According to reports, the axe is coming down all over the pharma world on research and development projects that are not yielding immediate results.
AstraZeneca(Atacand, Crestor), GlaxoSmithKline (Advair, Boniva) and Pfizer (Benadryl, Lipitor) have all already begun to scrap projects, while others like Sanofi-Aventis (Allegra, Plavix) are about to pick up the trend and start making cuts.
The cuts come as no surprise, as big pharma companies have been seeing there pipelines shrink since 1998, when the trend to buy out drug rights from smaller bio-tech companies began.
Despite the increased cost efficiency of buying drugs from smaller bio-techs, I am not so sure that big pharma is going to like the end result of their decision.
Stephen Foley raises some excellent questions in a recent post, saying
those calculations about the benefits of in-licensing over in-house could change rapidly if the competition for licensing deals, which has been getting more ferocious for several years, increases dramatically. It could be that they will regret swinging cuts to their R&D budgets sooner rather than later.
And there is another reason for executives to pause. There are very great political benefits from drug companies being able to trumpet the life-changing discoveries that have emerged from their research labs and their scientific trials. Yes, these are companies that have manipulated the publication of scientific data, made over-reaching claims for their drugs, and practiced price gouging of government health and insurance services, but they are also companies that lower our cholesterol, shrink tumors, keep diabetes in check and lift the burdens of depression. In the UK, there is an explicit compact with the government on this score: drug prices charged to the National Health Service are set to allow for investment in research. In the US, the good works of drug research help keep in check the demands for re-importation of drugs from lower-priced Canada, and other cost-cutting measures.
It sounds like big pharma is trying to have their cake and eat it too; outsourcing research and development to cut costs while still maintaining control over patents on drugs to protect their profits.
Cutting the cost of research and development is like cutting off your leg to lose weight. Why not cut the fat of advertisement out first. After all, aren’t doctors suppose to tell us the medicines we need?
After they get rid of the cost of research and development, what excuse will big pharma have left to overcharge consumers?
Healthcare reform isn’t just about the public option and paying for doctor’s visits — it’s also about equal, affordable access to life-saving medications for all Americans. That’s why many Big Pharma watchdogs are so disappointed with a recent amendment slipped into healthcare legislation that proposes extending patent protection on biologic drugs, delaying for years the public’s access to affordable follow-on versions.
What are “biologics� They’re the next big wave in medicine — drugs made not from simple chemical formulations, but from biological components. They’re very expensive, and poised for enormous success:
By 2014, the biggest-selling meds will be biologics, according to an analysis from Evaluate Pharma. Taking the place of Pfizer’s gargantuan drug Lipitor will be Roche’s Avastin, a cancer med expected to account for $9.23 billion in 2014 sales. (Even when you factor in the recent trial disappointments.) The next five top sellers, in order, are expected to be Humira (Abbott Labs), Rituxan (Roche), Enbrel (Wyeth/Amgen), Lantus (Sanofi-Aventis), and Herceptin (also Roche).
Evaluate also predicts that half of the top 100 drugs in 2014 will be biotech meds — a huge change from last year’s level of 28 percent and 11 percent in 2000.
Because biologics are so complex, the system we all know — where patented brand names enjoy a period of exclusivity, then eventually make way to cheaper generics — doesn’t translate perfectly. Biologic “generics†are called “biosimilars,†and they are not seen as generic equivalents. They must be submitted for approvals as new drugs and do their own clinical trials, etc.Â
The Eshoo-Barton amendment, named for sponsoring Representatives Anna Eshoo (D – Calif.) and Joe Barton (R – Texas), would give brand-name biologic drugmakers 12 years of market exclusivity. By comparison, President Obama favors seven years, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D –Calif.) feels that the public should have access to “generic†biologics after just five years. By contrast, says Medical News Today, “The Biotechnology Industry Organization maintains that there should be a minimum 14 years of exclusivity to account for a development process that on average takes 10 years and $1.2 billion for a product to reach market.â€
5, 7, 12, or 14 years? As you can see, there is a real difference of opinion on this subject. One person who has written extensively on this is author James Love on the Huffington Post. Here he explains why this amendment is harmful:
The Eshoo/Barton amendment, which has the support of many newly pro-PhRMA democrats, will extend the period of monopolies for biologic medicines, when compared to the original Waxman text. The only question is how long. Part of the harm will be the longer period prohibiting generic suppliers from relying upon evidence that medicines are safe and provide therapeutic benefits. Much of the other harm will come from a number of technical changes in the bill that make it much easier for incumbent firms to block entry through technical issues, extended litigation, and ever-greening of protection from small medically unimportant changes in protected medicines.
This is essentially a case of innovation versus access. Drug companies want protection from the risks and costs borne in the creation and testing of new drugs; patient advocates say that Big Pharma (or Big Biotech, if you like) already make large profits and that the public deserves access to affordable biosimilars in a more timely fashion. “Entities that support longer periods of exclusivity — such as universities, biotech companies and venture capitalists — are ‘fighting to protect inventors’ rights and ensure more thorough clinical trials.’ On the other side, consumer groups, labor unions, insurers and generic drug manufacturers ‘see shorter exclusivity as the way to deliver safe, affordable and quality drugs to patients and open the marketplace to increased competition,’†explains Medical News Today.
The latest high-emotion development is blogger Jane Hamsher’s “Are You Or Someone You Know Paying $50,000 A Year For Drugs?†It paints an ugly picture of what happens to people who cannot affording life-saving biologics. A few days later, Rep. Eshoo responded to this and other online attention with a blog post on The Hill’s Congress Blog titled “Setting the record straight on our health care legislation.†If you check in with these two articles, you’ll have the latest from both side of the “biologic generics” debate.
Our mission, as always, at EDrugSearch.com is to improve the American public’s access to safe, quality medications at an affordable cost.
For more information:
- Should We Be OK With The PhRMA Deal With White House?
- US House Panel Backs Exclusivity for Biologic Drugs
- Pay or die: Deadly Pharma amendment in HCR going right under radar
Well, actually, I’m sure there’s more than one thing. Like, for example, we can assume they both make backroom deals, and they both know that money talks.
But there’s something else.
Both are unfairly trashing the legitimacy of licensed Canadian pharmacies — real, honest-to-goodness, brick-and-mortar pharmacies that have been inspected and approved to sell prescription medications to Americans by the Canadian government.
How are the Russians doing it? Through spam.
Much of the damage to the good name of Canadian pharmacies can be traced to a single criminal organization in Russia that calls itself “Canadian Pharmacy.â€
The group, which operates thousands of sites, sends as many as 60 billion spam e-mails per day. No doctors, no prescriptions, no consultations, no buildings, even — but they will ship you medications.
Some of these rogue pharmacies add metal shavings or other contaminants to the drugs they send out. In 2007, one Canadian woman was killed by pills laced with poisonous metals. The woman’s payments were traced to a Russian bank.
In other words, by sending out millions of spam e-mails, claiming to be Canadian, and then shipping dangerous products, Russian mobsters are giving some Americans the wrong idea about Canadian pharmacies.
Big Pharma, Friend of the Mob
So, how is Big Pharma assisting the Russians in impugning the good name of Canadian pharmacies? By cleverly attempting to link these Russian spam operations with legitimate, licensed drugstores — even though there is no link whatsoever.
Big Pharma and organizations that receive funding from Big Pharma, such as the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) and others, have been spewing out op-eds and “reports” lately that say, for example, “90 percent” of pharmacy ads on the Microsoft, Google and Yahoo networks are by “rogue pharmacies.”
What they don’t explain is that, by their definition, all pharmacies based in Canada — even those explicitly approved by the Canadian government to sell prescription drugs to Americans — are “rogue.”
What nonsense. The major search engines run afoul of Big Pharma for one reason and one reason only: they make it easier for Americans to buy medications from Canada. And overall, the search engines have been very responsible in ensuring that only legitimate pharmacies are allowed to advertise, although occasionally a bad actor might slip through the cracks.
In other words, Big Pharma’s claims are utter nonsense. Unfortunately, some gullible members of the media have fallen for the pharmaceutical industry’s big-dollar PR campaign, hook, line and sinker.
Real Canadian Pharmacies
So, what are real Canadian pharmacies like? The ones that are inspected, licensed and government-approved?
I’ll give you just one example.
AdvCare Pharmacy bills itself as the “neighborhood pharmacy at your fingertips†— and that’s exactly what it is.
Staffed by a team of dedicated, Ontario-licensed pharmacists, AdvCare has an inventory of more than 20,000 prescription drugs and serves residents of both Canada and the United States.
If you want to see for yourself that AdvCare is no different from your own neighborhood pharmacy (except for the prices), you can visit this friendly corner pharmacy in person at its home in Markham, Ontario. The street address is on the Web site.
AdvCare is one of more than 25 duly licensed, completely legitimate online pharmacies in the eDrugSearch.com network.
So please — please — don’t buy the nonsense propagated by Big Pharma and its proxies like the NABP and others. Just because a pharmacy is Canadian doesn’t mean it’s a “rogue pharmacy.” If that were true, where would Canadians go for their own prescriptions?
Big Pharma’s argument is absurd on its face. But of course, that’s never stopped them before.
-
Big Pharma Execs Say Recession Will Hurt; DTC Was ‘Worst Decision’
(WSJ Health Blog) - Meet the Person Likely to be the Next FDA Commissioner (Peter Rost For FDA Commissioner)
- Almost Half Of College-Age Americans Have A Psychiatric Disorder (Furious Seasons)
- Drugmakers in M&A Frenzy (Bizmology)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
- Big Pharma’s Loss May Be Little Pharma’s Gain (Pharmalot)
- Big Pharma May be Handed Blanket Immunity for All Drug Side Effects, Deaths (InfoWars)
- The Congress Blog: Big Pharma May be Handed Blanket Immunity for All Drug Side Effects, Deaths (Survivalist News)
- Can Obama’s Win Lead to Meaningful Health Care Reform? 13 Urgent Suggestions for a Healthy USA (Natural News)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
- Get thee behind me, Big Pharma! (The Migraine Girl)
- Big Pharma Problems (All Things Whistleblower)
- Cleaning the Stables (PharmaGossip)
- Pfizer’s New Focus Will Usher in a Golden Age of Pharma Social Media Marketing (Pharma Marketing Blog)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
-
- More Americans are taking presription medications (Bonnies Blog)
- The Case For (and Against) Big Pharma (Kiplinger)
- Colorado Bill Does Nothing About Big Pharma’s Physician Incentives System (Novus)
- Scandal – Big Pharma Writes Their Own Research Papers And Pay Outside Doctors To Put Their Names On it! (Libnot)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
-
- The best pharma blogs, according to Pharmafocus (Corroxanna’s Weblog)
- Centocor Blog – No Frying Pan and No Fire! (Pharma Marketing Blog)
- Antidepressants study shakes up medicine (Healthwatcher)
- Massachusetts – No freebies! (PharmaGossip)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
-
- Big Pharma Lives to Cheat Again (Diabetes Update)
- Antidepressants as effective as placebo: Big Pharma on the defensive (SchizoFrenetic)
- This Is How Much The FDA Cares About Us (What Is Going On?)
- Big Pharma has Created a Thriving Enterprise for Two-bit Criminals (PharmaFraud)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
- PharmaGossip’s hottest post ever! (PharmaGossip)
- FTC, Generics, and the War in Iraq (Pharma Marketing Blog)
- Big Pharma May Soon Be Allowed to Promote Off-Label Uses (injuryboard.com)
- Twenty-six states to get $15m in Big Pharma payout (LegalNewsline.com)
Subscribe to the eDrugSearch Blog with Bloglines:
