There is a new bill in Massachusetts which would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose their costs in order to justify high prices on new medications. Hmmmm.... Do you think it would fly? I hope it would.
"An alliance of lawmakers, consumers, and health insurers is pushing for a law that would force biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to justify their prices by disclosing how much they spend on research, production, and marketing. It also would allow the state’s Health Policy Commission to limit the prices of especially costly drugs, something not done anywhere in the country...."
"The bill cites “substantial public interest” in what goes into the prices of such medicines. Drug makers would be required to disclose, among other things, their development and marketing outlays, how much research was paid for with public funds, their manufacturing costs, and the prices of their drugs in other countries. It would also empower the commission, which is charged with holding down health care costs, to impose cost controls on some high-priced drugs."
Of course the pharma companies are not too happy about this. They claim it would reduce innovation. Okay, I get it. They don't want anyone snooping into their finances. But as far as I am concerned, if they get public funding, they need to be open about their pricing and use of the money.
If they choose not to get public funding, which they all do, then as far as I am concerned, there would need to be a bit more justification for the prices.
For decades, pharma manufacturers have been able to set their prices and the US has not negotiated with them, leaving Americans pinched by high prices. In recent years, new medications have cost tens or hundreds of thousands each year per patient for rare cancers or other ailments.
Someone has to create an onus for the manufacturers to justify their prices instead of just allowing them to ask for what they want. They try to justify it by saying their costs are high and hardly anyone pays the full prices because of insurance coverage or discounts from the manufacturers. That just isn't enough. They need to provide some kind of back up for their requests.
Okay, that's just my 2 cents, as usual.
Showing posts with label pharmaceutical manufacturers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pharmaceutical manufacturers. Show all posts
Feb 20, 2020
Dec 31, 2019
Americans united against big pharma
Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who doesn't approve of big pharma. And now it turns out that in general more of us disapprove of big pharma and think they are ripping off patients who rake their prescription medications. Its nice to know I am not alone in being critical.
You can read the article here. Big pharma companies have a lower favorability rating than the erect of the healthcare industry, airlines and banks. And only slightly more favorable than oil companies.
You can read the article here. Big pharma companies have a lower favorability rating than the erect of the healthcare industry, airlines and banks. And only slightly more favorable than oil companies.
Nov 11, 2019
A little too personal for me
Now big pharma has another 'bright idea'. They want to use fitbits in clinical trials to get more details on the impact of the medication and if it is working. However that wouldn't work for me. So it would be another way I would be excluded from potential clinical trials.
I am never eligible for clinical trials now anyway. I have too many ailments to be considered. It would be very difficult to tell the impact of a new medication because I have so many others.
Also, I can't wear fit bits. I cant put anything on my left arm because of lymphedema. This means no watches, no bracelets, and only my wedding ring, when my arm is feeling okay. And a fitbit? Absolutely not. I have problems wearing anything on my right arm because of my tennis elbow/bad wrist/everything else that is going on. No watches, bracelets either (I carry my phone to use instead of a watch).
This article talks about a 'fitbit' that would work as an adhesive patch. I am allergic to so many things these days. Last week's pain patch left a raised area on my chest from the adhesive even though I have been using anti itch lotion to help heal it. I am probably not the only person with multiple medical issues who would have issues when wearing one of these.
Finally, I think a fitbit is a bit intrusive. Its my body and I am not sure how comfortable I feel with someone monitoring my body from afar. I would want to be the one monitoring the results and then forwarding them to the pharma company.
So a 'bright' idea by someone who is healthy.It might be easier for them, but not necessarily easier for the patients.
I am never eligible for clinical trials now anyway. I have too many ailments to be considered. It would be very difficult to tell the impact of a new medication because I have so many others.
Also, I can't wear fit bits. I cant put anything on my left arm because of lymphedema. This means no watches, no bracelets, and only my wedding ring, when my arm is feeling okay. And a fitbit? Absolutely not. I have problems wearing anything on my right arm because of my tennis elbow/bad wrist/everything else that is going on. No watches, bracelets either (I carry my phone to use instead of a watch).
This article talks about a 'fitbit' that would work as an adhesive patch. I am allergic to so many things these days. Last week's pain patch left a raised area on my chest from the adhesive even though I have been using anti itch lotion to help heal it. I am probably not the only person with multiple medical issues who would have issues when wearing one of these.
Finally, I think a fitbit is a bit intrusive. Its my body and I am not sure how comfortable I feel with someone monitoring my body from afar. I would want to be the one monitoring the results and then forwarding them to the pharma company.
So a 'bright' idea by someone who is healthy.It might be easier for them, but not necessarily easier for the patients.
Oct 15, 2018
Okay, I just don't like or respect the guy
A few days ago I wrote about the drug whose cost was going from something reasonable $3.50 per pill to $750 because the new company owner wanted to. Due to pressure, they have now said they will reduce the price but didn't say when or by how much.
This same person has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits to interfere with FDA approvals and also hedging against the company stock. So he ends up making a bundle while slowing down drugs reaching the market. So this lovely gentleman has a history of doing this:
"Until this week, Shkreli was largely unknown beyond Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry.He gained sudden notoriety for jacking up the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat life-threatening infections, just two months after his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, acquired the medicine.
Initially defiant in the face of an onslaught of criticism, the 32-year-old chief executive agreed on Tuesday to lower the price, although he has not indicated when or by how much."
But wait there's more!
"Shkreli employed a similar pricing strategy at Retrophin, another drug company he ran before its board of directors booted him from his executive position. Last month, Retrophin accused him in a lawsuit of using company funds to repay investors after his hedge fund became insolvent."
Isn't this illegal?
"Shkreli also has a track record of betting against pharmaceutical stocks — a practice known as short selling. And in at least two cases he pressed federal regulators to reject the companies’ product at the same time he was betting the stocks would go down."
I think I have a nasty name for him now.
"In 2010, while running his hedge fund, Shkreli wrote a letter to the FDA urging the agency to turn down an application from MannKind, a company he was shorting that was seeking approval for an inhaled insulin product, according to news accounts. The agency initially had multiple issues with the drug but eventually approved it last year."
And again:
"In 2011, Shkreli then turned his attention to Navidea and its cancer diagnostic, called Lymphoseek — this time going so far as to a file a “citizen’s petition,” a more formal kind of regulatory complaint. Shkreli has no formal medical or scientific training. But while shorting the firm’s stock, he argued there were problems with the design of clinical trials used to evaluate the radioactive agent.
He publicized his complaints and financial bets against Navidea, which caused the company’s stock value to drop by nearly half, to about $250 million, leaving the drug maker in turmoil.
By filing the petition, Shkreli “almost derailed the Lymphoseek program,” said Steve Brozak, who heads WBB Securities, which helped raise money for Navidea (which was known as Neoprobe at the time). “He created an illusion there was an issue [with the trials], but the only thing he did was make money by shorting the stock. Meanwhile, patients could have been penalized.”"
What a 'nice' guy. He is lining his pockets with complete disregard for the patients who might actually benefit from these medical developments. He is young (32), but I am not sure he will ever grow out of this, unless he ends up in jail.
It is people like this who contribute to the expenses of pharma companies who are trying to bring new life saving treatments to market.
This same person has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits to interfere with FDA approvals and also hedging against the company stock. So he ends up making a bundle while slowing down drugs reaching the market. So this lovely gentleman has a history of doing this:
"Until this week, Shkreli was largely unknown beyond Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry.He gained sudden notoriety for jacking up the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat life-threatening infections, just two months after his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, acquired the medicine.
Initially defiant in the face of an onslaught of criticism, the 32-year-old chief executive agreed on Tuesday to lower the price, although he has not indicated when or by how much."
But wait there's more!
"Shkreli employed a similar pricing strategy at Retrophin, another drug company he ran before its board of directors booted him from his executive position. Last month, Retrophin accused him in a lawsuit of using company funds to repay investors after his hedge fund became insolvent."
Isn't this illegal?
"Shkreli also has a track record of betting against pharmaceutical stocks — a practice known as short selling. And in at least two cases he pressed federal regulators to reject the companies’ product at the same time he was betting the stocks would go down."
I think I have a nasty name for him now.
"In 2010, while running his hedge fund, Shkreli wrote a letter to the FDA urging the agency to turn down an application from MannKind, a company he was shorting that was seeking approval for an inhaled insulin product, according to news accounts. The agency initially had multiple issues with the drug but eventually approved it last year."
And again:
"In 2011, Shkreli then turned his attention to Navidea and its cancer diagnostic, called Lymphoseek — this time going so far as to a file a “citizen’s petition,” a more formal kind of regulatory complaint. Shkreli has no formal medical or scientific training. But while shorting the firm’s stock, he argued there were problems with the design of clinical trials used to evaluate the radioactive agent.
He publicized his complaints and financial bets against Navidea, which caused the company’s stock value to drop by nearly half, to about $250 million, leaving the drug maker in turmoil.
By filing the petition, Shkreli “almost derailed the Lymphoseek program,” said Steve Brozak, who heads WBB Securities, which helped raise money for Navidea (which was known as Neoprobe at the time). “He created an illusion there was an issue [with the trials], but the only thing he did was make money by shorting the stock. Meanwhile, patients could have been penalized.”"
What a 'nice' guy. He is lining his pockets with complete disregard for the patients who might actually benefit from these medical developments. He is young (32), but I am not sure he will ever grow out of this, unless he ends up in jail.
It is people like this who contribute to the expenses of pharma companies who are trying to bring new life saving treatments to market.
Oct 2, 2018
Keeping secrets
Everyone keeps secrets - like how much I weigh. That is known to me, the scale, and my doctor's office. Its no one's business but mine and, truth be told, I really do not like the number but that's another story. There are other instances where keeping secrets is okay. Like a secret family recipe. Or a medical history.
These secrets are just information we want to keep private for whatever reason. It is fine that they are kept private and not shared indiscriminately.
Then there is the issue of secrets vs. transparency. This is when secrets are kept between groups where they should not be. Transparency is important between groups so that honesty leads and there can be understanding and appreciation of the other side. Without transparency, dishonesty can be suspected and with suspicion comes distrust. Which leads to bias and anger.
A big area where there is no transparency is in drug pricing. The pharmaceutical industry has a problem with this. Yesterday (was it yesterday or the day before?) I blogged about that 'gentleman' who jacked up the pricing of an existing drug for no given reason.
And for an industry already struggling with an image problem over the rising costs of prescription drugs, companies are going to have a hard time distancing themselves from one of the most controversial men in America.
The reason is a lack of transparency. Drug makers do not really want to explain how medicines are priced and, as a result, they have adopted an air of secrecy in which one cowboy can create havoc for an entire industry.
“The [Shkreli] episode is really an extreme manifestation of an attitude that has taken over the industry,” said Bernard Munos, a former corporate strategy adviser at Eli Lilly who is now a senior fellow at FasterCures, a medical research think tank. Most drug companies “are not raising prices by 5,000 percent, but large prices will leave patients with the same impression.”
It’s certainly true that funding drug discovery is expensive. The latest estimate of what it costs to get a drug out the door is, on average, $2.6 billion, according to a 2014 Tufts University report that was funded in part by industry.
Yet pharma leaders have done a poor job of explaining how the cost of R&D translates into a need for climbing prices or the sky-high sticker prices that are commonly set for new medicines from the get-go. Rather than opening their books, drug makers continually repeat the refrain about increasing development costs, and they avoid any candid discussions about cost that may invite more interest in setting price controls.
This is not a good thing. We need transparency to prevent more 'greed based' actions. Honesty and its partner transparency should rule. Secrecy and suspicion should be
These secrets are just information we want to keep private for whatever reason. It is fine that they are kept private and not shared indiscriminately.
Then there is the issue of secrets vs. transparency. This is when secrets are kept between groups where they should not be. Transparency is important between groups so that honesty leads and there can be understanding and appreciation of the other side. Without transparency, dishonesty can be suspected and with suspicion comes distrust. Which leads to bias and anger.
A big area where there is no transparency is in drug pricing. The pharmaceutical industry has a problem with this. Yesterday (was it yesterday or the day before?) I blogged about that 'gentleman' who jacked up the pricing of an existing drug for no given reason.
And for an industry already struggling with an image problem over the rising costs of prescription drugs, companies are going to have a hard time distancing themselves from one of the most controversial men in America.
The reason is a lack of transparency. Drug makers do not really want to explain how medicines are priced and, as a result, they have adopted an air of secrecy in which one cowboy can create havoc for an entire industry.
“The [Shkreli] episode is really an extreme manifestation of an attitude that has taken over the industry,” said Bernard Munos, a former corporate strategy adviser at Eli Lilly who is now a senior fellow at FasterCures, a medical research think tank. Most drug companies “are not raising prices by 5,000 percent, but large prices will leave patients with the same impression.”
It’s certainly true that funding drug discovery is expensive. The latest estimate of what it costs to get a drug out the door is, on average, $2.6 billion, according to a 2014 Tufts University report that was funded in part by industry.
Yet pharma leaders have done a poor job of explaining how the cost of R&D translates into a need for climbing prices or the sky-high sticker prices that are commonly set for new medicines from the get-go. Rather than opening their books, drug makers continually repeat the refrain about increasing development costs, and they avoid any candid discussions about cost that may invite more interest in setting price controls.
This is not a good thing. We need transparency to prevent more 'greed based' actions. Honesty and its partner transparency should rule. Secrecy and suspicion should be
Sep 3, 2018
Cancer Drug Costs
These prices are out of control. Upwards of $80,000 per patient per year or treatment protocol. Yes insurance companies pay the bulk of the costs but patients are hit with 20-30% out of pocket co-payments. Since the average family income in the US is $52,000, how are we supposed to pay for this? Can you only beat cancer if you are rich? That really creates a chasm between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. And the current insurance system cannot afford them either.
There is a new call by a group of doctors, oncologists, to get a better control of the pricing set by the drug manufacturers. This was announced in a recent issue of Proceedings published by the Mayo Clinic. It was also written about in Time Magazine and there is a petition on Change.org.
They offer a substantive set of arguments for the pricing changes that are definitely worth the read. They also discuss the high costs of developing drugs that are borne by the manufacturers and how that should be changed as well. They are not just firing at the drug manufacturers but providing multiple recommendations:
"Among the recommendations are allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, permitting cancer drug imports for individual patients, and passing laws to keep drug companies from delaying access to generic drugs."
My only complaint on this issue is that they focus on cancer drugs and not on the other high priced drugs out there. In my opinion, the changes should effect all drugs.
Please go read the articles and sign the petition.
There is a new call by a group of doctors, oncologists, to get a better control of the pricing set by the drug manufacturers. This was announced in a recent issue of Proceedings published by the Mayo Clinic. It was also written about in Time Magazine and there is a petition on Change.org.
They offer a substantive set of arguments for the pricing changes that are definitely worth the read. They also discuss the high costs of developing drugs that are borne by the manufacturers and how that should be changed as well. They are not just firing at the drug manufacturers but providing multiple recommendations:
"Among the recommendations are allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, permitting cancer drug imports for individual patients, and passing laws to keep drug companies from delaying access to generic drugs."
My only complaint on this issue is that they focus on cancer drugs and not on the other high priced drugs out there. In my opinion, the changes should effect all drugs.
Please go read the articles and sign the petition.
Jun 11, 2018
There is a moral here somewhere
What is that moral I can't quite recall? The tortoise and the hare? But not the early bird gets the worm.
Once a new drug is developed, there is a rush to get it to the market to help as many as possible. Patients who are very ill who might benefit from the new drug are quick to request access to it. But time is telling us that:
Once a new drug is developed, there is a rush to get it to the market to help as many as possible. Patients who are very ill who might benefit from the new drug are quick to request access to it. But time is telling us that:
- Rushing drugs through approvals isn't necessarily the best idea. The side effects and additional issues caused to patients actually cause more cost to the health care system and do not necessarily help the patients.
- The drug developers are supposed to continue their research but do not always comply.
- The FDA is not equipped to monitor the drug developers and review their additional study results.
Jan 22, 2018
Going for the big bucks instead of focusing on benefits to patients
Here's another thought that the pharmaceutical industry are going after the big bucks and not looking after the interests of the patients. A new study proposes that companies are focusing on developing late stage cancer drugs because the time to market (and financial return) is shorter than in developing preventive or early stage cancer drugs. I found this little tidbit online:
'Pharmaceutical companies are overlooking drugs to prevent cancer and treat early-stage tumors because they take longer and cost more to develop than drugs for late-stage cancers, according to a new MIT study.
“There’s dramatically more investments in the late-stage treatments than there is in stage one or stage two,” said Benjamin Roin, a professor at MIT and a co-author of the study. “There’s shockingly little investment in prevention.”
The study, published in American Economic Review, found that low investment in early-stage cancer drugs accounted for a loss of 890,000 life-years — additional years cancer patients would have lived — in just 2003.
The culprit, the authors say, is how regulators treat the vital exclusivity periods for new drugs. Because the exclusivity period begins when the patent is filed — not when it hits the market — drugs that take less time in clinical trials become more valuable, Roin said. Trials for cancer drugs targeting early-stage tumors and prevention can take significantly longer to show results, he said.
“It creates incentives to focus on the drugs you can get on the market quickly, as opposed to drugs that take longer to develop,” Roin said. “The patent system is penalizing companies if they take longer to develop stuff and providing bigger rewards if they develop stuff that gets to the market fast.”'
Perhaps they need to look at their business model instead of their shareholders. I mean aren't pharmaceutical companies supposed to be developing medications to help people stay alive and feel good? No wait, they must be out to make big bucks because if they wait for people to be sick and dependent on their meds, then they can rake in the billions. And they can charge more for these 'life extending' drugs. That way their shareholders will be happy. (I am really sick of shareholders after working for publicly traded companies.) Insert cynicism here please.
This is taken from the beginning of the study itself (Download pdf of study results here.):
"Over the last five years, eight new drugs have been approved to treat lung cancer, the leading cause of US cancer deaths.1 All eight drugs targeted patients with the most advanced form of lung cancer, and were approved on the basis of evidence that the drugs generated incremental improvements in survival. A well-known example is Genentech’s drug Avastin, which was estimated to extend the life of late-stage lung cancer patients from 10.3 months to 12.3 months.2 In contrast, no drug has ever been approved to prevent lung cancer, and only six drugs have ever been approved to prevent any type of cancer. While this pattern could solely reflect market demand or scientific challenges, in this paper we investigate an alternative hypothesis: private firms may invest more in late-stage cancer drugs—and too little in early-stage cancer and cancer prevention drugs—because late-stage cancer drugs can be brought to market comparatively quickly, whereas drugs to treat early-stage cancer and to prevent cancer require a much longer time to bring to market. More broadly stated, we investigate whether private firms differentially underinvest in long-term research, by which we mean technologies with long time lags between the initial spark of an idea and the availability of a commercially viable product. We document evidence that such underinvestment is quantitatively significant in an important context—treatments for cancer—and analyze potential policy responses."
'Pharmaceutical companies are overlooking drugs to prevent cancer and treat early-stage tumors because they take longer and cost more to develop than drugs for late-stage cancers, according to a new MIT study.
“There’s dramatically more investments in the late-stage treatments than there is in stage one or stage two,” said Benjamin Roin, a professor at MIT and a co-author of the study. “There’s shockingly little investment in prevention.”
The study, published in American Economic Review, found that low investment in early-stage cancer drugs accounted for a loss of 890,000 life-years — additional years cancer patients would have lived — in just 2003.
The culprit, the authors say, is how regulators treat the vital exclusivity periods for new drugs. Because the exclusivity period begins when the patent is filed — not when it hits the market — drugs that take less time in clinical trials become more valuable, Roin said. Trials for cancer drugs targeting early-stage tumors and prevention can take significantly longer to show results, he said.
“It creates incentives to focus on the drugs you can get on the market quickly, as opposed to drugs that take longer to develop,” Roin said. “The patent system is penalizing companies if they take longer to develop stuff and providing bigger rewards if they develop stuff that gets to the market fast.”'
Perhaps they need to look at their business model instead of their shareholders. I mean aren't pharmaceutical companies supposed to be developing medications to help people stay alive and feel good? No wait, they must be out to make big bucks because if they wait for people to be sick and dependent on their meds, then they can rake in the billions. And they can charge more for these 'life extending' drugs. That way their shareholders will be happy. (I am really sick of shareholders after working for publicly traded companies.) Insert cynicism here please.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is taken from the beginning of the study itself (Download pdf of study results here.):
"Over the last five years, eight new drugs have been approved to treat lung cancer, the leading cause of US cancer deaths.1 All eight drugs targeted patients with the most advanced form of lung cancer, and were approved on the basis of evidence that the drugs generated incremental improvements in survival. A well-known example is Genentech’s drug Avastin, which was estimated to extend the life of late-stage lung cancer patients from 10.3 months to 12.3 months.2 In contrast, no drug has ever been approved to prevent lung cancer, and only six drugs have ever been approved to prevent any type of cancer. While this pattern could solely reflect market demand or scientific challenges, in this paper we investigate an alternative hypothesis: private firms may invest more in late-stage cancer drugs—and too little in early-stage cancer and cancer prevention drugs—because late-stage cancer drugs can be brought to market comparatively quickly, whereas drugs to treat early-stage cancer and to prevent cancer require a much longer time to bring to market. More broadly stated, we investigate whether private firms differentially underinvest in long-term research, by which we mean technologies with long time lags between the initial spark of an idea and the availability of a commercially viable product. We document evidence that such underinvestment is quantitatively significant in an important context—treatments for cancer—and analyze potential policy responses."
Dec 11, 2017
The accountants rule
I have nothing wrong with accountants. They pay attention to the little details in numbers that I some how don't understand. I have an accountant I use to do my taxes and take care of my financial stuff. My husband has an MBA and he can explain all the financial stuff on a level that I need to understand.
I used to work for a company where each year when I had to present my budgets to accountants, they drew straws on who would have to deal with me. Because I wasn't enough of a numbers person for them. I know they are important. But they also can be too focused on numbers and not on people.
Now we have a problem. Big pharma companies are beginning to focus on their profits and not on creating better medications for patients. Why? Because now that the accountants are beginning to rule.
In the last few decades it has not been unusual for pharma companies, and others, to merge, move, and streamline themselves for financial reasons. Have a competitor? Buy him out, problem solved. Some one designed a good product? Buy them out and take advantage of their technology.
But now big pharma companies are taking it a step farther. They are letting their accountants take over and make BIG financial decisions to take better care of their bottom line. First they are moving to countries with lower tax rates. Then they will lose a lot of staff and potentially stifle innovation as they hire new scientists who start over in development, but they will save a lot of money over all. And example of this is Pfizer which is buying Allergan.
"Pfizer is the largest drug maker in the United States, but after striking a deal on Monday to buy Allergan, the company is on the verge of becoming Irish.
For shareholders, this may be their lucky charm. After the merger, Pfizer will be able to shift its legal headquarters from New York to Dublin and pay lower taxes, which should bolster its bottom line.
But in the process, scientists are likely to lose their jobs, innovation may suffer, and consumers could pay more for Pfizer medicines."
To me this deal sounds like only the accountants and share holders will be happy. So I must ask: What about the patients?
Maybe its time for the politicians to step forward and say the US will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for their medications, only if they are based in the US, paying US taxes, and hiring American citizens to work there? Just an idea.
I used to work for a company where each year when I had to present my budgets to accountants, they drew straws on who would have to deal with me. Because I wasn't enough of a numbers person for them. I know they are important. But they also can be too focused on numbers and not on people.
Now we have a problem. Big pharma companies are beginning to focus on their profits and not on creating better medications for patients. Why? Because now that the accountants are beginning to rule.
In the last few decades it has not been unusual for pharma companies, and others, to merge, move, and streamline themselves for financial reasons. Have a competitor? Buy him out, problem solved. Some one designed a good product? Buy them out and take advantage of their technology.
But now big pharma companies are taking it a step farther. They are letting their accountants take over and make BIG financial decisions to take better care of their bottom line. First they are moving to countries with lower tax rates. Then they will lose a lot of staff and potentially stifle innovation as they hire new scientists who start over in development, but they will save a lot of money over all. And example of this is Pfizer which is buying Allergan.
"Pfizer is the largest drug maker in the United States, but after striking a deal on Monday to buy Allergan, the company is on the verge of becoming Irish.
For shareholders, this may be their lucky charm. After the merger, Pfizer will be able to shift its legal headquarters from New York to Dublin and pay lower taxes, which should bolster its bottom line.
But in the process, scientists are likely to lose their jobs, innovation may suffer, and consumers could pay more for Pfizer medicines."
To me this deal sounds like only the accountants and share holders will be happy. So I must ask: What about the patients?
Maybe its time for the politicians to step forward and say the US will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for their medications, only if they are based in the US, paying US taxes, and hiring American citizens to work there? Just an idea.
Nov 7, 2017
He's walking the walk, not just talking the talk
Here's an example of someone who is really walking the walk. A former NHL (Non Hodgkin Lymphoma) patient, Robert Bazemore, is now the CEO of Epizyme which is developing a drug targetting NHL (which is not just a hockey league for some with cancer).
This is huge to me. I greatly hope that this means the company will focus on the patients and not just on the bottom line. The article mentions that he did not mention his medical history when interviewing for the board but did reveal it after learning about the focus of the company.
As a cancer person it is very difficult not to let a disease define you and what you do. Often we keep it hidden from co-workers because we do not want to be labeled or thought of as being sick. This can be a huge detriment to one's career path. If others think we aren't physically up to a job or we might n need too much time off and would be a burden to the company and therefore would not get a job offer.
But now that we have a CEO, openly a cancer person, running a company which is developing a drug that might help him and others with his same cancer. I am a huge fan.
I wish more people could do this and society would not shame people for medical issues.
This is huge to me. I greatly hope that this means the company will focus on the patients and not just on the bottom line. The article mentions that he did not mention his medical history when interviewing for the board but did reveal it after learning about the focus of the company.
As a cancer person it is very difficult not to let a disease define you and what you do. Often we keep it hidden from co-workers because we do not want to be labeled or thought of as being sick. This can be a huge detriment to one's career path. If others think we aren't physically up to a job or we might n need too much time off and would be a burden to the company and therefore would not get a job offer.
But now that we have a CEO, openly a cancer person, running a company which is developing a drug that might help him and others with his same cancer. I am a huge fan.
I wish more people could do this and society would not shame people for medical issues.