A week or so ago we blogged about comments Prescription Access Litigation and others made to the FDA in support of proposed rules on presenting risk information in broadcast drug ads.

Numerous other consumer and public health groups have commented, and overall offered resounding support for these proposed regs. The Patient, Consumer and Public Health Coalition offered their support for these regulations and stressed that “the goal of DTC ads is to persuade, not to educate, and so DTC ads emphasize the benefits but not the risks of prescription drugs.”

Consumer groups, including the National Consumers League, additionally offered support for the proposed fifth requirement of dual-modality, simultaneous audio and textual presentation. Consumers Union voiced the importance of dual-modality in their comment stating that “[p]roviding an audio warning with other things happening in the background is, no matter how hard one tries, distracting” and, “[p]roviding a text warning while talking about other things is distracting;” “Providing the same, simultaneous audio and visual warning is the single best way to make a lasting impression that will be helpful to patient-consumers.”

Some consumer groups also argued that pre-review of ads should be required. Here’s Public Citizen: “to obtain approval of DTC advertising on broadcast media, a party shall present market research demonstrating that information concerning side effects, contraindications and warnings is comprehensible to the target audience.” A pharmacists group and pharmaceutical powerhouse Eli Lilly also supported the use of focus groups to review and “pre-approve” ads and to pilot test that elements (e.g. font size, color, placement) of an ad.

In addition to these shared themes, AARP also suggested that the FDA rule should specify where in the ad the “major statement” should appear” and that the major statement should not be allowed to be placed in the middle of the ad “where it can be bookended by conveyance of benefit information and is least likely to be retained by consumers.”

The two pharmacist organizations that commented–the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP)—supported the new proposed rules, as well as dual modality in ads and pre-dissemination review whether by the FDA or by consumer test groups.

Industry against dual modality, for delays
Industry was relatively quiet on these new proposed regulations:  only the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and four pharmaceutical companies submitted comments so far. Though industry all stressed the public health benefits of DTCA and generally offer their support for the FDA’s action to further clarify the standards, a few common themes of opposition are apparent in all industry comments.

On the whole, industry seems very opposed to the proposed fifth standard of requiring dual modality. Sepracor argues that dual modality “could prove to complicate the presentation for consumers.” PhRMA seconded this argument and said that “dual modality might produce presentations that actually overemphasize risk information.”

Merck further stated that dual modality “does not improve consumer recall or understanding of important risks information.” Though Merck supported this argument with one 2005 study, it went on to mention the limitations of this study and none of the other industry commenters provided any support for their arguments against dual modality, and all of industry’s comments against dual modality ignore the numerous studies that have shown that the technique enhances clarity and recall of information (and which the FDA cited in its proposed rule).

The second overarching theme of the industry comments seems to be an attempt to delay the implementation of these rules. Sepracor, Merck and Eli Lilly all suggest that the FDA do further research and analysis on these standards before implementation. Sepracor argued that the rule should not be made effective until the results of FDA’s study on the impact of distraction can be published and commented on.

This argument reads largely as a delay tactic employed by Sepracor to postpone the inevitable implementation of this rule. Though there is no doubt that the FDA’s study may help them to further understand what elements of broadcast media can be distracting, there’s little debate that the impact of distraction on consumer understanding… is to distract, and that’s hardly a reason for FDA to delay implementing these rules when the public’s health is at stake.

In one of the more head-scratching unsupported assertions, Sepracor stated that up to 70 percent of the time slot of an ad is used to convey safety information for the drug. Anyone who’s ever viewed one of the numerous DTC ads currently on TV knows that this statistic has little foundation in reality.

–Emily Cutrell, Prescription Access Litigation

This past Tuesday, PhRMA was before Congress.  Not  lobbying to block price negotiations or generic competitors, but attending a hearing in their honor (click here for details of the hearing).  Chairman Henry Waxman, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has called upon PhRMA to explain their recent price increases exposed by AARP  mid-November in its Rx Watchdog Report.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Rep. Waxman put the price increase in perspective. He said:

Our nation is trying to recover from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Consumer Price Index has actually dropped over the last year. Social Security checks will remain stagnant. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their health insurance.

Yet, the brand-name prescription drug industry raised prices by more than 9% over the last year.

Rep. Waxman also noted that the health reform bill passed by the House last month will both provide insurance coverage to “36 million citizens who would otherwise be without it” but he cautioned legislators must not “write the pharmaceutical industry a blank check as we reform the health care system.”

Rep. Waxman also praised the approach under the House bill:

The House health care reform bill strikes an important balance that puts consumers and taxpayers first. In return for the billions of dollars in new market opportunities, we require that the drug industry provide additional discounts for the Medicaid program. And we end the multi-billion dollar windfall that the industry received when dual-eligible enrollees were switched from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

The House bill uses the money raised from these industry concessions to help millions of Americans afford health care coverage and to close the Part D donut hole.

At the hearing, Kathleen Stoll, Deputy Executive Director, Director of Health Policy at Families USA, testified that:  “In recent years, Americans have spent a significantly larger amount on prescription drugs. In fact, total spending on prescription drugs in the United States nearly doubled between 2000 and 2007, rising from $120.6 billion to $227.5 billion.”

Ms. Stoll praised the House health care reform bill, noting that it would improve access to prescription drugs by requiring coverage for drugs in all health plans sold in the individual market, and by eliminating annual and lifetime caps on benefits, and capping out-of-pocket costs.

The  chair of the board of AARP, Bonnie Cramer, also testified about the effect of rising drug prices on AARP members, seniors, and other consumers. She noted the costly impact of rising drug prices on government spending for subsidized seniors under Medicare Part D, and for seniors or others on Medicare Part B.  Her testimony noted that the specialty, or biologic drugs covered under Part B are the biggest current drug cost.  for the program’s entire $17 billion spend on drugs in 2007.

The top six biologics represented $7 billion of the total [$17 billion in Part B drug costs in 2007], or 43 percent of all Part B drug spending. To put this in context, Medicare Part B spending for one biologic drug – Epoetin alfa – in 2007 ($2.6 billion) was greater than FDA’s , with over 10,000 employees, entire FY2008 budget (2.3 billion).

Ms. Cramer also voiced concerns for the “millions of Americans … that fall into the donut hole each year.” And she noted that the number of part D plans charging 33% co-insurance for the very high priced specialty drugs has risen from only four of the nearly national plans to “more than half” of the Part D plans today.  This means that drug price increases are felt directly by the patient. Ms. Cramer put this in perspective as follows:

… rheumatoid arthritis medicines such as Enbrel and Humira averaged $1,633 per prescription in 2008. The average cost of a multiple sclerosis drug was $2,006. At 33 percent coinsurance, enrollees cost would exceed $500 per prescription. Most patients with either of these conditions filled at least eight such prescriptions in 2008.

The AARP report revealed the shocking price increase of 9.3 % for brand-name drugs, 10.3% for specialty drugs.  This is contrasted to the 7.8% decrease in the price of generic drugs during the same 12-month period ending September 30, 2009.  The report notes that all but one of the top 25 selling brand name drugs used by Medicare Part D plans rose from between 4.8% and 19.7%, and all but two of the top 25 specialty drugs also rose in cost, some by as much as 28.2%. Ten of these best-selling specialty drugs rose by more than 12%. This is happening at a time when the economic recession had driven the prices of most other goods and services down.

The New York Times covered the reports release, and noted that  the drug industry’s own major consulting firm, IMS Health, reversed their earlier market prediction of a 1% declines in sales for 2009, and now predicts a 4.5% growth in drug sales.  This means $21 billion in added drug costs in 2009, a windfall profit for the industry as the rest of the country grapples with record unemployment and ongoing recession.

Impacts of the price increase:
The new price increases have reversed the trend and produced two results — an immediate profit increase for 2009-2010; and a significantly higher base price for their future revenues once the approximately 30 million newly insured customers are added through the passage of health reform.  Drug companies set the price for the drugs they sell, and can raise or lower them at any time.  Additionally, the companies offer rebates and other discounts based on their price to different insurers, state Medicaid agencies and federal agencies.  The higher the base price, the more leverage for the drug company in negotiating with purchasers.  The result of this market manipulation is an approximately $120 Billion profit.

PhRMA appears to have gone back on their deal by changing the prices so radically and shifting an $80 Billion loss into a $120 Billion profit-grab.  PhRMA has been one of the most vocal supporters of health reform—they should be given that they have literally billions to gain if the law passes.  Drug industry  ads in support of reform, rather than in opposition, have been a welcomed on Capitol hill.  But the good will PhRMA generated supporting reform may have been    shaken by the recent price increase.

This profiteering has caught the attention of Congress.  The House Energy and Commerce’s subcommittee on Health is investigating this price increase, presumably with an eye towards strengthening the drug cost containment measures in the health reform bill.  Up until now, many drug cost containment initiatives have been off-limits due to the ‘PhRMA deal’.  PhRMA made a deal with President Obama and some Congressional leaders last Spring that was to  provide $80 billion in drug savings over the next 10 years, mainly through discounts to brand name drugs in the Medicare D doughnut hole..  In exchange, they would support health reform.  One of the biggest potential areas for savings that was declared off-limits by industry is the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

Even Senator Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, and brokered the deal with Pharma on behalf of the Senate, has said that the total amount in future saving legislators will require from Pharma is “still in discussion.”

Tuesday’s Congressional hearings may help influence the current Senate debate, and the negotiations in the conference process (which would reconcile the differences between the legislation passed by the House and any future Senate bill.) We hope our Congressional leaders will see the stark reality exposed by the AARP Watchdog Report – that Pharma’s control of drug prices makes their proffered discounts illusory and holds us all hostage to their profiteering.

Yesterday two CBS affiliates aired PAL Director Alex Sugerman-Brozan’s counter argument to drug industry cronies in a segment about Rx coupons. Watch a clip here!

PAL has called on the FDA to ban the use of coupons to promote brand name drugs because we believe it is just another one of the many tactics the drug companies use to lure people away from cheaper generic drugs. Click here to read the Los Angeles Times article (published in December) that features PAL’s efforts, and learn more about why Rx coupons should be banned.

The FDA Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications has issued one of its increasingly rare enforcement letters, calling Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY) to task for overstating the efficacy of its drug Cymbalta in a “professional mailer” sent to physicians. The letter said:

This mailer is false or misleading in that it overstates the efficacy of Cymbalta and omits some of the most serious and important risk information associated with its use. Therefore, the mailer misbrands the drug in violation of Sections 502(a) and 201(n) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21 U.S.C. 352(a) and 321(n), and FDA implementing regulations.

Sending so-called “untitled” letters, like this one, and the theoretically more serious “warning letters” have traditionally been the FDA’s only power to do anything deceptive drug advertisements and promotional materials. Under the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 recently signed by President Bush, the FDA has gained the power to impose monetary “civil penalties” for violations of the regulations concerned drug ads — up to $250,000 per violation, (“up to” being the operative words here) maxing out at $500,000 for a single company in a three year period. Arguably these fines, if the FDA ever actually musters up the gumption to impose them, are a slap on the wrist.

But will the FDA use them? The FDA’s number of enforcement letters has dwindled to a trickle over the past 8 years. This year, letters have hit an all-time low: While the FDA has issued 14 letters so far in 2007 concerning promotions to physicians, here’s how many they’ve issued to drug companies regarding direct-to-consumer ads:

One!

That was a slap on the wrist for Takeda Pharmaceutical’s ad for the sleep aid Rozerem — and even calling it a slap on the wrist is perhaps overstating it — the ad had a “back to school” theme (i.e. August/September) – and the FDA’s letter was issued in March!

Perhaps the fees that the FDA is now able to collect from drug companies for reviewing drug ads (a power also gained under the recently-enact FDA Amendments Act) will permit the FDA to hire more advertisement reviewers (right now they are woefully understaffed, given the 50,000+ promotional materials filed with the FDA every year). That in and of itself will not mean that the FDA will use its new powers… Only political will can do that, and so far there’s precious little evidence of that at the FDA…

Here’s the FDA’s letter:
Here’s the promotional mailer they were concerned about.

Hat tip: Forbes

P.S. The mailer asked Physicians receiving it to fill it out a survey — in exchange for which they’d receive this handsome simulated leather letter tray! Classy… And oh so “practice related.”

Great post up on Slate right now, “Under the Influence? Drug companies, medical journals, and money,” by Kent Sepkowitz. In it, Dr. Sepkowitz describes the disclosures that medical journals require their authors to go through regarding any financial relationship with or interest in the company about whose products they’re writing. But, he points out, what’s lacking is a little disclosure from the journals themselves, which reap significant sums of cash from drug company advertising, purchases of “reprints” of favorable articles to hand out to doctors, and non-peer-reviewed “supplements” sponsored by advertisers.

He recommends:

And so I have a modest suggestion: In addition to requiring authors to post conflict-of-interest statements when they publish an article, medical journals should tell readers how much revenue they themselves have received in the previous year from the company producing the drug or device under discussion. The total sum should include not just advertising pages purchased, but also the other ways that industry money can slip into journal pockets, by buying reprints and journal supplements. Show us the actual dollar (or euro or pounds sterling) amount. And if a professional society sponsors the journal, tell us about its financial dealings with the drug companies as well.

Such disclosures would take work, annoy scads of people (most of them honorable), and be completed under protest. But they’re worth it, to help assure the integrity of medical literature. Just as compromised relationships are unusual among researchers, they are likely, in the end, to be unusual among medical journals. But it is naive to think that only authors are influenced by who is writing the checks.

Check out the full piece at Slate.