Drug Companies Increase Prices in Face of Change

Drug Makers Raising Prices Before Reform - NYTimes.com

Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.
In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

Medicine’s Elusive Goal: A Safe Weight-Loss Drug

Americans spent an estimated $59 billion last year fighting fat — on weight-loss programs, special foods, low-calorie soft drinks, appetite suppressants, gym memberships, diet books, exercise videos, even stomach-clamping surgery.

But less than 1 percent of that sum, as estimated by the research firm Marketdata Enterprises, was spent on prescription drugs. Despite years of research effort — and haunted by diet drugs that proved dangerous, like fen-phen in the 1990s — the pharmaceutical industry has not made meaningful progress in combating obesity, one of the nation’s biggest and costliest health problems.
Now, though, three small California companies hope to succeed where many bigger players have failed. The companies — Arena Pharmaceuticals, Orexigen Therapeutics and Vivus — plan to apply in the coming months for regulatory approval of anti-obesity drugs that could reach the market in late 2010 or in 2011.

The Case for Another Drug War, Against Pharmaceutical Marketers’ Dirty Tactics

Our Daily Meds begins by illustrating the established drug-company practices that have led to this sorry juncture. There is the rigging of studies, so that to be deemed “effective” a drug need only perform better than a sugar pill. There are the promotional strategies that evade the need for F.D.A. warnings by, say, planting logos for the sexual enhancement drug Viagra and the antidepressant Wellbutrin on Nascar vehicles. There is the co-option of doctors and university researchers by aggressive, payola-dispensing drug company representatives. . . . But she moves to weightier matters in assessing the directions in which heavy drug dependence is leading Americans. First of all there are the business strategies that have created illnesses out of what used to be facts of life, labeled them as syndromes, and have hooked customers into long-term use of medication to cure them. . . . Second, there are the economics of creating chronic consumers for marginally necessary drugs. . . . Irate as she is that in a period (1980-2003) when Americans doubled what they spent on cars they increased their spending on prescription drugs by 17 times, Ms. Petersen steps back to consider the long-term consequences of this shift in consumption. She notes that the first generation of children raised in front of ubiquitous, sunny drug-company advertisements (which became legal in 1997) has acquired the notions that prescription pills fix everything, and that they are less dangerous than street drugs. Then, looking to the elderly, she points out that increasing numbers of drugs are accumulating in these patients, with little regard for the consequences.

Cutting Dosage of Costly Drug Spurs a Debate

When a drug can cost more than $300,000 a year, the right dose becomes a matter of public debate. The drug in question, Cerezyme, is used to treat a rare inherited enzyme deficiency called Gaucher disease. Some experts say that for most patients, as little as one-fourth the standard top dose would work, saving the health care system more than $200,000 a year per Gaucher patient. “It is economic malpractice to give a much higher dose of an expensive drug than is required,” said Dr. Ernest Beutler, an authority on Gaucher disease at the Scripps Research Institute. Some other Gaucher specialists argue otherwise, saying that skimping on the medicine could endanger patients. . . . [C]ritics say the company’s development costs were minimal, because the early work on the treatment was done by the National Institutes of Health, which gave Genzyme a contract to manufacture it. And analysts estimate the current cost of manufacturing the drug to be only about 10 percent of its price.

Lawmaker Calls for Registry of Drug Firms Paying Doctors

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 — An influential Republican senator says he will propose legislation requiring drug makers to disclose the payments they make to doctors for services like consulting, lectures and attendance at seminars.
The lawmaker, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, cited as an example the case of a prominent child psychiatrist, who he said made $180,000 over just two years from the maker of an antipsychotic drug now widely prescribed for children.

Under the influence

For many Americans, a doctor's decision to prescribe medication is something of a sacred transaction. A physician considers the patient and symptoms and chooses the best drug for the job, drawing upon years of training and clinical experience. It is an exchange conducted in a hushed sanctuary, far from the heat and noise of the marketplace -- a place where cool judgment reigns. That sanctuary has been breached. Today, drug manufacturers do everything in their considerable power to ensure that their brand-name prescription medications are on the lips of patients and in the minds of physicians every time the two meet across an exam table. A growing chorus of critics says their efforts have begun to rewrite the dialogue between patient and doctor, influence physicians' judgments and open the act of prescribing to forces more profit-minded than sacred.

Bill Would Let States Force Drug Discounts

U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen is preparing legislation that would allow states to make prescription drugs more affordable for low- and moderate-income Americans, a challenge to Bush administration policies that have thwarted such efforts in Maryland and elsewhere.
Van Hollen (D-Md.) said he will introduce a bill early this week allowing states to use their purchasing power to require drug companies to provide discounts on medications for low-wage workers. Under the proposal, states could negotiate the same breaks they get for people on Medicaid, the state-federal health-care program for the poor.

Psychiatrists Top List in Drug Maker Gifts

As states begin to require that drug companies disclose their payments to doctors for lectures and other services, a pattern has emerged: psychiatrists earn more money from drug makers than doctors in any other specialty. How this money may be influencing psychiatrists and other doctors has become one of the most contentious issues in health care. For instance, the more psychiatrists have earned from drug makers, the more they have prescribed a new class of powerful medicines known as atypical antipsychotics to children, for whom the drugs are especially risky and mostly unapproved.