MacArthur at Incheon: How to Win Health Care Reform

A doctor presents some very interesting ideas in the article generating a great comment discussion - well worth the time to read and consider:

The point of this history lesson, of course, is to recall that if you are bogged down in a stalemate, a surprise counterattack can be an overwhelmingly successful tactic to gain the upper hand. The forces of the status quo continue their fight to prevent real health care reform from taking place, and we pro-reform advocates remain hunkered down trying to defend the public option -- our last tattered shred of hope for change -- from annihilation. This seems like a good time to see where the opportunities are to counterattack: to throw our foes off balance, hit them where they're lightly defended and cut off the main thrust of their attack.

To do this, I suggest that we focus not so much on the public option: that defensive line where little movement is occurring. As it is, health insurers have no disincentive to keep stalling and chipping away, because doing so gives them nothing but upside. The way to shut them down is to show that stalling the process could hurt them more than it helps them. We should attack other important strategic targets which have already been neutralized by the forces of the corporatist status quo: health insurance reform, and cost reductions. The following are some specific ideas about how to counterattack.

The four basic premises are:

1. Remove health insurers' tort immunity.
2. Cancel the insurers' anti-trust exemption.
3. Make health insurers spend our premiums on health care.
4. Give all government sponsored health insurance programs access to the VA drug formulary.

Pleasse take the time to read it all at Daily Kos.

Europe leads in pharmaceutical research

Our uniquely American health care system is noted for its high prices for relative mediocrity. Some contend that our pharmaceutical industry provides an exception. It doesn't. We are paying high prices for new chemical entities that over 85 percent of the time are providing us with no real benefit over existing products.

Many contend nevertheless that innovations provided by U.S. pharmaceutical firms are well worth our very high prices. Yet productivity of European pharmaceutical firms remains even higher, and they are able to provide new products at much lower prices.

When reform advocates look at the excessive costs of U.S. health care, two favorite targets are the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical firms. Policies that would reduce these burdens are no secret. Physicians for a National Health Program has described policies that would eliminate the private insurance burden. Arjun Jayadev and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, in the article cited above, provide examples of policies that would increase value in our purchasing of pharmaceuticals.

So what is Congress's response? They intend to expand the dysfunctional private insurance markets, and use more of our tax money for subsidies. For the biotech industry they are expanding data exclusivity thereby keeping generics off the market for longer periods. Reform is going to bring us more overpriced, inadequate private insurance plans and more overpriced pharmaceuticals/biologics.

Tell Congress that reform is not about enhancing the business models of the insurance and pharmaceutical firms. It’s about making health care affordable and accessible for everyone. Go back and get it right.

Read it all at PNHP's Official Blog

A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies Involving Drugs Such As Vioxx, Celebrex - Health Blog - WSJ

We’ve followed plenty of controversies around drug trials, from ghostwriting to keeping quiet about unflattering results. But the latest news is particularly eye-popping: A prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies involving major drugs. Yikes.

Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., has asked several anesthesiology journals to retract the studies, which appeared between 1996 and 2008, the WSJ reports. The hospital says its former chief of acute pain, Scott S. Reuben, faked data used in the studies.

Some of the studies reported favorable results from use of Pfizer’s Bextra and Merck’s Vioxx, both painkillers that have since been pulled from the market. Others offered good news about Pfizer’s pain drugs Lyrica and Celebrex and Wyeth’s antidepressant Effexor XR. Doctors said Reuben’s work was particularly influential in pain treatment and that they were shocked by the news.