Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (8662)	8/25/2009 1:44:26 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

A very weak article. What Does It Mean To Have a Private Health Care System If McArdle wishes to make the case that moving to a more European type of health care system would cripple innovation in pharmaceutical research and medical technology she should demonstrate that European discoveries are minimal. This article suggests otherwise: yubanet.com Europe surpasses United States in new drug discoveries Author: Christine Blackman, Stanford University Published on Aug 25, 2009 - 9:02:39 AM Aug. 25, 2009 - Contrary to public opinion, the research productivity of U.S. pharmaceutical companies has fallen behind European competition, says Donald Light, visiting professor in human biology and international health policy at Stanford. Light's latest study on the topic, which will be published in Health Affairs, also shows that new drugs often lack clinical advantage over existing ones. "While it's widely believed that most new drugs are discovered and developed in the United States and that American researchers have far outstripped their European competitors, on a level playing field of dollar for dollar, European researchers actually have been more innovative since 1982," Light said. By analyzing clinical studies and papers on pharmaceutical discoveries, Light found that European companies discovered more drugs than U.S. companies from 1982 to 2003, overall and in proportion to funding. 'Me-too' drugs Light also cites studies showing that in the last 40 years, only about 11 to 15 percent of new drugs provided significant clinical improvement over existing ones, while the remaining 85 to 89 percent include what are called "me-too" drugs, clones of existing drugs, marketed as the latest breakthrough. An example is Nexium, a me-too version of Prilosec. "Nexium is a big seller mainly because of marketing, but it has no advantage over Prilosec. Americans somehow believe that a new drug must be better; otherwise it wouldn't have been approved," Light said. "European buying groups assess new drugs and if the drugs aren't much better, they are not willing to pay much more. That's an incentive to find drugs that are substantially better because they'll get a higher price," he said. "American insurers and Medicare pay high prices regardless of added value." Where's the money going? European pharmaceutical companies are not only producing more, but doing it for less. European patented drug prices run about half the cost in the United States, yet they are sufficient to support a robust research effort, Light said. If American companies charge double for prescription drugs, where are the extra funds going and why do doctors keep prescribing new drugs that are little better? The answer is marketing, according to Light. "High prices for these new drugs enable companies to spend 2.5 times more on marketing than on R&D to persuade physicians to prescribe them and patients to want them. Thus, current incentives reward better marketing over better value," Light wrote in the paper. If U.S. pharmaceutical companies emulate their European counterparts by raising productivity and cutting excess marketing, Medicare's "doughnut hole" dilemma could be solved, Light said. The doughnut hole is a gap in Medicare Part D, which fails to cover patients who spend over $2,700 but under $4,350 per year on prescription drugs. "American prices really do not need to be so high. This could mean substantial savings for Medicare Part D and the ability to fill the doughnut hole," he said. This research was funded by the Escher Project of Top Institute Pharma at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands. Donald Light is the Lorry Lokey Visiting Professor in Human Biology from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The research is scheduled to be published online in the Aug. 25 edition of Health Affairs as a Web Exclusive. -------------------- If anyone is interested, there is an interesting piece (from 2006) on innovation, R&D, in European pharma titled "For a strong and innovative European pharmaceutical industry" aee: www.eaepc.org/admin/files/eaepc_paper_on_r&d_debate.doc One interesting bit from the above report: The evidence suggests that European and American pharmaceutical firms spend roughly similar amounts on R&D. Figures quoted at a US Senate hearing showed that the American pharmaceutical industry committed around $33 billion to R&D in 2003 while the equivalent figure for the EU was approximately $28 billion.1 The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme documents that UK drug companies actually invest proportionately more of their revenues from domestic sales in R&D than do companies in the US. . . However, there are vast differences between Europe and the US in overall R&D investment in the pharmaceutical field given that the levels of public spending differ greatly across the Atlantic. The American National Institutes of Health (NIH) invests over $27 billion annually in medical research, an impressive figure for which there is no equivalent in the EU. The funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 212,000 researchers at over 2,800 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. The level of public spending is likely to have a significant impact on innovation given that it accounts for a much more significant share of R&D funding for leading drugs. The NIH found that industry and patent holders only contributed between 15 and 37% of R&D funding for the discovery of five leading drugs, with taxpayers and academia shouldering up to 85%.