May 29, 2009 Volume 6, Issue 22
  In This Issue
 
  About
  CompoundingToday
 
  Free Resources
 
  Subscriber
  Resources
Trissel's 2 Clinical Pharmaceutics Database from Compounding Today
  Classifieds
To place a classified advertisement please contact: Lauren Bernick lbernick@ijpc.com or 405-513-4236
IJPC - The Only Journal Dedicated to Pharmacy Compounding
  Letter from the Editor
Loyd V. Allen, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph.

Editorial: Automatons

No country can afford free health care for all. Although it is a noble goal, no country that has free health care for all offers "quality health care on demand," which is a privilege we have in the U.S. With the free-health-care-for-all system, there are, in many instances, limitations and rationing of care and long wait times.

A report was just released this week that says that the average U.S. family spends almost $100 per month for health care for those that cannot afford it. How does this happen? (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm)

Non-insured patients (over 45 million) generally get their health care at emergency rooms, free clinics, etc. At the hospitals, these expenses are "written off" but are spread out to the paying patients. It's no secret that hospitals are a business and must take in enough money to pay all their expenses or they will close. So, the money is charged out through other expenses.

As these expenses are paid for, mostly through insurance premiums, we all are already paying for the health care of the uninsured. But, it is being done in the private sector, without government involvement.

Can the government efficiently and effectively run the banking system, investment system, automotive industry, housing industry, and other types of businesses better than the free enterprise system? If one looks at the troubles in some of these areas, some (but not all) were precipitated by government involvement. The government has difficulty running the post office, prisons, transportation system, educational system, health and welfare system, etc. With their track record of excessive expenditures and waste, it is unbelievable that we would even want to turn over more of the functions of our daily lives to a "faceless government" with nondescript personnel protected from lawsuits in the case of the poor and dangerous decisions they sometimes make. By "faceless and nondescript" I mean the following. Have you ever contacted a government agency and received quick, accurate information? Oftentimes, if you ask the same question to different people you will get different answers, and they will not stand behind their answers. They refuse to be accountable.

If the healthcare system is to change, what will be the role of the pharmacist? Looking at what has occurred in other countries, consider the following. A couple of years ago, another pharmacist and I had just spoken at the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists meeting in Geneva. On Saturday, we went to France, visited a pharmacy, and talked with the pharmacist, whom we observed as she worked. This is what her duties involved:

  1. Receiving the prescription from the patient
  2. Handing the "prepackaged" medication to the patient
  3. Billing the government
  4. Receiving a set fee for the prepackaged prescription that was "handed" to the patient

These functions were those that could be performed by an "automaton" and lend themselves easily to automation. Obviously the functions performed in hospitals will be different. However, as an agent of the government in a new healthcare system, pharmacists' activities will be limited and delivered at the lowest price.

It's your profession, and it is time to speak up. As stated before in this column:

"Some people make things happen,
 Some people watch things happen,
 Some people wonder what happened!"



Loyd V. Allen, Jr., PhD, RPh
Editor-in-Chief

 
Other News

FDA Requests Higher User Fees from Industry
The acting head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defended the agency's request for more funding, including an increase in fees from industries the agency regulates.

Democrats debating the FDA's budget voiced concern that annual increases in industry fees might compromise the agency's work.

Acting FDA Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein says he understands the concern that people have expressed that user fees create a perception or a conflict of the agency's work, but he also thinks these concerns reflect a broader lack of trust in the FDA.

For fiscal 2010, the president has asked for an FDA budget of $3.2 billion, including $828 million in fees from manufacturers of medical and food products. The fees include hundreds of millions of dollars that drug makers pay annually to help speed the review of new medicines. The plan also seeks new fees to help clear a backlog of generic drug applications and to reinspect food and medical product plants that fail to meet FDA standards.

The Acting Commissioner also said he did not think the industry fees had risen too high.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSN2142784220090521

Drug-company Executives Working to Prevent Steep Cuts in Prescription Prices
Pharmaceutical industry executives are using a different approach to try to steer lawmakers away from measures that could reduce drug margins, pressing instead for cost reductions by hospitals and insurers.

In their meetings at the White House and on Capitol Hill, industry executives and lobbyists have backed such steps as shifting insurance coverage toward prevention, which could increase sales of drugs for the treatment of heart problems, diabetes, and other drugs that patients take long term.

Executives state that a healthcare overhaul should tackle the insurance copayments that he says deter patients from taking the drugs they need. Reforms shouldn't force doctors and patients to choose a drug based on cost if the more expensive treatment would have a better outcome.

Pfizer Chief Executive Jeffrey Kindler says he opposes a public insurance plan except for the poor who otherwise can't afford insurance, saying it would crowd out private insurers and take "the form of price controls" that fail to reward companies for their expensive and risky investments in drug development.

Extending health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans is likely to benefit drug makers with estimates that such a move could increase the $291 billion in annual U.S. prescription-drug sales by $15 billion to $18 billion.

To help accomplish their goals, the drug makers spent $47.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter, up 36% from a year earlier. Pfizer has more than doubled its spending on lobbying in the period to $6.1 million.

Drug makers joined doctors, insurers, and hospitals earlier this month in a pledge to rein in healthcare cost increases by $2 trillion over the next decade. Merck & Co. Chief Executive Richard Clark stated the company was "ready to do our part to achieve" an overhaul.

The pharmaceutical industry has been significantly increasing their prices. Prices for many drugs were up more than 15% in the first quarter from a year earlier. Pharmaceutical companies say the increases are fair and necessary as drugs mature, but analysts say the companies are trying to obtain as much revenue as they can before patents expire and healthcare reform drives down prices.

Peter Rost, a former marketing executive at Pfizer who is now an industry critic, says the increases are a way to soften the impact of future price cuts. "Ahead of these give-backs, they dramatically raise prices," Dr. Rost says. "They always do that."

Meanwhile, drug-industry executives worry that lawmakers might give Medicare—the existing public program for the elderly and disabled—the authority to negotiate the prices for drugs dispensed through its Part D benefit. This would limit the prices pharmaceutical companies can charge.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338375682356635.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

 
Book Review

Next week: Basic Pharmacokinetics ;a new release from Pharmaceutical Press.

 
Did You Know?

�that since the government has spent so much money recently, they are discussing a Value Added Tax (VAT), which is basically a national sales tax applied to all "products and services" purchased; a 10% tax has been discussed. Let's look at approximately where we will be if this occurs:

20% Federal Income Tax (Approx)
10% State Income Tax (Approx)
10% Federal Sales Tax (Considered and being discussed)
10% State Sales Tax (Approx)
10% Social Security Taxes (Approx)

60% Taxes (Leaving 40% net for citizens)

Obviously, these percentages depend upon where you live and other factors, but this is money that will not be available to be spent in your pharmacy by your patients and customers!

 
Compounding Tip of the Week

Squeaky Wheels
If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, why aren't we "squeakin' more"? Attend the IACP CCH on June 13-16. Go to: www.iacprx.org

RxTriad - The most valuable marketing tool available for compounding pharmacist.
Copyright 2009
International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, Inc.
122 N Bryant Ave, Edmond OK 73034
Reprints & Permissions: Reprints@ijpc.com
Manage my Email:
Subscribe / Un-Subscribe
Comments or Questions:
info@compoundingtoday.com