Oped: Life Sciences

S. 609, a bill that would limit out-of-pocket costs for patients paying for prescription drugs, is a clear step in the right direction. Massachusetts should join 16 other states that have passed similar bills to protect patients.

Drug patents are one of the most important public policy innovations in all of human history, and a boon to patients awaiting cures. Inventions only come when inventors are rewarded, not punished. Patents are not a “necessary evil.”

The combination of legal disputes, a growing data repository and investigative reports have necessarily put the 340B Drug Pricing Program under the microscope. Combined with the fact that the policy lacks transparency, 340B has spiraled out of control to the point that no policymaker can ignore the need to look closer.

A common grievance about Harvard is that the university is out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. This perception is confirmed by recent research from Harvard Business School that contends patients should be denied assistance that helps them afford their prescription drugs. The Harvard study argues that in order to control drug prices, the government should deny patients’ access to copay assistance programs offered by drug manufacturers. It flies in the face of federal and state efforts to protect the value of such assistance programs for patients and ignores basic facts about how and when patients use copay assistance to access their medications.

As a way to tackle drug prices, President Joe Biden recently announced that he supports the so-called “inflation rebate,” which would require drug companies to give the federal government any revenue from Medicare drug prices above the general rate of inflation. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have also publicly endorsed the inflation rebate.

A recent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) “Report on Unsupported Price Increases,” concluded that: “Among the top drugs with price increases in 2019…ICER determined that seven of 10 lacked adequate new evidence to demonstrate a substantial clinical benefit that was not yet previously known.”  The impression left by the report is that drug companies arbitrarily raise prices without good reason.  As with so many ICER products, the study is misleading and demonstrates a profound lack of business acumen.

This op-ed appeared in ICERWatch on June 26, 2019. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and its controversial “one-size-fits-all” value framework are a direct threat to rare disease patients, an independent report warns. In its newly-released report, “Looming Challenges for ICER in Assessing...

This article appeared on The Mackinac Center for Public Policy on June 12, 2019. In Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, government-run health care systems use “quality-adjusted life years” to help determine what medical procedures and drugs are available for patients....

This op-ed by Shira Schoenberg appeared in MassLive on April 25, 2019. The debate over former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s inaccurately named “death panels” has come to Massachusetts. The debate centers on a measure of cost-effectiveness for health care, which assigns...

This article by Chris Rochester appeared in The MacIver Institute on April 23, 2019. “What’s a year of life worth?” That compelling question was posed by Dr. William S. Smith, a visiting fellow at the Boston-based Pioneer Institute in a recent op-ed questioning...