IBJNews

Effective stats are new hurdle for U.S. drugmakers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

WellPoint Inc.’s announcement of comparative-effectiveness research guidelines last week marks a new era for U.S. drugmakers.

The Indianapolis-based health insurer said it will use studies that compare the effectiveness of one drug against another as a complement to typical clinical-trial research that compares a drug against a placebo sugar pill.

Congress has also approved $4.1 billion in the past 15 months to fund comparative-effectiveness studies and a new agency that specializes in them. Now that private insurers like WellPoint are joining in, the United States could see a wave of head-to-head comparisons that have historically been rare in pharmaceuticals.

The goal of both the public and private initiatives is better health care at lower cost. WellPoint will use comparative-effectiveness research to help determine what percentage of the cost of a new drug it will pay for.

“Good comparative-effectiveness research study, along with clinical trial information and other peer-reviewed studies published in medical journals, can provide us the tools we need to help improve health outcomes and reduce costs for members of our affiliated health plans," Brian Sweet, WellPoint’s chief pharmacy officer, said in a statement.

Comparative-effectiveness research was a controversial topic during last year’s health reform debate, as many feared government and private health plans would use the information to intrude in the doctor-patient relationship.

But for pharmaceutical companies, it’s just the new reality, said Linda Heitzman, a life sciences consultant at Deloitte Consulting in Indianapolis.

“Just proving your product is better than nothing is not enough. You have to be able to demonstrate that your product is better than other products on the market,” she said, noting that the U.S. market is actually catching up to demands for comparative-effectiveness research already coming from government health plans in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

Heitzman said comparative-effectiveness research is both a challenge and an opportunity for drugmakers.

“Where comparative effectiveness hurts pharma companies is in broad-based treatments [such us cholesterol-fighters or blood pressure medicines]. Trying to have one more product in that market is a non-starter,” she said. “Companies are going to have to take a much riskier strategy.”

But drug companies can and are using blood and genetic testing to identify small groups of patients for which their drug is a big breakthrough in treatment. Proof of high effectiveness in a small group can get a drug market approval from regulators and favorable pricing from insurers like WellPoint.

Then, Heitzman said, drugmakers can build from there to get their drugs approved for more and more patients.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT