Rare Afflictions: Medicines or Markets - 03

MOVE OVER MEDICINES.. time for Patents in Markets

Model Most Sought

An informative point is made by Downton Abbey’s co-producer Neames when he relates that the country estate to which the family goes in A Journey to the Highlands was first built and owned by the Scottish* Campbell family. Built, said he, for prestige.. to umn show off.. their power and influence thereabouts. 

*A.J.P. Taylor’s prefaced word pertaining correct Scot usage.

What strikes viewers is the enormity of everything, huge gardens, a stone-walled castle with its bridge over some former moat leading to and from the entrance and then that high and wide room whose walls are festooned with rifles and gun arrays. Point served to all who would enter that here was a protected and exclusive preserve for its owner occupiers. 

Time traipse several hundred years and cross the Atlantic to America’s propertied. To find remarkable similarities in all but the castle or battlements thing. As Maggie Smith verbally duelled with Shirley Maclane so ably - though ‘outgunned’ on this particular point - “Americans” she complained to Edith, “they always get our underbelly!” 

To wit, tradition stood for little at all once property ownership conferred rights to self-defence and exclusive family life. Which had become the model most sought under a written Constitution in the United States of America.

And so on into business: property whether a railway or bank held lawful right to defend. Under bandit attack a call to private posse or public was the way of things.

We are, of course, in the physical realm, where forces were perceived and resources pitted to equal and opposite engagement. To uphold one’s property. 

But what then of wealth in the human mind and intellectual property? Why, nothing much, is the honest answer. American owners of intellectual property conferred upon themselves the right to self-defense.

Which has become a major and enduring problem once vast corporate wealth came upon and absorbed not Lady Grantham’s traditional values so much as Americans’ very own model most sought.

Here’s How..

Patents, were designed, as we have heard in recent days (President Obama’s initiative vs patent trolls (see below) are what lawfully confer on their owners protection against duplicity and in the pharmaceutical industry an exclusive period of time - say 15 years - whereby a patented product can be marketed so as to recover R&D costs and secure market share. From which investors make commercial return on their investment.

Through the decades1950-1980 many pharmaceuticals came from R&D, thence via the FDA(Federal Drugs Administration) back out to branding and US markets. Further, with multinational companies, such patented US brands went into overseas markets. Driven we could reasonably conclude by the fact of opportunity to medicate more widely, earn sizeable revenues and grow greater profits amounting to well satisfied/rewarded executives and boards.

Such was this opportunity that multis were legion and all with like attitudes of there being enough global opportunity to go around. Branded made the best returns. And so, wherever possible, US firms would ‘do what it takes’ to secure those brands. Not least, by longer patent lives(aka extended exclusivity periods.. 20 years instead of an earlier agreed 15. 1990s exec analysis might go something like: 5 more years and expanding means a cool billion so what’s $50M on lawyers ta do our thinking.

The picture I’ve drawn here is deliberate so as to have you recognise the old saw that when money is talking intellect can go out the window. And I make this pointedly in the knowledge of a US President fronting for his republican constituency and their Bah Humbug! dismissals of expensive lawyers. Pardon my poet-try but the following has sprung to mind:—

Tricky Dicky’ was for them long gone; 

firm execs do the done! from now on.

Legal dexterity on behalf Big Pharma’s patents amounted to defense, period. Devil’s advocate for a moment I’d say specialist lawyers were deemed necessary by weak-minded employers. So who among them might pass up good opportunities to leverage fees for so simple and justifiable a practice. In the land of the free there was free market mania. Defense was staked in the grounds of growth. 

Blockbuster drugs.

Holler was in boardrooms: Hey, the world is going global. We—yeah—wees making it global. My firm is global, it aint multinational anymore. We need more. Y’guys gotta think billions..

Nor am I lite here. Fact: According to Matthew Herper@Forbes(2012) the top-selling medicine ever earned (US)$12Bn in a single year. Anyone care to name this was Pfizer's Lipitor. The blockbuster drug, which is used to lower cholesterol levels, was first introduced to the market in 1997 and had a strong run of exclusivity until its patent expired in late 2011. One source puts its gross overall sales prior to it falling off the ‘patent cliff’ at $123bn. 

But let us be careful and conservative in a calculable and sensible linear annual earnings accumulation. 1997-2000(4yrs) it makes (US)$2bn. Each year thereafter to 2009 it adds a further $1bn to the total for 8 years [= 12 in its patent calendar]. Gross to date: $54bn. The next couple of years it ticks over at the same rate(#10bn/yr) then in the final exclusive it kicks to $12bn. Grand total $86bn.

Now I set the first figure ($2bn) because experience tells me that every marketing effort is made early to cover R&D costs for a particular drug. This can take time and four years is a reasonable expectation. As the $ figure at or prior to 1997 is also reasonable.

I should point out that it is an add-on creative accounting - for instance including company acquisition costs which really are more market-rooted than R&D expenditures, and a most dubious practice of including capital costs(aka other utility or use) in accounting R&D costs. Of course when such things and loss-generating incompetances are low-balled into this single category then this excuse of excuses for why pharmaceuticals cost so much can appear very large indeed. My suggestion is that buyers be more than aware and have the blighters declare! Everything. Before you part with a nickel.

In terms of market returns a good rule of thumb is that US sales rank 50 percent of total global sales. Examine this specific and we know from US sales data ONLY how SEVEN drugs came in with $1bn in quarterly sales. US citizens are solely accounting here for what corporates term an implicit willingness to pay high prices for their prescription drugs.

Should this be the driver of overseas pharmaceutical drug pricing then I suggest it be considered a Model Least Sought

Bear in mind, please do, that in the USA its patent drug cliff is one of the driver's to greater incomes - hopefully to make up the shortfalls generics usage has generated. Another, of course, is need to climb out of recessionary status and economic conditions.

But these matters are well canvassed there if not elsewhere. Along with alternative, so-called ORPHAN drugs development for orphan(rare = < 200,000 US patients with a diagnosed and prescribable condition) which are rendering a US cachet to patient populations around the globe.

Next I'd like to cover some aspects of these and other matters before moving into a closer scrutiny of a particular orphan drug product.

* Patent trolls — Hattip radionz’s webmaster via their Worldwatch of last Sunday morning, I understand that American Life has an excellent 2-parter on this topic. 

Online there is also a small businessman taking a commonsense approach in dealing to them here

Till next time..

Rare Afflictions: Medicine or Markets - 01

My initial interest in the topic began in the 1960s.

On a wet blustery morning I was sitting in a company Ford whilst the driver went into ground-floor rooms of a high terraced property across the road.

Suddenly, beside my head, a tap on the window. I turned to see bare knuckles, white cuffs, dark-suited and over coated, and a decidedly pale-faced man asking me to let the window down.

"Sorry," he said when I did so, "thought you were Ken. His car isn't it? Gone, has he?"

"None.. of those," I answered carefully, "who are you?"

"George, PD if ya wanna know."

"Parke Davis."

"That's the one.. you?"

"You know. You know Ken, so I'm with his firm right now—"

"Gottit! Manager, huh. Course, ya would be, sitting in the passenger seat an' all."

"Actually—"

"Doesn't matter, ya don't have to explain. Look, I only stopped by on a hope and if Ken's in there with doc Harris he sure won't want to see me today."

"You're the pharmacist aren't you, " I asked, remembering Ken's earlier conversation related to the reason I was there in the first place. "Australian—"

"New Zealander, actually. Yeah, PD are pretty good like that. But yes you're right, pharmacist makes a big difference. Hey, I see Ken coming. Nice to meet you, I'll be off."

And he was, jogging back to the rear and soon out of sight.

Ken confirmed my impressions, adding in his pedantic former teacher way, "Almost prescient really. Good we got to Harris first. Given what's happened and his attitude to prescribing stuff. Parke Davis do do chloromycetin don't they..?"

"Chloramphenicol," I replied with a brief practice of the antibiotic's generic name, "though it would help knowing if Harris got the problems in adults or children."

"Both. I mean, he was for everyone and everything. Broad spectrum, the greatest and best ever. Nothing to touch it. Now, well, with aplastic anaemias—that was what you said wasn't it—he's got to rethink his.. and I.. I for one don't see it coming easily.. if at all."

"Not me," I said easily as he started up and drove off, "not why I'm here. We do an alternative, but not broad spectrum, as you know. Paediatric, too, again not all-and-sundry. And yes, self-regulation like ours.. y'know from your rep training.. means it has a life. Efficacy for life. Sure other drugs will come along yet for now someone needs hold the reins."

Enthused, Ken sang, "Oh yes, erythromycin is very good when used properly. Kept in reserve and all. Now listen, Norm, before we do my next call, Harris has agreed to lunch. Says he'll meet us first, then decide where. I couldn't do better than that. But I could look out for us if you don't get anywhere with him. He won't like you telling him what you've just told me and I know the chemists around him pretty well so if you think I should cover the scrip supply issue I'll get onto it straightaway."

"Thank you, Ken, good thinking. But let's do lunch first. Let's hope he's still receptive to our ethics and can take in your commercial front plus my R&D.."

Doctor Harris did, as it happened, and so in this single case sense the transatlantic corporate boards ratification of avoiding drugs misuse by unwarranted prescription remained intact.

Tom Meades made medical literature with his study of doctor prescribing and drug use competence.  In the 1950s. Yet even ten years later  serious side-effects of continued drug use were being reported. In patient population clusters(ie cities) this can result in great difficulties tracking down and remediation.

Been a While..

SINCE I posted here.

But I do need say something - LOBBY - and other spots are not appropriate.

Soon I intend making a submission IMPORTANT for why a government agency, which has been reported to reject an efficacious biopharmaceutical, would do so. And for equally significant reasons to its very high treatment costs.

Concerns to balance pertinent matters in reaching my conclusion will be recalled and recounted.

Today I'd like begin with the first of those. Recalling a past event will most certainly state where I am coming from. Though I hasten to add that readers seeking only what they want to hear would be wise not to presume anything more than what is presented.

Let's entitle this series of posts RARE AFFLICTIONS: MEDICINE or MARKETS?

006: Meet M/S No Messing!

A cannabinoid mimics cannabis. Aka synthetic cannabis, tho I personally think this misnomers. However, it seems that workplace usage thereof has entered our community consciousness.

Elsewhere ingredients were at issue. Noted as contaminant the prescription (viz controlled use) drug phenazepam present. Whose presence was what I'd refer to as a likely story( viz excuse).

How come..? What of controls.? Is it one thing to legislate for controlled substances and quite another to expect satisfactory knowledge in commercial profitmakers from such substances? In whom are satisfactory use standards mandated and/or obligatory?

More than interesting is what the New Zealand Drug Foundation director, Ross Bell, had to say on the subject:—

"The trouble with our drug laws is..the onus is on the government to prove a new product is harmful, rather than a manufacturer prove it is safe."

Looks a market-ready recipe for make and sell..what the hell!

Then a surprise when a commenter told of how NZ was the only other country (cf USA) to operate DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising on non-prescription, or controlled, drugs.

If true, then free market practices have hit upon one major obstacle in the form of uncontrolled and, as the case may be, unacceptable drugs demand.

For myself, a smoking quitter now at least two decades mature, I'd call unacceptable. For reasons related to how consequential costs shall fall upon others in need of health dollars in a very zero sum budgetary scheme of things post-recession and/or recession-strapped.

Okay, so for me there's a case to answer. How does one do this..?

Tell them about the Hearing.. y'know Woodcock—no not Woodstock—I said Doc Woodcock didn't I.. go on..!

Yes, Perjjo, you were rather impressed with her weren't you.. okay..I'll mention it though I can't remember all the points..

She's the point, just remember that—

At the Energy and  Commerce subcommittee Hearing this last week on "Medical Innovation, Jobs and Patients". S/Committee members Dingell and Waxman ready, willing and able to follow through in respect of patient safety.

Backstory to the meeting included in part the heparin crisis of 2008. Briefly:—

The discovery of a contaminant* in batches of heparin throws into stark relief the difficulties, not only for the US Food and Drug Administration, but also for international regulatory agencies, to ensure the safety and quality of active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Riven with political partisanry and polarisations the US in recent years has made little progress on such matters. Added to which Republicans have backed aggressive budget cuts to FDA, whilst requiring it relax scrutiny of new drug approvals and conflicts of interest.

Before them a bill - HR 1483 - the Drug Safety Enhancement Act. Needed was informed evidence on where the FDA was at so as to close gaps. Related, I gather Tom had spotted a p/release and jotted the salient, and to the extent of expanding what the agency would be about in broad global collaborations, I think the proceedings useful. 

On message Rep. Waxman said: “It is in no one’s interest to have a weak FDA.. If Americans lose confidence in the FDA, they will lose confidence in the pharma industry as well. The FDA needs the resources to protect us for(sic) unsafe drugs, and to be sure these drugs work.”

Firm for the FDA, Dr. Janet Woodcock, positively shone:—
".. the agency's job is to keep patients safe, and make sure drugs work.. It is an important piece of the innovation pipeline, not an impediment".

Wow! Whoever would have thought responsible regulation in the food and drug industry was an impediment? No, don't tell me, let me guess ;-)

Far from overcome by the insight several Hearing members argued that a "dry drug pipeline" was the FDA's problem. Woodcock countered immediately, "Safety problems were not the sole province of generic drug makers.. "Heparin was not a generic drug.. This is not a generic drug problem–this is a pervasive drug quality problem".

Hi, Perjjo again: I've gotten the feeling this lady sees the past as a foreign country.. know what I mean? Roll on the future..

She was not done either. Rep Dingell explained to all present how the next session would be rapid fire Q&A—like he was rapid Q and she rapid A..

His first ten getting short solid noes. Because this frames the nature of HR 1483 I'll include five of them as follows...

Do you have —

• ability to control the safety of pharma imports into the US?
• necessary resources to ensure raw materials suppliers do GMP**
• authority to recall drugs you believe to be substandard or unsafe
• power to refuse suspected adulterated imports at the border
• ability to share matters with trusted regulatory partners

Then wry smiles as staccato paused on the humorous note of her two yesses..

So.. let me see, saith Rep. Dingell — it's a nine year frequency for visiting foreign drug manufacturing facilities.. and a one year frequency for dog food making facilities.?

Yes.

Do you(FDA) need these additional authorities and would HR 1483 have afforded you need to deal with the heparin problem?

Absolutely, yes.

Do it America, and collaborate internationally without getting too hung up over drug "counterfeiting" etc. This needn't mean a return to the  - lucky you! - trade protection regime that so very fortunately avoided much thalidomide tragedy - but needed is to re-enable capability for demanding responsible and obligations-led pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical global business.

*  The heparin was made in China, which like the melamine contamination of milk had prior 'approval' because ** good manufacturing practices were not or had not been observed and a critical number of casualties in the market took time to build up and get noticed.

005: III - Trilogy

Also upholding the Michigan Court’s decision was a major surprise in the form of Circuit Judge Sutton.

President G. W. Bush’s appointee in 2003. [ Recall if you will this was the same year the President signed $400 bn for pensioners pharmaceuticals package into Medicare so as to secure his second term from their otherwise sizeable democratic constituency. ] Firmly conservative, strong on states rights and legislation, he also came with worthies backing an astute mind ( having time served in SC Justice Scalia’s office ) for future Supremes nomination.

As if speaking directly to Judge Graham’s powers of federal force he argued:—

In most respects, a mandate to purchase health insurance does not parallel these other settings or markets... Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law.

So.. in the order of things person-2-patient acceptable rule would be: find, treat(remedy), set upon upon recovery and process payment for service rendered

This compassionate conservative then appeared join Judge Martin on the economic component with — "Call this mandate what you will -- an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care -- it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce”.

Enough said. For a majority 2-1 decision at anyrate.

But Judge Graham had flashed a beacon to followers. Most of whom were stunned by a majority going against them. Appalled, as they saw things, that one of their own should back the President. Politics, politics, their wherewithal, when law and its relevance was at issue.

Spotting the light from among them, however, the libertarian Cato’s constitutional studies fellow, Ilya Shapiro blogged: “... it is shocking that an avowed constitutionalist like Judge Sutton requires Congress to show only a rational basis behind what it does.. to survive constitutional scrutiny. Under such logic, Congress can do anything it wants so far as it is essential to a larger regulatory scheme. That cannot be the law.”

Which of course overstates Judge Graham’s point. Besides, who would seriously abide “cannot”s pertinent the law in this case. And with these people.

Elsewhere though highly relevant—never mind the law—those Republican legislators went yesterday, there’s a debt problem and regardless Americans polled willingness to take cuts or afford more(premia or taxes) so as to sustain Medicare, we say cut $600bn from that government expense! What Congress gives(2003 qv) Congress can take away!

High-handed Big GovT ( from hypocritical republicans ) wouldn’t you say.?

As for Shapiro et al I think the unmentionable is due.

Larsson is a fine Swedish writer and knows well enough the libertarian mind. Yes, even the American libertarian mind. As readers of The Girl Who Played With Fire realise. Heroine Salander has been severely abused by her father and a second male state-appointed lawyer guardian, Bjurman. Knowing this her first-appointed guardian(stroke-sufferer recovering with her able assistance) discusses with his doctor her decision to ‘go after’ the two men still scourging her existence. The doctor declares himself surprised at Palmgren’s “libertarian aspect” insofar as his endorsement of her depravity, not to mention that she could kill herself in the endeavor. The lawyer then admits: “Yes, so am I.”

The only conclusion a reader can draw for his support is that emotion is/was the driver. Libertarians thus, and most certainly between themselves, are no less irrational than the remainder of human beings when push comes to shove.

Shapiro’s “rational” accusation upon Judge Jackson’s logic is both mistaken. And misplaced.

To wrap, Law Prof. Jost(Washington & Lee) said the Appeal Court had undertaken “a much more sophisticated opinion than we’ve seen before; a more thorough examination of the precedents”.

Not putting words into mouths, but lifting their game is where it is at for Affordable Care Act opponents

Already heard, two further appeals awaited. Will they result in a Supreme Court decider.? Who knows. Yet politics, politics, so messy, might not money + mouthiness meet more minds.!

If so, then sadly, the wrong expense.