Pfizer acusa
O governo de proteccionismo.link
Em causa está a autorização recente de subida de preço de 123 substâncias (velhinhas), a maioria de laboratórios nacionais que ameaçavam retirá-las do mercado. Correspondente a cerca de 50% dos pedidos de revisão extraordinária de preços, dirigidos ao Governo neste período.
A revisão extraordinária de preços está prevista na lei. link
Em causa está a autorização recente de subida de preço de 123 substâncias (velhinhas), a maioria de laboratórios nacionais que ameaçavam retirá-las do mercado. Correspondente a cerca de 50% dos pedidos de revisão extraordinária de preços, dirigidos ao Governo neste período.
A revisão extraordinária de preços está prevista na lei. link
A decisão do secretário de estado de acordo com os dados de informação disponíveis, parece pertinente.
Quanto à reacção dos grandes laboratórios, face aos valores de mercado em causa, parece excessiva. Talvez a merecer ser entendida como escape para o período de grande dificuldade que atravessam em relação ao expirar do prazo de inúmeras e importantes patentes e às acusações de prática especulativa (RU).link
A Pfizer, por exemplo, vai perder o exclusivo de comercialização do Lipitor em 2011, com vendas anuais na ordem dos 12,7 mil milhões de dólares.
A Pfizer, por exemplo, vai perder o exclusivo de comercialização do Lipitor em 2011, com vendas anuais na ordem dos 12,7 mil milhões de dólares.
Etiquetas: Medicamento
2 Comments:
SARAH PALIN e a SAÙDE
Sarah Palin, vice do candidato John Mcain é pouco dada às complexas abordagens dos temas da Saúde.
Há no entanto quem tente enquadrar o escasso pensamento da senhora sobre estas chatices da Saúde, no programa eleitoral de saúde defendido pelo jovem candidato Mcain.
Do Certificate of Need Programs Reduce Costs? Governor Palin Says "No" But Lots of Data Say "Yes"
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hasn't done a lot on the health care policy front during her short time as Governor but one thing she has called for is an end to Alaska's Certificate of Need (CON) program requiring preapproval for any new health care facility.
CON programs are about government management of health care capacity and it should be no surprise that a conservative Republican would be against them.
But do they work?
Governor Palin cites a recent paper link by the Federal Trade Commission that says they do not.
But Joe Paduda, says there are more studies than this one authored by the Bush administration that support the use of CON programs:
•"Turns out that the FTC (then and now) may have missed something - a 1998 Duke University study found 'Mature CON programs are associated with a modest (5 percent) long-term reduction in acute care spending per capita, [emphasis added] but not with a significant reduction in total per capita spending."
•"The big three automakers all compared costs in CON v non-CON states, and found that states with substantial CON programs had significantly lower health care costs. In fact, when considering locating plants and facilities, the big three consider CON 'as a positive factor'. link Chrysler found that their per-employee health care costs were substantially lower in CON states than in non-CON jurisdictions, with costs as much as 164% lower in CON states. GM found its health care costs were nearly a third less in CON states in a similar analysis."
•"A study link published in JAMA found that the quality of outcomes in coronary artery bypass surgery was directly linked to the CON process. Those who had CABG in non-CON states were significantly more likely to die (5.1% chance v 4.4% in CON states) due primarily to the higher volume per facility in CON states. Notably, in states that repealed CON laws, the percentage of patients undergoing CABG in low-volume hospitals tripled."
Sarah Palin on Health Care--A Free Market Republican
Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has very little on her health care policy resume from her short time in office as Alaska's Governor but what she does have fits right in with Senator McCain's strategy to use the market more effectively in bringing down America's health care costs and improving access to the system.
Her health care efforts have focused on two things in Alaska:
•Eliminating the 1970s era strategy of requiring providers to file Certificate of Need (CON) applications before being able to build more health care facilities.
•Providing consumers with more information.
On the Certificate of Need issue she recently wrote in an op-ed:
Health care: Do we have too much government or too little? Should we have regulated markets or open markets?
Those are the perennial questions.
And that's what makes the state's proposal to repeal the current Certificate of Need (CON) program so contentious. Yes, there are solid arguments on both sides. But after much consideration, we believe that the program has not accomplished what it set out ultimately to do more than 30 years ago -- lower costs for the consumer. It is time to end Alaska's program in its present form. Doing so will not only reduce the cost of health care, it will also improve the access to health care, allow more competition and improve quality of care for patients.
Certificate of Need programs were required in all states in the mid-1970s by federal mandate. The goal was to make sure that health care facilities matched community need and provided access and quality care, which in turn would help reduce health-care costs. The federal mandate was repealed in 1987 -- 20 years ago! -- along with its federal funding.
The basic assumption in those days was that excess capacity, in the form of overbuilding, directly results in health-care price inflation. However, after more than 30 years of such programs, the National Conference of State Legislatures has found that there is no solid proof that the state-sponsored CON programs have actually controlled health-care costs. In fact, in 2004 the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice both asserted that these programs actually contribute to rising prices because they inhibit competitive markets.
Many opponents of CON programs have argued that health-care facility development should be left to the economics of each institution, in light of its own market analysis, rather than being subject to political influence...
As I said recently in my State of the State Address to the Legislature, "Under our present Certificate of Need process, costs and needs don't drive health-care choices -- bureaucracy does. Our system is broken and expensive." Eliminating the CON program, with certain exceptions, will allow free-market competition and reduce onerous government regulation.
Governor Palin has also been calling for more price transparency, openness and competition as a solution for rising health care costs in Alaska.
A task force set up by the Governor on health care issues in Alaska recently concluded that consumers needed more information to be able to compare costs.
As a result, Palin introduced the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act to provide consumers with information on quality and cost which would be provided by a new government-run health care information office.
Both of these relatively minor forays into health care policy could hardly be described as heavyweight attempts at health care reform. But both are consistent with the McCain market-based strategy to remake America's health care system.
I expect Governor Palin will have no trouble fitting right in with Senator McCain on the health care issue.
Caro Xavier:
Muitas vezes, em relação aos medicamentos, situações com o estatuto de "menoridade", podemos encerrar grandes problemas.
Umas vezes poderá haver proteccionismos, outras ignorância, outras falta de sensibilidade para situações previsíveis.
Esta é uma história que se encaixa nas duas últimas hipóteses
Neste momento, há total ruptura de abastecimento (ou mesmo retirada) no mercado farmacêutico relativamente a medicamentos "velhinhos", de baixo custo, onde as alternativas são problemáticas.
Um exemplo: a sarcoptose (vulgo "sarna") que, por vezes, surge de modo endémico.
Assim, temos a seguinte situação:
1.) A utilização de crotamiton é insuficiente, já que a sua principal acção é anti-pruriginosa, apresentando fraco poder acaricida;
2.) Por má tolerância cutânea e algumas resistências, abandonou-se o benzoato de benzilo ;
3.) Surgiu o lindano , eficaz, praticamente sem resistências, que entrou em descontinuidade, julgo por problemas burocráticos com o Infarmed (nem será um caso de revisão excepcional do preço);
4.) Mais recentemente, apareceu a permetrina, também eficaz, mas com uma concentração muito baixa, o que lhe limita drasticamente o campo de aplicação.
Isto significa, em termos práticos, que perante um eventual surto de "sarna" - as situações de pobreza e falta de higiene favorecem-no - os médicos têm graves problemas terapêuticos em mãos para a resolução do problema.
O Infarmed, não poderá invocar, em caso de surto endémico, desconhecimento deste problema, dado que a empresa que o comercializa o produto mais utilizado (lindano) tem tentado resolvê-lo.
Não posso deixar de finalizar esta nota com alguma ironia. Na área animal, nomeadamente, no que respeita à “sarna canina ou felina” , existem opções terapêuticas eficazes, penso que não autorizadas no homem por insuficiência de estudos sobre a toxicidade e determinação da dose, como a ivermectina (injectável)…
Nem sempre a vida de cão ...!
Enviar um comentário
<< Home