Recommended Reading: Recent Scholarship on Drug and Device Regulation

In Patients Over Politics: Addressing Legislative Failure in the Regulation of Medical Products (forthcoming in the 2011 volume of the Wisconsin Law Review and available on SSRN), Efthimios Parasidis proposes a significant expansion of drug and device companies’ responsibility to engage in “active post-market analysis” of drugs and devices, to be coupled with a new rule that only companies that conducted such analysis would benefit from preemption of state tort claims.  Professor Parasidis’ article includes a nuanced and revealing analysis of the historical and other reasons for the Food and Drug Administration’s heavy focus on pre-market review of drugs at the expense of post-market surveillance, as well as useful updates on both the caselaw regarding the preemption of claims involving branded drugs, generic drugs, devices, and vaccines and the ongoing efforts to use health information technology to glean information about the safety and efficacy of marketed products.  Most notable, though, is the article’s thorough explication of Professor Parasidis’ interesting proposal that “preemption laws, which often are enacted pursuant to industry lobbying efforts [be linked to] protocols that further the public health.”

In Enforcing Integrity (forthcoming in the 2011 volume of the Indiana Law Journal and available on SSRN), Katrice Bridges Copeland makes a strong case for her conclusion that neither the exclusion of pharmaceutical manufacturers from Medicare and Medicaid — a punishment which the government is reluctant to impose because it would spell the end for the company — nor the use of corporate integrity agreements coupled with large fines — which manufacturers agree to in order to avoid exclusion — works to deter illegal marketing activities.  As Professor Copeland notes, numerous companies have learned that “the punishment for multiple offenses is simply another CIA and another fine.”  She recommends that the government consider a number of alternative penalties for repeat offenders, including (1) requiring that manufacturers fund clinical trials studying the off-label uses for which they promoted their products, (2) requiring that they license the product or products at issue to other manufacturers, (3) holding high-level individuals criminally liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, and (4) amending the Social Security Act to allow for the exclusion of particular drugs (as opposed to entire companies) from Medicare and Medicaid.

Finally, I recommend Seton Hall Law’s own Jordan Paradise’s fascinating article, Claiming Nanotechnology: Improving USPTO Efforts at Classification of Emerging Nano-Enabled Pharmaceutical Technologies (forthcoming in the 2011 volume of the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property and available on SSRN), in which she argues that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s system for classifying patents on nanotechnology-related inventions, “[w]hile undoubtedly helpful for internal purposes,” cedes too much to the courts.  Reviewing the facts of the recent case Elan Pharma International v. Abraxis Bioscience, which involved a dispute over two patents describing nano or near-nano scale versions of the same existing cancer-fighting agent and was tried to a jury verdict, Professor Paradise points out several ways in which the patents’ claims potentially overlap.  She argues that the courts are “a clumsy forum” for sorting out the “complex patent law issues that arise based on scale, size, and interactions at the nanoscale that transcend previously envisioned physical and chemical boundaries[,]” and offers concrete recommendations for steps the USPTO can take to improve its classification efforts to reduce the number of patents with potentially overlapping claims thereby making court involvement less necessary.

Does the Ban on Off-Label Promotion Bar On-Label Promotion?: The Case of Call Plans

As predicted, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health pharmaceutical companies have raised First Amendment challenges to the ban on off-label promotion on a number of fronts.  Most recently, Par Pharmaceutical sued to invalidate the ban to the extent that it “criminalize[s] Par’s truthful and non-misleading speech to healthcare professionals concerning the FDA-approved use of its FDA-approved prescription drug.”  How is it that the ban on off-label promotion could be interpreted to bar the on-label promotion in which Par wishes to engage?  At the heart of Par’s dispute with the government are the “call plans” that pharmaceutical companies develop using the prescriber-specific prescription data at issue in Sorrell.

Call plans set forth which physicians pharmaceutical sales representatives should visit and how often.  In an article in the current issue of Next Generation Pharmaceutical magazine, Matthew Linkewich and Jay Margolis of IMS Health explain that a “properly conceived and configured … call plan directs reps to those physicians whose practice characteristics, constellation of prescribing behaviors and attitudes are conducive to supporting the brand goals.”  Because call plans embody “brand goals,” the government has focused on them as evidencing companies’ intent to engage in off-label promotion.

For example, in a December 15, 2010 press release announcing a $214.5 million settlement with Elan Corporation, the Department of Justice highlighted the fact that Elan’s “off-label marketing efforts” for its anti-epilepsy drug Zonegran “targeted non-epilepsy prescribers.”   A January 28, 2011 press release announcing the formal sentencing of Novartis in a case involving off-label promotion of its anti-epilepsy drug, Trileptal, similarly noted that the company “decided to market and promote Trileptal as a treatment for [two off-label indications, bipolar disease and neuropathic disease] and directed its sales force to visit doctors who would not normally prescribe Trileptal due to the nature of their practice.” Novartis’ plea agreement explains that while epilepsy is treated by epileptologists and neurologists, the company’s call plan included psychiatrists and pain doctors.

The corporate integrity agreement that Novartis entered into as part of the settlement of the Trileptal-related claims against it provides for independent review of “the bases upon which [health care providers] and [health care institutions] belonging to specified medical specialties are included in, or excluded from, the Call Plans based on, among other factors, expected utilization of Government Reimbursed Products for FDA-approved uses or non-FDA-approved uses[.]“  The corporate integrity agreement requires a similar review of the company’s sampling strategy and goes so far as to bar the company from delivering samples to health care providers identified by the company as “belong[ing] to a specialty group that is unlikely to prescribe” the sampled product on-label.

Currently, Par Pharmaceutical’s call plan for its appetite stimulant Megace, which is FDA-approved for the treatment of AIDS-related wasting, does not include oncology practices or long-term care facilities.  With the help of an outside consultant, Par determined that physicians in those settings “reasonably may encounter patients suffering from AIDS-related wasting, and thus may have occasion to prescribe [Megace] for its on-label use,” but all agree that they would be much more likely to prescribe the drug off-label to treat wasting in cancer and geriatric patients.  In the concluding paragraphs of Par’s complaint, it explains that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, which is investigating the company’s marketing practices, has informed the company that before it promotes a drug for its on-label use to doctors who prescribe the drug off-label it must “confirm that there are presently a sufficient number of patients being treated for whom the drug could be prescribed on-label.”

As Par points out, the government has offered no guidance regarding the number of on-label patients that a doctor must treat before he or she can be included in a company’s call plan.  On the one hand, this is to be expected because the call plan is only one factor that the government considers in determining a company’s intent.  On the other hand, it leaves companies like Par without a clear course to follow and, after Sorrell, likely to sue.

FDA’s ‘Bad Ad’ Program is in Full Effect

Last spring, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched the Truthful Prescription Drug Advertising and Promotion Program (known more accessibly as the “Bad Ad Program“). The goal of the program is to enlist the help of health care professionals, consumers, and industry representatives in noting FDA violations and reporting activities and messages that are false or misleading. Common drug marketing violations include omitting or downplaying risk, overstating effectiveness, promoting off-label uses and making misleading drug comparisons. The program is run by the FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC), which is responsible for “ensuring truthful advertising and promotion of prescription drugs.”

The FDA published a year-end report in May noting that the program has been successful in raising awareness. DDMAC received 328 reports of potentially untruthful or misleading promotions in one year, with the majority of those submitted by health care professionals (188 reports) and consumers (116 reports). The report notes that prior to the Bad Ad program, the FDA received an average of about 104 reports per year.

And the Bad Ad tips are still coming in. Just at the end of last month, DDMAC issued a reprimand letter to Pfizer’s Vice President of US Regulatory Affairs regarding misleading advertising of drugs on the company’s Lipitor website. A complaint to the Bad Ad program observed that the links from the Lipitor site led to pages for the drugs Caduet (for high cholesterol and blood pressure), Norvasc (for high blood pressure), and Chantix (for smoking cessation). But each of those pages failed to note any of the risk information associated with the drugs, which is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The FDA states that “by omitting the most serious and frequently occurring risks associated with Caduet, Chantix, and Norvasc, the webpage misleadingly suggests that these drugs are safer than have been demonstrated.” The letter ends with a request that Pfizer immediately stop the dissemination of violative promotional materials for the drugs. The company was to have submitted a written response to the complaint by September 14^th that states how they will comply with the request.

While the Bad Ad program may be working to raise awareness among health professionals and consumers, one violation may not be enough to induce compliance from pharmaceutical companies. In fact, DDMAC already chided Pfizer in March of 2009 for omitting risk information for Caduet and Chantix. In that case, Pfizer sponsored links for the drugs on Internet search engines. The sites linked to did not mention any risk information and therefore, presumably,  can be said to have also represented the products in a manner which, as above, suggests that these drugs are safer than have been demonstrated.” The most recent letter states that “DDMAC is concerned that Pfizer is continuing to promote its products in a similarly violative manner.” A citizen’s task force is a good way for the FDA to multiply their eyes and ears to keep tabs on misleading and/or violative advertisement. We’ll see what further successes the next year-end report for the Bad Ad program can show. Or, perhaps, success might also be measured in the absence of violations.

New Profit Opportunities In American Health Care

I notice there is a lot of handwringing over the Affordable Care Act’s “government takeover” of the health care system. So let’s take a look at some exciting new markets that are still thriving.

1) At the beginning of the summer, I noted some problematic drug shortages (bottom half of post). The problem keeps getting worse. There is a steady stream of heartrending stories about care being compromised. Reform measures to assure an adequate supply are moving at a snail’s pace, thanks both to truculent manufacturers and the bipartisan drumbeat to “cut health care costs.” But at least some folks are thriving: as the NY Times notes, ‎”Unscrupulous wholesalers have made matters worse by scooping up scarce drugs and offering them to hospitals at markups that often reach 20 times the normal price or more.”

What a great business model! So glad the “free market” is working its magic on health delivery. While we’re at it, let’s allow ER docs to force patients to sign over half their bank accounts before treatment. That will certainly increase the supply of emergency rooms, even if the transition is a little bumpy for some people.

By the way, I’m sure some will argue that, if only Medicare weren’t paying for many of these drugs, we’d be fine. (Or at least the “we” capable of paying for the drugs at a “market price,” whatever that is, would be fine.) Query: Would there have been adequate incentive to create the drugs if a major purchaser like Medicare hadn’t paid what it did while the drug was on patent? No, I didn’t think so. Income and wealth in our society is still equally distributed enough (and coordination problems severe enough) that the top 1% won’t sustain a thriving hospital and drug research system all by themselves, even if they are the critical factors in one’s policy calculus. As I noted earlier, it’s hard to imagine individuals, or even wealthy groups, stockpiling all drugs they might need, particularly the sterile injectables or biotech solutions that are critical to advanced medicine. Even the very wealthy must rely on a steady, more general demand for these products. They can’t just order them up for just-in-time delivery, like a Tiffany watch. Public subvention—ranging from research grants to Medicare and Medicaid funding for the products research generates—provides that demand.

2) Pauline Chen reports on an “insurance maze” for US doctors, based on a new Health Affairs study comparing their practices to those of their neighbors to the north:

Physicians in Canada, where health care is administered mainly by the government, did spend a good deal of time and money communicating with their payers. But American doctors in the study spent far more dealing with multiple health plans: more than $80,000 per year per physician, or roughly four times as much as their northern counterparts. And their offices spent as many as 21 hours per week with payers, nearly 10 times as much as the Canadian offices.

Clearly the US has a comparative advantage in generating insurance-based hassles. Maybe we can keep specializing there, and aim to spend five times as much as the Canadians by 2014. The more choice, the better, whatever the cost, right? Think of all the people employed by this gauntlet of private sector checks and balances:

A young patient complaining of extreme fatigue, for example, might benefit from a $40 blood test that could confirm infectious mononucleosis in 10 minutes. But a doctor cannot order the simple test without first checking with the insurance company to see if it is covered and if there are any constraints on where the patient’s blood can be drawn and the test run.

Tracking down answers often means phone calls with long periods on hold, digging up old patient information and even recruiting office workers to act as specimen couriers to other labs and hospitals in order to expedite results or save frail patients or harried family members the hassle of traveling to an “approved site” for a test or procedure. “If someone comes in with a sick infant who needs a test, we often eat the costs and draw the blood ourselves,” Dr. Star said. “We aren’t going to tell them to put that kid in a car seat, drive a mile to an approved lab, park, register, then wait in line.”

If you’re an insurer (or the insurance industry), you’ve “won” to the extent you’ve foisted these costs and inconveniences onto doctors and patients. You certainly don’t want to abide by new Medical Loss Ratio requirements that limit the extent to which you employ these strategies of cost-shifting, delay, and denial of needed care. The “free market” is your friend, as is anyone who insists that health care delivery can be guided by the same economic principles that govern every other commodity.

Generic Drugs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Confidence

Smarter prescribing and better medication management are linchpins of current efforts to care for those with chronic medical conditions in a more consistent, coordinated, and, it is hoped, affordable manner.  A study reported in last month’s Health Affairs found that using medication to control patients’ blood sugar levels and lower their blood pressure and cholesterol is not just cost-effective, it can actually save money by reducing “downstream complications and the use of health services that outweigh the cost of the medications themselves.”  Notably, these cost savings can only be achieved if the medications in question are generics.  The authors conclude that “in a health care system strapped for resources, physicians will increasingly use generics, and patients will have to expect that most of their medications will be generic.”

As the authors also note, resistance to generics, on the part of both patients and their doctors, is longstanding and persistent.  Some of this can be chalked up to the intense and wide-ranging marketing campaigns that innovator companies mount on behalf of branded drugs.  Branded medications used to treat chronic conditions are especially heavily marketed, including through the use of free samples.  Numerous studies (here’s a recent one out of Vermont) show that physicians with sample closets in their offices are less likely than those without sample closets to prescribe generics where appropriate.

Interestingly, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced earlier this year that Medicaid Part D prescription drug plans “may incur expenses related to distribution of and reporting on generic drug samples, provided to members within a physician’s office setting, under the plan’s administrative cost structure if doing so is consistent with a cost effective drug utilization management program.”  CMS explained that generic samples have the potential to reduce the government’s overall costs and to promote compliance with drug therapies by reducing enrollees’ current and future cost sharing expenses.  (George Van Antwerp argues here that CMS overstates the benefits of generic samples, but only because generic fill rates are rising so fast without them.)

Marketing is not the whole story behind lingering resistance to generics, though.  As the New York Times recently reported, most generic drugs are manufactured in “a shadowy network of facilities in China and India that are rarely visited by government inspectors, who sometimes cannot even find the plants.”  While plants in the United States are inspected at least once every two years, the Food and Drug Administration has historically lacked the resources to provide the same level of oversight to foreign facilities.  An “epoch-making” agreement between the FDA and generic drug manufacturers will, assuming it is approved by Congress, change this.  The manufacturers have agreed to pay $299 million in annual fees to, among other things, fund inspections of foreign plants on the same schedule that applies to domestic plants.  As the Times notes: “[T]he generic drug industry is no longer a motley collection of struggling mom-and-pop companies.  Years of consolidation have created giants like Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals that understand that their businesses depend on winning the confidence of patients and regulators alike, and they can afford to pay the fees needed to achieve that confidence.”

Auditing Studies of Anti-Depressants

Marcia Angell has kicked off another set of controversies for the pharmaceutical sector in two recent review essays in the New York Review of Books. She favorably reviews meta-research that calls into question the effectiveness of many antidepressant drugs:

Kirsch and his colleagues used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain FDA reviews of all placebo-controlled clinical trials, whether positive or negative, submitted for the initial approval of the six most widely used antidepressant drugs approved between 1987 and 1999—Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Serzone, and Effexor. . . .Altogether, there were forty-two trials of the six drugs. Most of them were negative. Overall, placebos were 82 percent as effective as the drugs, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), a widely used score of symptoms of depression. The average difference between drug and placebo was only 1.8 points on the HAM-D, a difference that, while statistically significant, was clinically meaningless. The results were much the same for all six drugs: they were all equally unimpressive. Yet because the positive studies were extensively publicized, while the negative ones were hidden, the public and the medical profession came to believe that these drugs were highly effective antidepressants.

Angell discusses other research that indicates that placebos can often be nearly as effective as drugs for conditions like depression. Psychiatrist Peter Kramer, a long-time advocate of anti-depressant therapy, responded to her last Sunday. He admits that “placebo responses . . . have been steadily on the rise” in FDA data; “in some studies, 40 percent of subjects not receiving medication get better.” But he believes that is only because the studies focus on the mildly depressed:

The problem is so big that entrepreneurs have founded businesses promising to identify genuinely ill research subjects. The companies use video links to screen patients at central locations where (contrary to the practice at centers where trials are run) reviewers have no incentives for enrolling subjects. In early comparisons, off-site raters rejected about 40 percent of subjects who had been accepted locally — on the ground that those subjects did not have severe enough symptoms to qualify for treatment. If this result is typical, many subjects labeled mildly depressed in the F.D.A. data don’t have depression and might well respond to placebos as readily as to antidepressants.

Yves Smith finds Kramer’s response unconvincing:

The research is clear: the efficacy of antidepressants is (contrary to what [Kramer's] article suggests) lower than most drugs (70% is a typical efficacy rate; for antidepressants, it’s about 50%. The placebo rate is 20% to 30% for antidepressants). And since most antidepressants produce side effects, patients in trials can often guess successfully as to whether they are getting real drugs. If a placebo is chosen that produces a symptom, say dry mouth, the efficacy of antidepressants v. placebos is almost indistinguishable. The argument made in [Kramer's] article to try to deal with this inconvenient fact, that many of the people chosen for clinical trials really weren’t depressed (thus contending that the placebo effect was simply bad sampling) is utter[ly wrong]. You’d see the mildly/short-term depressed people getting both placebos and real drugs. You would therefore expect to see the efficacy rate of both the placebo and the real drug boosted by the inclusion of people who just happened to get better anyhow.

Felix Salmon also challenges Kramer’s logic:

[Kramer's view is that] lots of people were diagnosed with depression and put onto a trial of antidepressant drugs, even when they were perfectly healthy. Which sounds very much like the kind of thing that Angell is complaining about: the way in which, for instance, the number of children so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was 35 times higher in 2007 than it was in 1987. And it’s getting worse: the editors of DSM-V, to be published in 2013, have written that “in primary care settings, approximately 30 percent to 50 percent of patients have prominent mental health symptoms or identifiable mental disorders, which have significant adverse consequences if left untreated.”

Those who would defend psychopharmacology, then, seem to want to have their cake and eat it: on the one hand it seems that serious mental health disorders have reached pandemic proportions, but on the other hand we’re told that a lot of people diagnosed with those disorders never really had them in the first place.

That is a very challenging point for the industry to consider as it responds to concerns like Angell’s. The diagnosis of mental illness will always have ineradicably economic dimensions and politically contestable aims. But doctors and researchers should insulate professional expertise and the interpretation of maladies as much as possible from inappropriate pressures.

How can they maintain that kind of independent clinical judgment? I think one key is to assure that data from all trials is open to all researchers. Consider, for instance, these findings from a NEJM study on “selective publication:”

We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. . . . Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall. (emphasis added).

Melander, et al. also worried (in 2003) that, since “The degree of multiple publication, selective publication, and selective reporting differed between products,” “any attempt to recommend a specific selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the publicly available data only is likely to be based on biased evidence.” Without clearer “best practices” for data publication, clinical judgment may be impaired.

Full disclosure of study funding should also be mandatory and conspicuous, wherever results are published. Ernest R. House has reported that, “In a study of 370 ‘randomized’ drug trials, studies recommended the experimental drug as the ‘treatment of choice’ in 51% of trials sponsored by for-profit organizations compared to 16% sponsored by nonprofits.” The commodification of research has made it too easy to manipulate results, as Bartlett & Steele have argued:

One big factor in the shift of clinical trials to foreign countries is a loophole in F.D.A. regulations: if studies in the United States suggest that a drug has no benefit, trials from abroad can often be used in their stead to secure F.D.A. approval. There’s even a term for countries that have shown themselves to be especially amenable when drug companies need positive data fast: they’re called “rescue countries.” Rescue countries came to the aid of Ketek, the first of a new generation of widely heralded antibiotics to treat respiratory-tract infections. Ketek was developed in the 1990s by Aventis Pharmaceuticals, now Sanofi-Aventis. In 2004 . . . the F.D.A. certified Ketek as safe and effective. The F.D.A.’s decision was based heavily on the results of studies in Hungary, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey.

The approval came less than one month after a researcher in the United States was sentenced to 57 months in prison for falsifying her own Ketek data. . . . As the months ticked by, and the number of people taking the drug climbed steadily, the F.D.A. began to get reports of adverse reactions, including serious liver damage that sometimes led to death. . . . [C]ritics were especially concerned about an ongoing trial in which 4,000 infants and children, some as young as six months, were recruited in more than a dozen countries for an experiment to assess Ketek’s effectiveness in treating ear infections and tonsillitis. The trial had been sanctioned over the objections of the F.D.A.’s own reviewers. . . . In 2006, after inquiries from Congress, the F.D.A. asked Sanofi-Aventis to halt the trial. Less than a year later, one day before the start of a congressional hearing on the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug, the agency suddenly slapped a so-called black-box warning on the label of Ketek, restricting its use. (A black-box warning is the most serious step the F.D.A. can take short of removing a drug from the market.) By then the F.D.A. had received 93 reports of severe adverse reactions to Ketek, resulting in 12 deaths.

The great anti-depressant debate is part of a much larger “re-think” of the validity of data. Medical claims can spread virally without much evidence. According to a notable meta-researcher, “much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong.” The “decline effect” dogs science generally. Statisticians are also debunking ballyhooed efforts to target cancer treatments.

Max Weber once said that “radical doubt is the father of knowledge.” Perhaps DSM-VI will include a diagnosis for such debilitating skepticism. But I think there’s much to be learned from an insistence that true science is open, inspectable, and replicable. Harvard’s program on “Digital Scholarship” and the Yale Roundtable on Data and Code Sharing* have taken up this cause, as has the work of Victoria Stodden.

We often hear that the academic sector has to become more “corporate” if it is to survive and thrive. At least when it comes to health data, the reverse is true: corporations must become much more open about the sources and limits of the studies they conduct. We can’t resolve the “great anti-depressant debate,” or prevent future questioning of pharma’s bona fides, without such commitments.

*In the spirit of full disclosure: I did participate in this roundtable.

Distribution Controls: A Potentially Powerful Weapon Against Inappropriate or Dangerous Off-Label Use

When supplies of sodium thiopental dried up earlier this year, states turned to other drugs to carry out executions by lethal injection.  The anti-seizure drug pentobarbital, marketed as Nembutal, is one such drug.  An estimated two-thirds of the thirty-four states with the death penalty have switched or considered switching to Nembutal; states that have made the switch include Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.  As of earlier this month, Nembutal had been used in eighteen executions this year.

Like sodium thiopental, Nembutal is an off-patent drug that serves a relatively small market.  The sole company licensed to manufacture Nembutal in the United States, the Danish firm Lundbeck Inc., has been the target of a public relations and investment campaign by human rights activists calling for the end to the use of the drug in executions.  Lundbeck has never sold Nembutal directly to prisons, however, and initially the company said that there was nothing it could do to control the drug’s re-sale.  As a spokesperson explained:

We can’t withdraw the product because it is used for treating severe epilepsy and sometimes it’s the only treatment option.  All we can do is write to the prisons urging them to stop misusing using our product which was designed to help sick people.  It’s a really unfortunate situation.

Earlier this month, Lundbeck announced that it had determined that there were steps it could take beyond letter writing.  The company considered ceasing production of the drug altogether–it represents less than one percent of the company’s sales and is, in the company’s words, “economically insignificant”–but decided against doing so in light of survey evidence that the fifty million doses of the drug it sells in the United States each year are important for treating epilepsy that is severe and refractory (that is, unresponsive to other drugs).

Lundbeck decided instead to distribute Nembutal through Cardinal Health’s Specialty Pharmaceutical Services on a “drop-ship” basis, directly to hospitals.  Less than ten percent of drugs are distributed directly to end-user customers in this way, typically “cancer treatments that are expensive, difficult to make, or not in high demand.”  Lundbeck will review each Nembutal order and deny those from “from prisons in states currently active in carrying out death penalty sentences.”  Every purchaser will be required to represent in writing “that the purchase of [Nembutal] is for its own use and that it will not redistribute any purchased product without the express written authorization of Lundbeck.”  Lundbeck’s CEO has warned that the company will take unspecified “legal action” against any purchaser who violates these terms.

Lundbeck’s decision to use a drop-ship program and purchaser agreements to take responsibility for the off-label uses to which its product is put once it leaves the company’s control raises the question whether other companies could or should be asked to do the same.  In some cases, issues of scale will foreclose such an approach.  In other cases, a company and/or regulators may have concerns about inappropriate or dangerous off-label use but not be able to link it to an easily identified class of would-be purchasers like “prisons in states currently active in carrying out death penalty sentences.”  (Note that even in Lundbeck’s case the agreements are overbroad to the extent that they deny access to Nembutal to prisoners in death penalty states who need the drug to treat severe, refractory epilepsy.)  In still other cases, however, taking control of distribution will be a feasible, and powerful, compliance tool.  The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Lazanda (fentanyl) Nasal Spray, recently posted to the Food and Drug Administration website, which provides that would-be distributors enroll in the REMS program and agree to limit their distribution to specially-certified pharmacies which are also enrolled in the program, is just one example.

The Disturbing Rise in Drug Shortages: A “Multifactorial” Problem

With the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology this past week came a wave of news stories about cancer and cancer treatment.  Frank Pasquale highlights a disturbing warning issued by oncologists at the meeting, that “cancer medicines desperately needed by sick children and adults are in short supply, undermining the ability of U.S. doctors to administer treatments.”  Supplies of other medicines are running short, too, including treatments for anaphylactic shock, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cardiac arrest, cystic fibrosis, and infertility.

Writing for the AP, Lauran Neergaard reports that “[t]he problem of scarce supplies or even completely unavailable medications isn’t a new one but it’s getting markedly worse.”  According to Lancet Oncology, there were a record 211 drug shortages in 2011, up from 166 in 2009, 149 in 2008, 129 in 2007, and 70 in 2006.  Neergard adds that “another 89 drug shortages have occurred in the first three months of this year[.]”

Most of the medicines that have run short are sterile injectable drugs, which are complex and time-consuming to manufacture.  (The anesthesia drug sodium thiopental which I blogged about here falls into this category.)  And, most, or even all, of the shortfall drugs are no longer subject to protection from a patent or Food & Drug Administration-administered exclusivity period, so the innovator firms that developed them are subject to competition from generic manufacturers.  The resultant lower prices and slimmer profit margins mean that, in the words of leading oncologist Dr. Richard Schilsky, the manufacturers’ return on investment is “pretty low.”

Among the reasons cited for the rise in drug shortages are the inherent challenges of manufacturing sterile injectable drugs, the low return on investment facing generic manufacturers, which has led the number of manufacturers of any given generic drug to dwindle, drug company mergers, which can result in the discontinuation of one of two similar products, the time it takes the FDA to approve applications to make manufacturing changes, for example a change in the source of a drug’s active ingredient, and the failure of the FDA to act expeditiously in investigating manufacturing problems and clearing plants to resume production once the problems have been resolved.

The Preserving Access to Lifesaving Medications Act, introduced in February by Senators Robert Casey and Amy Klobuchar, would require manufacturers to notify FDA “of a discontinuance, interruption, or other adjustment of the manufacture of the drug that would likely result in a shortage of such drug[.]“  Per Lauran Neergard, the FDA “was able to prevent 38 close calls from turning into shortages last year by speeding approval of manufacturing changes or urging competing companies to get ready to meet a shortfall.”  The FDA has even permitted (temporarily) the import of medicines approved outside the United States when necessary to mitigate shortages.

Participants in a Drug Shortages Summit convened late last year by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and others recommended that additional legislative and regulatory reforms be explored, ranging from providing incentives to manufacturers in exchange for a guarantee that they continue producing critical drugs, to charging manufacturers fees to fund expedited FDA review of applications for permission to manufacture generic drugs, to requiring manufacturing redundancies (e.g. that more than one source for a drug’s active ingredient be identified) as a condition of approval.  Interestingly, while some participants in the Drug Shortages Summit argued that products liability exposure could cause companies to withdraw drugs from the market, the manufacturers who attended denied this, calling the decision “multifactorial.”  There is evidence to support the manufacturers’ claim.  As I discussed here, in late 2004, after Chiron Corporation announced that it would not be able to provide flu vaccine for the United States market that year due to manufacturing issues, Congress brought the flu vaccine into the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program fold.  Unfortunately, liability relief did not result in an increase in the number of manufacturers in the flu vaccine market.  Targeted reforms like those that the Summit participants recommend be explored seem more likely to be effective at ensuring a steady, reliable supply of vital medicines.

The Identity Theft Smoke Screen: Data Mining of Prescription Drug Records and Personal Data Privacy

[Ed Note: We are pleased to welcome a guest article from Christopher J. Asakiewicz, J.D. He graduated from Seton Hall Law in 2011 with a concentration in Health Law, recently passed the New York Bar Exam (congratulations!) and works for ImClone Systems Corporation, an affiliate of Eli Lilly and Company, drafting and negotiating various clinical documents and patient disclosures with both US and ex-US institutions as well as central and local investigational review boards (IRBs). During law school he worked  at Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York (SVCMC) in the department of legal affairs, and prior to pursuing a legal education, managed phase IIIB/IV international clinical trials for Pfizer Inc. in the areas of neurology and neurodegenerative diseases.]

Personal data privacy once again has taken front stage in Sorrel v. IMS Health, Inc.[1] Vermont passed the Vermont Confidentiality of Prescription Information Law that allows doctors which prescribe drugs to patients, to decide whether pharmacies can sell their prescription drug prescription records.[2] IMS Health as well as other health information companies contested the law, arguing that the law poses a restriction on commercial speech as access to such information helps pharmaceutical companies market their drugs effectively to doctors. The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining the constitutionality of the restriction on access to prescription information with regards to our First Amendment. [3]

However, this post is focused on the secondary effects asserted in amici curiae briefs supporting the petitioners of allowing companies to purchase such information, specifically the concern of data privacy and patient re-identification. [4] Under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), personal health information is de-identified by your local pharmacy prior to such information being shared with any third party. By de-identifying the data, your personal data cannot, it is believed, be linked or traced back to you. De-identifying your health information is a way for covered entities to share your information without your consent or authorization and in accordance with the law. The information once shared is completely anonymized. After the transfer to a third party, like IMS Health, your information is solely data of zeros and ones that translate to dates of dispensing and drug names. No longer does your prescription record list your name or month or day of birth. [5]

Briefs in the case assert that data mining firms could, hypothetically, create profiles based on these de-identified prescription records. Such prescription profiles would constitute certain patient’s prescription habits, including an individual’s medication types, pharmacies visited and dates dispensed. The briefs argue that linking and mining further public information to these drug profiles could result in patient re-identification.

IMS Health, Inc., of course, asserts that it has no knowledge of any patient re-identification and it protects such records with all the security privacy measures set forth under HIPAA and as strengthened by Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). So what is the issue, I ask?

A pharmaceutical company does not need nor want to know who you are. Aggregate data is more beneficial to a marketing company, rather than just one record with your name on it. What benefit would a company get from a record that says, John Doe, DOB: 01-Jan-1984? The company could send you a mailer, but under the current regulations, you can opt out of the marketing material and it stops there. However, what helps a pharmaceutical company is aggregate datasets that say Dr. Jane Doe, MD writes 100 scripts for Lipitor ® a month. No one cares if the patients are unidentifiable, and most likely, the pharmaceutical company wants to keep it that way. Not only will the de-identified data be cheaper to buy, but it also assures the third party purchasing the data that it is not aiding a HIPAA violation.

Last, it is also asserted that there is no penalty for re-identification of personal health data, but there are stark penalties under HIPAA for “a person who knowingly … (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person.” [6] If the offense is committed with the intent to sell, transfer or use the individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, the penalty could be up to $250,000 and 10 years imprisonment. [7] If claims are brought against companies, like IMS Health, the companies will surely argue they are not covered entities subject to the penalties under HIPAA; however, this does not prevent civil lawsuits against them.

What will happen if a breach occurs due to patient re-identification? Most likely, the current healthcare environment where many companies are acting under corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements, promotes reporting, if not out of altruistic purpose at least a compliance purpose. With this said, once reported to both the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, as well as, in most states, the Secretary of state, privacy and confidentiality laws require notification to be provided to the patient that has been re-identified. This patient whose privacy rights have been infringed can then bring an individual civil claim against the organization responsible for the disclosure of their health information as well as the collateral damages caused by the unauthorized disclosure. Now, what company today wants to get involved with this type of bad publicity?

In conclusion, just because the possibility exists that a patient can be re-identified with data mining practices, does not mean that our current environment will foster such. The nine Justices of the Supreme Court need to be more concerned with the First Amendment and the commercial speech implications of their ruling, rather than amici curiae briefs supporting public policy positions based on unwarranted fears of patient information disclosure.[8]

I therefore urge you to put yourself in the role of your favorite Justice and consider if you should be more concerned that a company is going to buy your prescription records and try to determine that you took amoxicillin for a sinus infection when you were five years old, or if that company would rather purchase all the information you posted on Facebook ® or other social networking sites, including all the locations you have checked in. Which do you think is more useful to market its products? It is with this mindset that you must consider if the regulation directly advances the governmental interest “in protecting the public health of Vermonters, … the privacy of prescribers and prescribing information” and is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. [9]

---

[1] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Sorrel v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 857, No. 10-779, Dec. 13, 2010.

[2] Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 4631 (2010).

[3] See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

[4] Brief of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) et. al. as Amici curiae supporting Petitioners, Sorrel v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 857, (2011) (No. 10-779), 24-9, available at, http://www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/10-779%20EPIC%20amicus%20Sorrell.pdf; Latanya Sweeney, Simple Demographics Often Identify People Uniquely (Carnegie Mellon University, Data Privacy Working Paper No. 3, 2000), available at, http://dataprivacylab.org/projects/identifiability/paper1.pdf.

[5] Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191 (1996), 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.312(e)(2)(ii), 164.514(b)(2)(i) (2010).

[6] 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(1)-(3).

[7] Id. § 1320d-6(b).

[8] Brief of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) et. al. as Amici curiae supporting petitioners, Sorrel, 131 S. Ct. 857, (No. 10-779).

[9] See Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 80, § 17 (2007) (Confidentiality of Prescription Information); Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 89, § 3 (2008) (amending Act 80).

A “Sputnik Moment”? Hopes for Renewed Drug Development With A Little Help From Our NIH Friends

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama tried to spark the “creativity and imagination” of the American people when he proclaimed

[t]his is our generation’s Sputnik moment.  Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.  And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology… an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Now I don’t know what came first — the chicken or the egg — but President Obama’s speech about investing in biomedical research and technological innovation follows National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins’ proposal to create a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) to encourage drug discoveries and facilitate translational research in compounds overlooked by or abandoned by pharmaceutical manufacturers.  So does Dr. Collins’ proposal qualify as a “Sputnik moment”?

You might not have realized it, given those never-ending TV and magazine advertisements for prescription products (whose side effects sometimes sound worse than their benefits, but that’s another blog post), but pharmaceutical manufacturers have reduced their investment in researching and developing drugs.  According to the New York Times, pharmaceutical manufacturers spend over $1 billion developing a drug, with some “typically spend[ing] twice as much on marketing as on research” though that’s “a business model that is increasingly suspect.”  (For a brief overview of the research and development process, click here.)  The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) estimates that its members spent $45.8 billion in 2009 in research alone.

Even so, the number of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dropped over the last 15 years and that’s not due to a lack of scientific information or higher FDA standards.  In November 2010, Forbes health blogger Matthew Herper reported on  the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics at which Dr. Collins

implored his colleagues in genetics to work to develop new treatments for rare diseases. His point was that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration are increasingly able to handle preclinical and early clinical drug development, and that with these first steps taken medicines are more likely to be brought to market by large pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Herper also noted that a few organizations, such as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, have taken a similar route in pushing along research  until a pharmaceutical manufacturer picks up the slack.  Then a month later, Arthur H. Rubenstein, dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and chair of the NIH Translational Medicine and Therapeutics Working Group, told the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, “[b]asic science has exploded but it has not translated into benefit for the public.  The question was what to do about it.”

In stepped NIH to ease, in the words of the WSJ Health Blog, the “mounting frustration that a wealth of new information about the molecular basis of diseases hasn’t produced more new therapies.”  On December 7, 2010, NIH’s Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) voted 12-1 in favor of adding NCATS to NIH.  Dr. Collins notified Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the decision.  Then on January 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius sent a letter to Congress.  However, the decision to add NCATS  meant dismantling one of the 27 NIH centers and institutes, per the requirements of a 2006 law (”27″ is the “magic number”).  The lone SMRB dissenter, Jeremy Berg, director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, said he was “concerned that the implications for the rest of NIH hadn’t been adequately discussed.”

And therein lies some of the controversy.  NIH envisions NCATS as a link between basic discovery research and therapeutics care by:

• providing a visible, central locus for access to resources, tools, and expertise related to translational medicine;
• streamlining and improving the process of therapeutics development;
• serving as a catalyst, resource, and convener for collaborative interactions by supporting novel and innovative partnerships between multiple key stakeholders, including academia, government, industry, venture capitalists, and non-profit organizations;
• expanding the pre-competitive space by, among other things, enabling and providing incentives for greater sharing of scientific information and publication of negative results;
• supporting and strengthening translational medicine and therapeutics research, including providing access to services and resources for high-throughput screening, assay development, medicinal chemistry, and preclinical modeling;
• training translational research investigators; and
• enhancing communication among all stakeholders.

PhRMA Senior Vice President David E. Wheadon supports NCATS because

[c]ollaboration — including industry, NIH and academia — is one element driving innovation in drug development, particularly early stage — and ‘bold and ambitious’ proposals, such as Dr. Collins’, will be key to how we collectively progress in discovering novel compounds for addressing patients’ unmet medical needs….

The fact remains that biopharmaceutical research companies today and in the future will play a pivotal role: Our companies create the vast majority of new medicines from start to finish and, for the remainder, in close collaboration with academia and NIH, fulfill the critical final phase that transforms promising molecules into actual medicines for patients.

The WSJ Health Blog notes that NCATS isn’t NIH’s first foray into developing drugs.  In 2009, NIH created the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program for basic research on rare diseases.  This early stage of drug development, WSJ Health Blog notes, is “expensive, time-consuming… prone to failure” and often not worth the effort for pharmaceutical manufacturers since the related market is small.

However, this time NIH must restructure several programs to accommodate NCATS, including the Molecular Libraries screening program, TRND, and the National Center for Research Resource’s (NCRR) Clinical and Translational Science Awards.  NCATS would house all three programs, along with the in-the-works Cures Acceleration Network (a drug-development program created by the Patient Protected and Affordable Care Act).

Staff members and researchers connected with the NIH community aren’t too thrilled over the restructuring, particularly with respect to NCRR.  If you visit Feedback NIH, the online forum for public commentary on NIH initiatives, you can read through the 1,100+ lengthy NCATS-related comments.  You’ll also see the “Separating Fact & Fiction” post by Dr. Francis Collins, which begins:

[b]y now, many of you have read the recent New York Times article or related news coverage, about NIH’s plan to establish the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

While we are pleased that the news media have recognized NIH’s efforts as a significant development for translational research, the Times article contains some misleading statements that we would like to clarify. Those statements suggest that a much larger shakeup of NIH is underway than is actually contemplated.

So, to set the record straight, we want to share with you what we know at this point in time…

(internal links removed).  The “we” includes Members of the Institute and Center Directors NCATS Working Group.  The post attempts to clear up concerns about budget cuts (House Republicans have already promised to cut the discretionary spending that supports NIH), the security of existing programs, and the misconception that NCATS will be a drug company.

Despite the negative responses, Dr. Collins remains optimistic.  In an interview with ScienceInsider, he emphasized that

the NIH director is called upon to look for scientific opportunities that aren’t being met and to figure out how to make them happen, and that sometimes requires moving things forward at a rapid pace, and that affects a lot of people.

And of course change is always distressing, especially if people aren’t quite sure where it’s going. So I understand the anxiety that currently exists.

But let’s wait a year and see when this has all taken shape how people feel at that point. Will they say at that point that projects or programs at NCRR got dealt a bad deal? I bet they won’t. Will they say they’re excited about the translational science opportunities that are taking shape in the form of this new center? I bet they will.

Perhaps if purse strings weren’t so tight and the healthcare reform debate was settled — or if NIH wasn’t limited to 27 centers and institutes — the creation of NCATS might not upset so many people.  Yet has Dr. Collins displayed a little of that “Sputnik moment” spirit by accelerating the development of drugs for diseases and other areas overlooked by pharmaceutical manufacturers?  Sure.  Just don’t expect him to take us to the moon.

Symposium on Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property

There will be an online symposium on the new book Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property at Concurring Opinions this Tuesday to Thursday (Feb. 1 to Feb. 3, 2011). This book, edited by Gaëlle Krikorian and Amy Kapczynski, is available for free download here, and can also be purchased here. Here is a quote from the introduction that gives a sense of the book’s themes:

In a hospital in South Korea, leukemia patients are expelled as untreatable because a multinational drug company refuses to lower the price of a life-saving drug. Thousands of miles away, a U.S. group called the Rational Response Squad is forced by the threat of a copyright lawsuit to take down a YouTube video criticizing the paranormalist Uri Geller. Could we—should we—see these two events, so seemingly remote from one another, as related? Yes—or such is the premise of a new political formation on the global stage, one that goes under the name of the “access to knowledge movement”—or more simply, A2K.

A2K is an emerging mobilization that includes software programmers who took to the streets to defeat software patents in Europe, AIDS activists who forced multinational pharmaceutical companies to permit copies of their medicines to be sold in South Africa, and college students who have created a new “free culture” movement to “defend the digital commons”—to select just a few. A2K can also be seen as an emerging set of theoretical commitments that both respond to and reject the key justifications for “intellectual property” law and that seek to develop an alternative account of the operation and importance of information and knowledge, creativity and innovation in the contemporary world.

Krikorian and Kapczynski have assembled a top-notch group of contributors, and we welcome comments from across the blogosphere.

Pharmaceutical Research Expenditures and Industrial Policy

Anyone familiar with pharmaceutical industry restructuring will not be surprised by this prediction from the FT’s John Gapper for 2011:

A drugs company will drop early-stage research. Big Pharma has struggled for a decade with a dearth of potential blockbusters. Companies such as GlaxoSmithKline have restructured and slimmed down their research arms but the sector remains troubled, as the departure of Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s former chief executive, on the grounds of “exhaustion” indicates.

The obvious course with something that is not working is to drop it. Shire Pharmaceuticals pioneered a strategy of outsourcing early-stage research to smaller companies and focusing on developing and trialling promising drugs. This will be the year when one of the industry’s biggest takes a similar tack.

Gapper seems pretty unworried about this transition, and perhaps from the standpoint of pure economic theory it makes little difference whether research is conducted in-house or purchased from other, smaller firms. But as a matter of public relations and political economy, this is a troubling development.

The Post-R&D PR and Jobs Crises

First, the pharmaceutical industry has long justified its profits by arguing that it invests in research and development. For those who favor a market-based approach to drug research, this is a vindication of laissez-faire. Rather than relying on the heavy hand of government to try to direct the research done at pharmaceutical firms, we can expect the “invisible hand” of the market to spin off solutions for everyone’s problems–from the richest to the poorest. Innovations eventually filter down from the highest-income individuals to those with fewer resources. Spending by the wealthy on health care leads to investment in research infrastructure that ultimately redounds to the benefit of all.

But to the extent that the industry spins off its research and development, shouldn’t policymakers be more concerned about the health of research firms than the continued thriving of Big Pharma? I suppose one could make the argument that big Pharma is evolving toward a Walmart or Google style of value creation via skilled intermediation. Its key role in that scenario is to identify the most promising researchers, CROs, marketers, distributors, and advertisers.

If that evolution occurs, it reminds me of another of Gapper’s predictions for 2011:

As China tries to make itself a hub for environmental [and energy] innovation, the US is retreating. Silicon Valley venture capital groups that identified green energy as a big opportunity are playing it down and turning to social media. China has the market, the cash and the science to stick with it.

In other words, Big Pharma’s moves toward becoming virtual companies, mere hubs of certifications, trademarks, tax dodges, and contractual obligations, mirror a longer-term hollowing out of the US economy. Whereas a nation like China has an industrial policy that encourages production of useful goods and full employment, US capital is migrating toward “platform plays” that merely redistribute bargaining power and information about goods and services. One can imagine all sorts of clever entrepreneurial ploys that fall out from this strategy—think Groupon for cheap pills! What remains unimaginable is how social networking leads to viable occupations for all but the most connected and tech-savvy.

Top US economic strategists used to claim that offshoring didn’t matter, as US citizens’ superior productivity, technological skills, and education would attract high-value jobs to the country. Given America’s massive failures in educational policy, we no longer hear much about the “high value” jobs that a global division of labor was supposed to deliver to us. Instead, we see ever higher unemployment and no plausible plan to keep decent jobs in the country, or to be sure that those that remain are paid decently. Andy Grove has also helpfully demonstrated the necessary connections between ongoing manufacturing capacity and research designed to make production better. As he puts it:

Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter. The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S.

You could say, as many do, that shipping jobs overseas is no big deal because the high-value work—and much of the profits—remain in the U.S. That may well be so. But what kind of a society are we going to have if it consists of highly paid people doing high-value-added work—and masses of unemployed? . . . .

Finally, the increased outsourcing of R&D may menace existing cross-subsidization of research for neglected drugs and tropical diseases. To be sure, not much of this is going on presently; of the 1300 compounds tested for safety and effectiveness by major drug companies from 1992-2005, only 1% were directed toward diseases that predominate in the developing world. And a recent conference at BU gave me some hope that humanitarian research efforts could be distributed among small teams of researchers. Still, I worry that the ongoing shrinkage of Big Pharma will have results in the medical field similar to the gradual dissipation of Bell Labs.

Pharma as Part of a Larger Industrial Policy

Are there any solutions to be offered? The key to effective policy here is to recognize the extensive role the US government plays in the pharmaceutical industry. Epic battles over the scope of patent rights in the US are routinely fought in the US Congress. The US Supreme Court has recently opined on a number of fundamental issues in patent law in rapid succession. Legislation like the Hatch-Waxman Act prescribes a regime of protections and obligations for drug manufacturers that is extraordinarily complex, and continually contested. The FDA is involved in every step of a drug’s approval and marketing process. Medicare Part D legislation also significantly increased the US Government’s involvement in the pharmaceutical sector, providing an enormous amount of funding for spending on drugs for the elderly. International treaties like TRIPS also play a very important role in the pharmaceutical sector. In short, if there is one sector where state action is not simply a side constraint on “the market,” but rather serves to constitute it, that is the pharmaceutical sector.

Therefore, the US government needs to be much more involved in shaping both the output and the business practices of the industry to reflect national and humanitarian needs. On the humanitarian side, there are many excellent ideas in the book Incentives for Global Public Health. On the industrial policy side, perhaps there are lessons to be learned from this article on Chinese practice:

Foreign companies have been teaming up with Chinese ones for years to gain access to the giant Chinese market. Now some of the world’s biggest companies are taking a risky but potentially rewarding second step—folding pieces of their world-wide operations into partnerships with Chinese companies to do business around the globe.

Several earlier joint ventures inside China have soured over concerns that Chinese partners, after gaining access to Western technology and know-how, have gone on to become potent new rivals to their partners. “Foreign partners are seeing they will have to sometimes sacrifice or share the benefits of the global market with the Chinese partner,” says Raymond Tsang, a China-based partner at consultancy Bain & Co. “Some of the [multinational corporations] are complaining. But given the changing market conditions, if you don’t do it, your competitors will.”

To the extent that big Pharma is a truly global industry, US policymakers should be just as aggressive as Chinese ones in assuring that present private profits leave behind infrastructure that meets national needs for both quality healthcare and a balanced and highly skilled workforce. To neglect these imperatives is to declare unilateral economic disarmament vis-à-vis a competitor to which we are already massively indebted, and which has shown no qualms about taking US-developed intellectual property. If China wants certain concessions from multinationals for the good of its citizens, the US should demand no less.

HHS OIG Notifies Drug Manufacturers of New Enforcement Initiative for Price Reporting Requirements

On September 28, the Office of the Inspector General (”OIG”) released a Special Advisory Bulletin regarding a new enforcement initiative regarding the timely submission of certain pharmaceutical data.  Manufacturers will face civil money penalties (CMP) for failing to comply with reporting requirements.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (”CMS”) relies on the timely reporting of average manufacturer prices (”AMPs”) and average sales prices (”ASPs”) for the implementation of four different programs: the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program), the Federal Upper Limit (FUL) Program, and the Medicare Part B outpatient prescription drug benefit.

Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, CMS uses AMPs to calculate the rebates owed to state Medicaid programs.  The 340B Program, which requires manufacturers to sell their prescription drugs to certain safety net health care providers at or below specified prices, also uses AMPs to establish price ceilings.  Medicaid’s FUL Program uses AMPs to act as a prudent buyer of multiple-source drugs.  Finally, the Medicare Part B outpatient drug benefit relies on ASPs to establish Part-B covered drug and biologic payment amounts.

Timely and accurate price reporting is important to the effective and efficient administration of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the 340B Program, the FUL Program, and the Medicare Part B drug benefit.   Manufactures are required to report and certify timely and accurate drug pricing information, including AMPs on a monthly and quarterly basis and ASPs on a quarterly basis.

However, multiple reviews of historical reporting by OIG have demonstrated that voluntary compliance has not been fully effective.  For instance:

• The February 2008 report, “Average Sales Prices: Manufacturer Reporting and CMS Oversight,” found that, “between 41 and 52 percent of manufacturers provided ASPs after the statutorily defined due date.”
• The OIG report, “Drug Manufacturers’ Noncompliance With Average Manufacturer Price Reporting Requirements,” released the same day as the Special Advisory Bulletin, determined that during 2008:
  • 53 percent of the 592 manufacturers that were required to submit quarterly AMP reports failed to provide pricing data by the statutorily defined due date.
  • 78 percent of the 579 manufacturers that were required to submit monthly AMP reports failed to provide pricing data by the statutorily defined due date.

Moving forward, OIG will work with CMS to “identify and penalize noncompliant manufacturers through the CMP process.”  Upon a report from CMS that a manufacturer has not submitted a timely report of product pricing information, OIG will exert its authority to impose CMPs of $10,000 per day upon the manufacturer in an effort to improve compliance.

A Well Placed Question by Professor Mirkay: “Should Medical-Related Charities Increase Disclosure of Their Donors?”

We’ve written a great deal here at HRW about the need for transparency in industry/profession interactions and the elimination of conflicts of interest–the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy here at Seton Hall Law has, in fact, over the course of the last two years, issued two White Papers on the subject–with another on the way. In the last, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight,” the Center proposed legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationships between industry and doctors that can create unwarranted risks to trial participants and to the scientific integrity of research. In the Paper prior,  ”Drug and Device Promotion: Charting a Course for Policy Reform,” 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.

But over at Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, Professor Nicholas A. Mirkay of Widener University School of Law, has a post–and an additional question–well worth considering:

“Should Medical-Related Charities Increase Disclosure of Their Donors?”

Professor Mirkay points to a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article which raises the issue as the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) has begun disclosing the names of corps and foundations who (does Citizens United make that “who” correct? Never mind appropriate.) donate more than $5,000. NAMI is said to have done so on the heels of an investigation by Senator Chuck Grassley into their financial relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Mirkay writes:

NAMI’s actions have given Grassley further impetus to force 33 other nonprofit medical associations to follow NAMI’s lead.  In a related article, the Chronicle reports that Grassley’s inquiry into these other groups represents a “broader effort by the senator and others to expose and curtail corporate influence on the medical field.”  Grassley commented that “[t]hese organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership.  There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”

Professor Mirkay also writes

In December 2009, Grassley sent a letter to 33 such nonprofit associations requesting information on the amount of funds received from pharmaceutical, medical-device and insurance companies from 2006 to 2009, the identity of the donors and how their money was spent by the medical group, and additional information on the outside income earned by the groups’ top executives and board members.

The (partial) results of those queries are not particularly heartening, but are certainly worth considering. Mirkay writes:

The Chronicle acquired more than half of the solicited groups’ responses to Grassley’s letter, finding that such groups receive aggregately more than $100 million annually from medical-related companies via “donations, advertising revenues, exhibit fees, corporate memberships, and support for continuing medical education.”  For some groups, this can represent as much as 78% of their revenue, while for others it only represents a small percentage of their total receipts.

Despite the longings of Elvis Costello, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you–and 78% of revenue pretty much constitutes (in)visible means of support. In pushing further with our (or more accurately, the Supreme Court’s) Citizens United “who” conceit, one might think 78% sufficient in some sense to constitute dependent status under the tax code–at least for purposes of context. Having said that, in addition to not biting, it’s not hard to imagine the dependent regularly fed doing that which it may to help assure the continued regularity of that feeding. Especially if the feedings are invisible.

It should also be noted that Mirkay rightly points out that “This effort is further evidence of Grassley’s commitment to increased transparency of tax-exempt nonprofits.” He’s right. And being that Senator Grassley follows HRW on Twitter, and as I have at times been critical of some of his positions in the past regarding other issues, it’s worth noting that the Senator should be roundly applauded for his efforts.

[And if you haven't been over to the Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, you should. It's in our blog roll for good reason-- their work is informative, brief and well written.]

We May Need More Than A Spoonful Of Sugar To Help Our Medicine Go Down

Today CNNMoney reports that drug recalls quadrupled from 426 in 2008 to a record 1,742 in 2009.  The recalls have been attributed to “manufacturing lapses” in raw material quality, labeling and packaging, and contamination.  Generic and over-the-counter drugs have been affected the most.  CNNMoney notes that the race to put generic products on the market and the pressure to cut costs have caused drug companies to

sometimes fail to spend enough time learning how best to make the drug….  And since generic and over the counter drugs aren’t as lucrative for drugmakers as prescription drugs, companies may not be investing enough resources to make high-quality, safe products.

One such cost-cutting measure involves outsourcing production to foreign manufacturing sites and this measure seems to have received the most attention.  (Check out fellow blogger Jae W. Joo’s post on outsourcing.)

Earlier this month, Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) introduced the Drug and Safety Accountability Act of 2010 which seeks to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs sold in America, regardless of their manufacturing location.  The bill would require, among other things, that:

• manufacturers have quality management plans which the FDA can inspect;
• manufacturers maintain supply chain documentation;
• the Secretary of Health and Human Services track facilities manufacturing drugs or active ingredients for the American market; and
• the FDA be given more power to ensure drug safety, including the authority to enact mandatory recalls for batches of drugs that pose risks and to assess civil penalties for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Click here for more details about the bill and here for Sen. Bennet’s own promotion of it.  Sen. Bennet has lamented how:

[f]or too long, the FDA has lacked the proper authority to adequately safeguard our drug supply.  Americans need to be able to trust that the drugs in their medicine cabinets are safe, no matter where they’re made.

A father of three, Sen. Bennet has said that the recent McNeil recall of over-the-counter children’s medicine spurred him into action.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Senior Vice President Ken Johnson has issued a statement in response to the bill, saying that:

[t]he lifeline of America’s biopharmaceutical research companies is the safety and integrity of the products they develop.  Brand-name pharmaceutical companies make tremendous investments in quality control systems and take extensive measures to help protect patient safety and to help prevent adulterated ingredients from entering into America’s prescription drug supply.

In addition, drug manufacturing for the U.S. market — regardless of where it occurs — is regulated under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  These GMP requirements help to assure the safety, quality and purity of drug ingredients that are used in the U.S. prescription drug supply.

The U.S. regulatory system for prescription drugs is the toughest and safest in the world….

Okay.  But other people here don’t think so.  (Click here to read a good opinion by Dr. Lynn Parry, Chair of the Colorado Prescription Project, on why this bill should pass.)

According to a recent Pew Prescription Project poll, less than 10% of Americans feel confident about medications manufactured in India and China.  89% of Americans support Congressional action to introduce new drug safety measures.  How many of those people realize that approximately 80% of the materials used to make or package drugs sold in America comes from foreign sources?  I didn’t, but then, is such high a percentage really that surprising?

Reading through the CNNMoney report, I was reminded a little of a scene from a seventh season episode of Friends:

Phoebe: It’s amazing! My headache is completely gone! What are those pills called?
Monica: Hexadrin.
Phoebe: Oh, I love you, Hexadrin!  Oh look!  It comes with a story!
Monica: No, Phoebe, those are, like, the side effects and stuff.
Phoebe: Say what?
Monica: You know, the possible side effects.
Phoebe: Oh my God!  Dizziness, nervousness, drowsiness, facial swelling, nausea, headache…  Headache! Vomiting, stomach bleeding, liver damage!  Now, okay, I don’t recall any of this coming up when you gave me these little death capsules! Oh, I’m sorry, extra-strength death capsules!

Admittedly, the scene concerns how potential side effects can be worse than the problem being treated (and that’s a whole other blog post).  Yet it’s also a reminder of how we can forget about the other potential hazards of these potent drugs, delivered in easy-to-swallow capsules/tablets/liquids, if there are quality control or other manufacturing issues.  It’s as easy to forget as it is to pop them, well, like candy.

Next Page »