Everything wrong w/ healthcare & drug pricing debate is evident in these slide. Healthcare costs in Massachusetts grew at 4.3% (slide 32). On 33, they report drug spending grew 7.2% gross of rebates. On 34, they show it’s only 3% growth net of rebates. mass.gov/doc/presentati…
Conclusion on slide 55 blames drug prices for Medicare spending growth, yet in footnote acknowledge its “not net of rebates”. Well why not? They clear know net drug spending growth is lower than almost every other aspect of healthcare. It’s clearly hospitals driving growth.
They talk about hospitals, but highlighting drugs is willful misdirection. As for patients’ costs, slide 42 & 47 shows shift towards higher out of pocket costs. So even as drug spending shrinks as a fraction of healthcare spending, Americans afford less & blaming drug costs.
What should be clear from these data is that rising premiums are being driven by hospitals, not drugs, and rising patient costs OOP are driven by insurance plans simply charging patients more... & for what are often cheaper drugs (eg insulin net prices dropped in last decade).
But no. Congress in its infinite obtuseness decides to balance its budget by imposing price controls on the one small segment of healthcare that’s actually inventing ways to keep people out of hospitals. Are they blind to the data? Or just cynically killing progress for votes?
Is there no one in power in Dem Party w/ spine to say “you know, we can fix a few things about drugs, like making sure they all go generic w/o delay, but let’s not pretend like drug spending is THE problem. OOP costs are. Let’s reform insurance & preserve innovation.”?
Not a single example in world today of investors putting capital at risk pursuing development of ANY products that face price controls. Democrats aren’t going to rewrite the laws of economics. After they destroy the biomedical sector, the laws of economics may rewrite Democrats.
But too late for patients. Shame on our leaders. I know there are a few lawmakers trying to stand up and defend innovation with data, evidence, arguments, and pathos. We must hope they succeed or we’ll just spend more time in increasingly expensive hospitals having saved NOTHING.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last Call! Apply by Thu March 4th for Spring 2021 “Business of Biotech” discussion sessions (Wed, 3-5pm ET, March 10/17/24). If can’t make it, our virtual Thinkific materials (listed below) are available indefinitely & more discussions to come. Register at racap.com/courses
RA Capital hosts course b/c we are inspired by all that we've seen the biotech industry accomplish for human health, have learned a lot of the past couple of decades, and want to share lessons learned so that biotech can be even better than it has been.
And now more than ever, we think it's important for everyone in biotech to understand and unite around Biotech Social Contract that governs what the public expects of innovators and insurance.
Summary of Clubhouse chat (thanks @BiotechCH)... 5 injustices in a drug NPV model... 1) <100% of patients getting drug they need due to inability to afford out of pocket costs is injustice we mustn’t accept and therefore must push for insurance reforms that lower OOP costs....
2) assumptions of continued high profitability into out-years (eg >15 years) due a drug being hard or impossible to genericize (eg biologics, esp gene therapies) have a far greater cost to society than their contribution to the NPV.
That’s b/c society’s costs are net revenues discounted at 1.5-2%/year but NPV only counts out-year profits discounted at a much higher rate (~8%). So public & Congress is right to challenge drug prices but it’s not that they are too high... it’s that they are high for too long.
This one might tweak your brain. There would be MORE interest in developing new antibiotics if NO ONE needed them today. Huh? Yep... let’s think about it. Today, no one needs drugs for smallpox nor pandemic flu. But those have been developed precisely because... 1/18
...we KNOW that we MIGHT need them in the future. The US contracts through BARDA w/ companies to develop drugs & vaccines (commit to buying a certain number of doses/year at a guaranteed price) b/c it’s buying an insurance policy. Members of Congress understand that. 2/
Media seems to understand that. Academics understand that. Presumably the public understands that. Drugs we don’t need AT ALL today are still worth buying to have in our back pocket JUST IN CASE. Logical. It’s insurance! 3/
Some people think we overpay for only incrementally better medicines. That only home runs deserve high prices. But as in baseball- most are trying as hard as they can & job is to at least get on base. Sometimes, biology allows for a home run, but it’s not the strategy.
However you reward progress, it just takes a certain level of revenues to support industry of certain size, baseball or biopharma. Not paying for singles means paying more for home runs. It means less certain employment since not every disease lends itself to big breakthroughs.
But if you offer little reward for just getting on base in, let’s say, pancreatic cancer or lupus, which are tough pitchers, then no one will bother to step up to the plates against them. Those players will only want to go up against diseases where bigger advances seem possible.
Fascinated by biotech & good it can do? Interested in how industry works & innovators get funding for their ideas? RA Capital opened registration for its virtual Business of Biotech discussion Spring session. Open to students/professionals... lawmakers. racap.com/courses/the-bu…
This is part of ongoing flipped course that RA Capital hosts with lectures, slide decks, & other materials available for anyone to study online anytime... & periodically we host Zooms w/ small breakouts, case studies, & in this case an optional funding pitch competition.
Note: Lots of reading, including of thegreatamericandrugdeal.com, since we’ll be talking about insurance, drug pricing, & how innovators & investors would be impacted by price controls.
New data from Novavax vaccine just showed that UK & esp South African variants are more problematic in real world than lab experiments suggested. Implications are profound for 2021 and beyond. nytimes.com/2021/01/28/hea…
Vaccine worked well to stop original strain (96%), like mRNA vaccines, but less effective for new strains (86% for UK strain, 60% protective against South African strain). My guess is that if mRNA vaccines were tested now in a clinical trial in South Africa...
...they would show similar reduction in effectiveness. Bottom line, new SA strain has evolved SOME (not total) resistance to current vaccines. Current vaccines still help blunt severity, so worth getting even in South Africa.