According to Suresh Kumar, EVP of external affairs at Sanofi, “It is time for a constructive dialogue on drug pricing, but in the context of access, value, and overall healthcare costs.” But where to begin?
Perhaps it is time for biopharma to take the lead in driving for a “moonshot” approach to reducing U.S. healthcare costs.
If CMS wins this battle over physician-administered Part B drugs, it will be emboldened to pursue even more radical “demonstrations” in Medicare Part D.
Executives from BIO comment on the impact IPRs have on the drug IP, regulatory landscape and what the industry can do to combat this problem.
The pharma company’s original focus was on the use of cannabis to relieve spasticity from MS, but now its pursuing rare and orphan indications, where there are limited or no other treatment options.
Vincent Ling, senior director for Takeda New Frontier Science, says “While nanotech as applied to medicine is relatively new, and much of it still in the science mode, it’s going to be fascinating to see where it leads us. I have a feeling that we will end up with applications we haven’t dreamed of yet.”
Suresh Kumar, EVP of external affairs, “Sanofi EVP Weighs In On The Politics Of Drug Pricing,” chaired an Responding to Ebola panelat Davos (i.e., the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting, held in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland) in 2015, he found the experience enlightening. “
The first time I sat down for a conversation with Peter Hecht, CEO and cofounder of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals toward developing the March 2016 Life Science Leader magazine cover feature, he prefaced responding to my first question by saying, “In general, I’m not a big fan of the ‘Great Man’ theory of history.
One of the long-term goals for Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, the subject of Life Science Leader magazine’s March 2016 cover feature, has been to create a commercial engine to connect directly with the patients it aims to serve and capture the most value from the drugs it develops.
Last October when we asked industry thought leaders, “What would be hot for 2016” (see our December 2015 issue), drug pricing was one topic consistently mentioned. Probably not much of a surprise considering the mass media’s fascination with portraying former Turing CEO Martin Shkreli as being everything that’s bad with biopharma. But the reality is that controversy over drug pricing has been around for as long as there have been drugs. So too have been proposed solutions, such as the current ones seeking product-specific transparency regarding R&D and manufacturing costs as well as pricing. What has been lacking, however, is a concerted effort to bring key stakeholders together to discuss broader, systemwide solutions to address rising U.S. healthcare costs.
Being the 2015 educational planning committee co-chair for BIO provided behind the scenes insights into what makes for a good industry session proposal at BIO. But beyond that I also learned how important it is for those interested in putting together an educational session for a conference to begin the planning process early. So when Bayer’s VP and Head of the company’s east coast innovation center, Chandra Ramanathan, Ph.D., and I sat down at last year’s annual BIO conference to discuss what type of educational session might be needed for BIO 2016, we did so armed with a wealth of wisdom.
When I wrote the opinion piece on the U.S. government’s successful killing of the planned Pfizer Allergan merger, it was on the heels of a March Editor’s Note on the current state of U.S. corporate taxes. There are those who argue that U.S. companies aren’t seeking to invert due to high U.S. tax rates. And while we can dispute the rationale behind why companies have been seeking to relocate outside the United States, what can’t be debated is that prior to the recent move by the U.S. Department of Treasury to block the practice, inversions were on the rise. Since 1982, 51 U.S. companies have reincorporated in low-tax countries. But more telling is that of these, 20 (inversions) happened in just the past three years, despite 2004 legislation intended to abolish the practice.