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?
Showing posts with label Reasoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reasoning. Show all posts
Friday, 24 May 2013
Friday, 1 July 2011
005: Today, Tomorrow & the Next Day - a trilogy
Upon good advices received from Just Muppo(qv) today's blog relates a procedure which in this theater's vernacular is termed scraping bones. You will understand, and accept I hope, my metaphor insofar as footing the soil above those bones has already taken place.
So.. what do we have here.? ( o/c: sayeth medz muse: Along the way to a thoroughgoing differential one ought to discern the parts..)
Ah yes, immediately I see several parts and shall take them in order.
Concerning the first we have a news item by Pollack upon the Medicare decision to continue fund treatment to existing patients a chemotherapeutic which the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently declared non-approved for breast cancer.
At a single stroke the FDA thus took Avastin 'off-label' - (non-approved removes this indication from the drug's labelling) - yet in no wise eliminated off-label use. Which physician-administered course is both privately practised and Medicare funded.
Personally and unlike this decision's strenuous and overly sharp critics, who to a man (strangely most government-opposed!) declare the FDA did it because of the money!—meaning that Genentech's price at ~USD88,000 p.a. is too much to pay—I see the wisdom of prudent arms-length twixt government agency and manufacturer in operation.
Meaning truly good news for Big Pharma as it sustains the manufacturer's freedom to target their drug's market - thus upholding marketshare and revenues - via pricing. They have, as it were, retained the freedom(thus right) of decision. Herein with its greater value of sustainability. Surely?
Put simply: the higher the price the fewer the patients; the fewer the patients the less likely abuse and/or overuse. Thus, rather obviously, the longer its life.
To those oh so price-conscious critics one sees the squeal of $88 grand 'off-label' hitting purse and pocket as Recession bites upon perhaps their constituency's costly choices. Cries for help has never been their thing, whereas contention that taxes ought claw back costs reigns uppermost. Yea, regardless taxpayers in general.
Ho.. whoa.! Don't go there, don't talk about general taxpayers, that's political. See! And political in these times is a way out of.. of taking ownership. Responsibility..? Yes, mostly individual responsibility.
...
When I started out folks, a trilogy blog was no way envisaged. Now I don't see myself avoiding it. I thus encourage you stay the course, for its space and time holds value for all who do.
...
Tomorrow, the second part—AFFORDABILITY..
So.. what do we have here.? ( o/c: sayeth medz muse: Along the way to a thoroughgoing differential one ought to discern the parts..)
Ah yes, immediately I see several parts and shall take them in order.
Concerning the first we have a news item by Pollack upon the Medicare decision to continue fund treatment to existing patients a chemotherapeutic which the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently declared non-approved for breast cancer.
At a single stroke the FDA thus took Avastin 'off-label' - (non-approved removes this indication from the drug's labelling) - yet in no wise eliminated off-label use. Which physician-administered course is both privately practised and Medicare funded.
Personally and unlike this decision's strenuous and overly sharp critics, who to a man (strangely most government-opposed!) declare the FDA did it because of the money!—meaning that Genentech's price at ~USD88,000 p.a. is too much to pay—I see the wisdom of prudent arms-length twixt government agency and manufacturer in operation.
Meaning truly good news for Big Pharma as it sustains the manufacturer's freedom to target their drug's market - thus upholding marketshare and revenues - via pricing. They have, as it were, retained the freedom(thus right) of decision. Herein with its greater value of sustainability. Surely?
Put simply: the higher the price the fewer the patients; the fewer the patients the less likely abuse and/or overuse. Thus, rather obviously, the longer its life.
To those oh so price-conscious critics one sees the squeal of $88 grand 'off-label' hitting purse and pocket as Recession bites upon perhaps their constituency's costly choices. Cries for help has never been their thing, whereas contention that taxes ought claw back costs reigns uppermost. Yea, regardless taxpayers in general.
Ho.. whoa.! Don't go there, don't talk about general taxpayers, that's political. See! And political in these times is a way out of.. of taking ownership. Responsibility..? Yes, mostly individual responsibility.
...
When I started out folks, a trilogy blog was no way envisaged. Now I don't see myself avoiding it. I thus encourage you stay the course, for its space and time holds value for all who do.
...
Tomorrow, the second part—AFFORDABILITY..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)