Will lower drug prices jeopardize drug research? A policy fact sheet

Myths and Memes about Single-Payer Health Insurance in the United States: A Rebuttal to Conservative Claims

Recent years have seen the rapid growth of private think tanks within the neoconservative movement that conduct “policy research” biased to their own agenda. This article provides an evidence-based rebuttal to a 2002 report by one such think tank, the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which was intended to discredit 20 alleged myths about single-payer national health insurance as a policy option for the United States. Eleven “myths” are rebutted under eight categories: access, cost containment, quality, efficiency, single-payer as solution, control of drug prices, ability to compete abroad (the “business case”), and public support for a single-payer system. Six memes (self-replicating ideas that are promulgated without regard to their merits) are identified in the NCPA report. Myths and memes should have no place in the national debate now underway over the future of a failing health care system, and need to be recognized as such and countered by experience and unbiased evidence.

Why the Shift? Taking a Closer Look at the Growing Interest in Niche Markets and Personalized Medicine

Pharmaceutical research and development is increasingly focused on niche markets, most notably treatments for rare diseases and “personalized” medicine. Drawing on the results of a qualitative study of 34 key Canadian stakeholders (including drug regulators, funders, scientists, policy experts, pharmaceutical industry representatives, and patient advocates), we explore the major trends that are reportedly contributing to the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in niche markets. Informed by both these key informant interviews and a review of the relevant literature, our paper provides a critical analysis of the many different—and sometimes conflicting—views on the reasons for and extent of the shift toward niche markets. We consider some of the potential advantages to industry, as well the important implications and risks that arise from the increasing pursuit of niche markets and pharmacogenomics. While there are many potential benefits associated with targeted therapies and drug development for historically neglected rare diseases, niche market therapies also present evidentiary challenges (e.g., smaller clinical trials and enrichment strategies) that can make approval decisions difficult, and uncertainties remain around the true benefits of many therapies.

Clinical research in Finland in 2002 and 2007: quantity and type

BACKGROUND

Regardless of worries over clinical research and various initiatives to overcome problems, few quantitative data on the numbers and type of clinical research exist. This article aims to describe the volume and type of clinical research in 2002 and 2007 in Finland.

METHODS

The research law in Finland requires all medical research to be submitted to regional ethics committees (RECs). Data from all new projects in 2002 and 2007 were collected from REC files and the characteristics of clinical projects (76% of all submissions) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The number of clinical projects was large, but declining: 794 in 2002 and 762 in 2007. Drug research (mainly trials) represented 29% and 34% of the clinical projects; their total number had not declined, but those without a commercial sponsor had. The number of different principal investigators was large (630 and 581). Most projects were observational, while an experimental design was used in 43% of projects. Multi-center studies were common. In half of the projects, the main funder was health care or was done as unpaid work; 31% had industry funding as the main source. There was a clear difference in the type of research by sponsorship. Industry-funded research was largely drug research, international multi-center studies, with randomized controlled or other experimental design. The findings for the two years were similar, but a university hospital as the main research site became less common between 2002 and 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical research projects were common, but numbers are declining; research was largely funded by health care, with many physicians involved. Drug trials were a minority, even though most research promotion efforts and regulation concerns them.

U.S. pharmacy policy: a public health perspective on safety and cost

A public health perspective based on social justice and a population health point of view emphasizes pharmacy policy innovations regarding safety and costs. Such policies that effectively reduce costs include controlling profits, establishing profit targets, extending prescription providers, revising prescription classification schemes, emphasizing generic medications, and establishing formularies. Public education and universal programs may reduce costs, but co-pays and "cost-sharing" do not. Switching medications to over-the-counter (OTC) status, pill splitting, and importing medication from abroad are poor substitutes for authentic public health pharmacy policy. Where policy changes yield savings, public health insists that these savings should be used to increase access and improve population health. In the future, pharmacy policies may emphasize public health accountability more than individual liberty because of potential cost savings to society. Fear of litigation, as an informal mechanism of focusing manufacturer's attention on safety, is inefficient; public health pharmacy policy regarding safety looks toward a more active regulatory role on the part of government. A case study of direct-to-consumer advertising illustrates the complexity of public health pharmacy policy.

Measuring US pharmaceutical industry R&D spending

Government policy debates on pharmaceutical pricing often turn on whether higher drug prices fund greater company-financed R&D spending. In the US, debate breaks down because each side uses a different measure of R&D spending, and the measures are far apart. Government agencies, Congress and consumer groups use government-generated survey data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the pharmaceutical industry uses survey data from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). This issue is also relevant to academic work because some studies use NSF data, and others use PhRMA data. This article illustrates the pros and cons of these survey data series, and offers a more reliable, comprehensive and replicable alternative series, based on Compustat data.

Regulating the market in human research participants

Lemmens and Miller critically examine "finder's fees" and other recruitment incentives issued to physicians for successfully referring patients to clinical trial investigators.