I am familiar with the Pitney Bowes experiment,and the program does have very good merit. The program shows that if you reduce the cost of health care, people are more likely to adhere to treatment and improve their chances of a favorable response to treatment. In the Pitney Bowes experiment they not only look at the drug, but also what it is being prescribed to treat. So, a person who has an essential need for a drug will have lower co pays, whereas another person on the same drug but for “less essential” reasons, even if the drug is indicated for the condition, will pay a higher co pay. It gets a bit difficult to decide which drugs and which treatment are more important. For example someone who is taking an anti anxiety drug will have a higher co pay than someone taking the same drug to prevent a heart attack. However, there are studies that show people who suffer anxiety attacks have a three fold increased risk of suffering heart attacks within five years. Meanwhile people participating in the Pitney Bowes experiment, live first hand with the “cost shifting” that I was referring to.

The Pitney Bowes experiment is a step in the right direction, but still needs a lot of work.

We need to adopt certain parts of the EU health care system - input from the government on the cost of these drugs, incentives to doctors to get their patients healthier - eg. in the UK Doctors are given bonuses if they can get their patients to adopt a healthier lifestyle such as quit smoking, lose weight etc.

We need to do much more to educate our children at a younger age on healthy lifestyle choices, adopting better eating habits, and to step away from the computer and go outside. These are programs that we should all support.

Yes, that phrase is rather more succinct, in some respects, than the chosen lede, but I can’t look back. Just the same, appreciate you pointing it out.

Regards
ed

I think you may have buried the lead. My reading of the wire service report and the studies suggest that the bigger news, whether one agrees or not, is that the research suggests that “using price controls in the US would cause less investment in developing life-saving drugs…in the long run would reduce life expectancy.” Obviously, that forms the crux of industry arguments against price controls. Thus data supporting this stance is critical given the likely discussions over noninterference in Congress this coming year.

Atlex

The Pitney-Bowes experiment showed that lowering copays in asthma and diabetes, increased drug compliance, and which resulted in fewer expensive hospital visits and other complications. So, its not just cost shifting, it’s better drug utilization….if its done right.

Pitney-Bowes costs for those two diseases went down about 20%, and they are now expanding the program to selected other categories (e.g., osteoporosis.)

Only healthier living will reduce our overall healthcare costs.

There is currently a de-stigmatization effort as well as a screening effort for children underway as well as forced parity (i.e. legally mandated insurance companies must cover equally with other illnesses whereas in the past they have limited coverage).

Atypical antipsychotics are now beign promoted on and off-label for many illnesses they were antipsychotics were previously not used for or considered too dangerous for, e.g. depression, bipolar II, bipolar NOS, ADHD with irritability.

Since atypical antipsychotics have come on the market the life expectancy for schizophrenia has decreased by 15 years.

I will not comment on other diseases but for the pharmaceutical industry this will be a bonanza with increased utilization and possibly resulting in shortened life expectancy and serious long term toxicities especially in children. Based on public statements by Fred Hassan CEO of Schering Plough these children will likely have diminished growth, and cardiovascular disease and increased mortality in their 30’s. However never fear, if Vytorin/Zetia had worked SP would have had another treatment available.

This kind of goes along with today’s article on computer modeling of efficacy for cardiovascular illness doesn’t it.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/12/drug-experiment-fda-eyes-simulated-studies/

Which just so happens to be headed up by Bob Powell who was one of Fred Hassan’s VP’s at Pharmacia.

Government controls on essential life saving medicines should be seriously considered.

It would be interesting to know what an independent study on this matter might turn up - might be a job for someone in the new government in January…

With all due respect, if you read this item carefully, you’ll note that I didn’t offer any opinion about the findings. I decided to let others take a whack, should they wish.

While you make an interesting point - lifestyles count for an awful lot, I agree - to suggest that I deliberately avoided mentioning this issue is, simply, incorrect.

Yes, this site is about the pharma industry and its issues, but if you have read closely over the past two years, there have been many items that are both favorable to - and critical of - the various companies at one time or another. But the purpose is not to slam or promote, but to inform and allow discussion.

In other words, your quick take on my motivation was off base. And for the record, I’m one of those people who mows his own lawn and rakes his own leaves, in part, for the exercise, something I’ve actually mentioned on this site in the past.

Cheers
ed