A New Deal for Pharma? Why the Washington Climate is Better Than it Looks
This article was originally published in RPM Report
Executive Summary
PhRMA's willingness to "share the pain" on health care reform leaves industry's investors howling. But-at least on paper-this deal looks like a great outcome for industry. If it holds.
You may also be interested in...
Putting the Dough in the Donut Hole: Big Pharma Hits the Sweet Spot in the Reform Debate
It's not often than any industry group voluntarily agrees to give up $80 billion in future revenues, but that's what the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America is pledging to do to in the context of the health care reform debate. There are a lot of details to work out, but this is a case where what is important is not what PhRMA is giving-but what it gets.
The Avastin Dilemma: Two Personalities and Two Points of View on Cost Effectiveness
Two of the key figures in the 2009 health reform debate, Zeke Emanuel and Billy Tauzin, each use Genentech's Avastin to demonstrate the importance of doing cost effectiveness right. But they look at the same drug from very different points of view. Their perspectives provide a good guide to what is at stake in the design of federal approach to comparative effectiveness research.
The Avastin Dilemma: Two Personalities and Two Points of View on Cost Effectiveness
Two of the key figures in the 2009 health reform debate, Zeke Emanuel and Billy Tauzin, each use Genentech's Avastin to demonstrate the importance of doing cost effectiveness right. But they look at the same drug from very different points of view. Their perspectives provide a good guide to what is at stake in the design of federal approach to comparative effectiveness research.