has some chance at bringing the medical industry to heel; however, the political power of doctors and insurers dwarfs that of publishers. The concentration of that much data in one company should also provoke some worries.