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.

Biotech / Medical : PFE (Pfizer) How high will it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (3957)	7/6/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: zurdo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9523

Anthony, HUM doesn't look like its doing that badly...It looks like an upward trend to me...I hope you sold it in early June and not in late May...I see it made a sizeable gain in early June, and it is still heading up...By the way one finds it hard to believe the HMOs are doing as badly as they try to portray...Looking at KAISER PERMANENTE, I see nothing but the reflection of HUGE PROFITS...Their hospitals, buildings, offices, etc. all reflect big wealth...

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (3957)	7/6/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9523

Pfizer Says Insurers Cause 'Unnecessary Fear' About Viagra July 06, 1998 3:24 PM NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Pfizer Inc., the maker of Viagra, is accusing insurers of instilling "unnecessary fear" in consumers by refusing to pay for the impotency treatment on safety grounds. Pfizer (PFE) began the offensive Monday in an unusual confrontation with insurers who hold the power to approve or disapprove its many drugs. It was responding to Prudential HealthCare and Humana Inc. managers who said their companies wouldn't reimburse patients for Viagra because they weren't sure it was safe. Prudential HealthCare, a unit of Prudential Insurance Co. of America, with more than five million members in managed-care plans, and Humana (HUM), a managed-care company with 6.2 million members, said last week they took the action because they weren't assured of the drug's long-term safety. Wall Street analysts questioned whether insurers looking for an excuse to avert the financial pain of paying for the pricey $10-a-pill impotency treatment. "Any challenges to the safety of Viagra are factually and medically incorrect," Pfizer spokeswoman Mariann Caprino said. "It's irresponsible to raise the concerns of the general public over the safety of this drug ... and it's causing unnecessary fear." At least 30 Viagra users have died since the drug came on the market in March. Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration point out that users of the blockbuster drug are often elderly and have other health problems. Both maintain that there's no evidence any of the patients would have died if they took the drug as directed. Kaiser Permanente and other insurers have refused to cover Viagra because of the high cost. But Prudential and Humana officials say safety was their primary concern. "We had some concerns about the long-term safety effects of the drug," Humana spokeswoman Valerie Kennedy said. Prudential spokesman Kevin Heine went further, saying the insurer is concerned about the deaths and the risk to men who have recently had a heart attack. "We think it would be irresponsible to cover the drug without answers as to why those adverse situations occurred," Heine said. "If those concerns are addressed we will cover the drug." Neither company has contacted Pfizer to seek further safety information, Caprino said. "We would certainly welcome an opportunity to meet with them and put these concerns to rest," she said. Insurers are using safety concerns to mask their real reason for denying the drug - its budget-busting price, industry analyst Hemant K. Shah said. "There's no question about it," said Shah, an independent drug industry analyst in Warren, N.J. "It's very difficult to give other reasons (besides safety) because the consumer backlash could be quite significant." With the price of new drugs rising, insurers are drawing a line at covering what they deem to be "lifestyle" drugs, Shah said. For instance, if an employer pays an insurer $4,000 a year to cover a patient and the patient is taking two pricey drugs - such as Viagra and a cholesterol reducer such as Merck & Co.'s (MRK) Zocor - the insurer could spend half that amount on drugs alone. "You're going to see that more and more, with drugs being pushed off the reimbursement list, because managed care companies can't survive like that," Shah said. "The cost has skyrocketed." Heine at Prudential denied that cost was a consideration. He said the insurer performs a safety review first and hadn't even looked at cost. Prudential has denied coverage of other FDA-approved drugs because of safety concerns and found its caution was appropriate, he said. Among them were two diet drugs, the high blood pressure drug Posicor and the painkiller Duract, all of which were recalled by their manufacturers in the past year after the FDA expressed concerns over reported side-effects. Drug makers have raised demand for drugs through aggressive advertisements on television and in news magazines after the FDA made such pitches easier last year. Insurers had held drug costs below inflation levels until this year. But now prices have began to outpace inflation and some health care observers expect drug costs to jump 10% or more in 1999. Drug industry analysts say the controversy probably won't affect Pfizer's bottom line much even if more insurers decline to cover Viagra because patients won't let the drug's price tag deter them. The drug has 97% of the market for impotency-treatment drugs, with about 2 million users so far and nearly 146,000 new prescriptions in the week ended June 26 alone, according to industry researcher IMS Health of Plymouth Meeting, Pa. Harry, a 52-year-old Atlanta man, says he's bought 35 pills since March and hasn't even asked his insurer to pay for it. He spoke on condition he not be identified further because of the sensitive nature of impotency treatments. "You'd mortgage the farm for it," he said. "It's expensive, but it's well worth it." Copyright (c) 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.