SeniorHelpingSenior.com

Archive for the ‘Rx Pharmacy’ Category

Report Reveals Disparities in Pharmaceutical Treatment for Minority Patients

In Rx Pharmacy on May 13, 2009 at 8:24 pm

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new report from the National Minority Quality Forum finds that appropriate medications for a variety of diseases often are under-prescribed, over-prescribed, or mis-prescribed for African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans. This comprehensive review of studies on medication use in U.S. minority groups, entitledOrigins and Strategies for Addressing Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Pharmaceutical Therapy: The Health-Care System, the Provider, and the Patient, reveals disparities in treatment of minority patients with cardiovascular illness, asthma, psychiatric illness, pain and other conditions.

The report, authored by Richard Levy, Ph.D., Robert C. Like M.D., M.S., and Harry S. Shabsin, Ph.D., finds disparities in access to medications through insurance programs, in the prescribing of medications and in adherence to medication regimens. The report offers recommendations for health-care planners and advocates, clinicians and health-care organizations to improve prescribing and use of medications in a diverse society.

“Since medications are a cornerstone of treatment for many diseases, addressing unequal or inappropriate medication use should be a focus for practitioners and organizations committed to the goal of eliminating health-care disparities. We hope this report raises awareness of the extent of medication disparities and will stimulate solutions to address the problem,” said Dr. Like, Professor and Director of the Center for Healthy Families and Cultural Diversity of the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

The report points out that improving access to and use of medications in diverse groups requires policies that enable affordable, personalized therapy. Ethnic/racial background should, like other factors such as age or gender, be considered in selecting drugs and dosages, in the composition of drug formularies and preferred drug lists and in determining the scope of drug substitution policies. The report emphasizes that therapy must be tailored to individual needs and stereotyping and overgeneralization in caring for diverse populations should be avoided.

Dr. Levy, a health care consultant and former vice president of the National Pharmaceutical Council, states: “Differences in response to pharmaceuticals in minority populations indicate the importance of including diverse groups in comparative-effectiveness assessments. Failure to do so may reduce, rather than improve, the quality of care for ethnic and racial minorities”.

 

Key Findings from the Report

  • Many studies have revealed ethnic/racial disparities in prescribing (under-prescribing, over-prescribing or mis-prescribing) for specific diseases or classes of medication, including medications for asthma, depression, psychosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, pain and infectious disease.
  • Medication disparities can stem from a relative lack of health and drug insurance, aggressive cost containment in pharmacy benefits plans and reduced services at pharmacies in minority neighborhoods. All of these situations can limit access to medications or cause patients to reduce or discontinue therapy.
  • Most state Medicaid programs utilize pharmaceutical cost containment polices which include prior authorization, generic substitution, preferred drug lists, copayments and caps. While fulfilling their intent to save drug costs, these policies may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to necessary medications. This limitation has been associated with increased utilization of medical services by minority patients.
  • Suboptimal prescribing may reflect a clinician’s lack of knowledge about the patient’s culture or to the clinician’s beliefs about that culture. Clinicians who have that knowledge and who communicate well can positively affect treatment outcomes.
  • Relatively low adherence in filling initial prescriptions, refilling prescriptions and taking medications according to directions has been reported in minority patients being treated for asthma, depression, psychosis, cardiovascular diseases, osteoporosis, diabetes and in receiving vaccinations. Low medication adherence in minority populations has been correlated with reduced health status.
  • Much of the association between race/ethnicity and low adherence is explained by low household income, lack of insurance, poor education, low health literacy, language barriers and cultural beliefs. Low adherence may also reflect poor communication by providers, often due to lack of cultural competence training and time/resource constraints.
  • Use of herbal or other folk remedies by persons from various cultural backgrounds can complicate, interact and sometimes detract from treatment with western medicines.
  • Response to medications and optimal dosages may differ due to genetic or environmental factors, or diet. Ethnic differences have been consistently reported in the metabolism, effectiveness and frequency of side effects of many important drugs. Failure to account for these differences when prescribing or selecting agents for formularies or preferred drug lists may lead to suboptimal treatment and disparities.

The report is available online at http://store.nmqf.org/p-13-nmqf-e-books.aspx.

America’s Medicine Cabinet: Use Medications Safely

In Rx Pharmacy on April 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm

The Problem

Most Americans can look into the medicine cabinet and find multiple prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) medications.While medications can help keep you healthy, they also can cause serious problems when used incorrectly. A large percentage of adults in the United States (U.S.) are taking too many medications, not taking their medications properly, or both.
In any given week, four out of every five U.S. adults will use prescription medicines, OTC drugs, or dietary supplements. And nearly one-third of all adults will take five or more different medications each day. The more medications you take, the more chance there is for those drugs to interact negatively with each other. There also is a greater risk of forgetting to take medications, taking them at the wrong time, or taking too much or too little.

Taking medications the wrong way is an extremely costly and dangerous problem. It increases the chances of severe
medical complications or even death. A recent study estimated that in one year, incorrect use of medications resulted in more than 9 million hospital admissions and more than 18 million emergency room visits.

Pharmacist’s Role

It is clear that something needs to be done about the increasing problem of medications being taken incorrectly. Finding solutions will require patients to work in cooperation with all of their healthcare providers.

The pharmacy profession is committed to bringing greater attention to this serious problem, and is working with other members of the healthcare team to come up with solutions. Your local pharmacists can serve as a valuable resource. See the box below for suggestions on how your pharmacist can help you take your medications safely.

TALK TO YOUR PHARMACIST

The more information you have, the better able you will be to use your medications correctly, prevent errors,
and protect your health. Check with your pharmacist about:
• When and how you should take your medication
• What to do if you miss a dose
• Any potential side effects
• How your medications might interact with other drugs you are taking
• How to safely dispose of unused medications

The Facts -Ways Medications Are Not Used Correctly

IMPROPER USE happens when consumers do not understand or follow directions for taking medications, and often results in serious consequences. For example, many Americans use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin and ibuprofen for pain, and do not realize that improper use of these medications can lead to kidney failure or gastrointestinal bleeding.

OVERUSE happens when too much or the wrong strength of a medication is taken. For example, most people do not benefit from taking antibiotics for colds and other respiratory problems, but more than 23 million prescriptions a year are given to patients for these conditions. Overuse of antibiotics can lead to drug-resistant strains of bacteria and potentially life-threatening infections.

UNDERUSE happens when a prescribed medication is not taken when it should be. Skipping doses of a medication or taking the wrong medication can ultimately lead to hospitalization or other serious consequences. This is a growing problem, especially among children. The majority of medication errors reported in schools are due to children missing doses.

Reasons for the Problem

There are many factors that contribute to consumers taking their medications the wrong way, including:

INCREASING NUMBER OF MEDICATIONS.

The number of prescription and OTC medications is growing rapidly, making medication use more complicated and mistakes in use more likely. For example, shelves are becoming filled with different brands of the same drug, and many have different instructions for use. If you do not look closely at product labels, you could accidentally take too much or too little of a medication, or take the wrong medication.

MORE POWERFUL MEDICATIONS AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER.

More than 700 medications that formerly required a prescription are now available over the counter in pharmacies and supermarkets. While this has given you more opportunities to decide on your own medication therapy, these medications are not without risk. Even drugs like acetaminophen for headaches and pains can cause problems if not taken correctly.

The Facts
GREATER USE OF “NATURAL” PRODUCTS.

Morethan 40% of Americans have tried alternative medicines or dietary supplements, but many do not tell their healthcare providers they are taking them unless they are asked. Just because a medication is called “natural” or available without a prescription does not mean it is safe.Many individuals taking supplements and herbal medicines experience side effects or adverse reactions, especially when they are taking other medications at the same time.

RISE OF ADVERTISING DIRECTED AT CONSUMERS.

Pharmaceutical companies and retail stores are increasingly relying on direct appeals to the general public, including television, print, and Internet ads, to sell their products. An advertised drug may not be right for your particular condition or illness, leading you to take medications you don’t really need.
ELDERLY, CHILDREN AFFECTED
Adults aged 65 and older are more prone to taking medications incorrectly.They are more likely to use multiple medications, and may have declining vision, hearing, and memory that makes handling medications and interpreting instructions more difficult. Children also are vulnerable to mistakes in taking medications. Parents and caregivers administering medications can easily be confused by different instructions for use based on the child’s age, weight, and other medical conditions. One study found parents gave their children an incorrect dose of OTC fever medicine close to 50% of the time. Unintentional medication misuse can lead to patient harm and additional healthcare costs.

Experimental drug shows promise against head and neck cancer

In Rx Pharmacy on April 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm

April 28, 2009 (BRONX, NY) A laboratory study by researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University suggests that an anti-cancer compound studied for treating blood cancers may also help in treating cancers of the head and neck. The work is reported in the April 28th online edition of the Journal of Pathology.

Head and neck cancer refers to tumors in the mouth, throat, or larynx (voice box). Each year about 40,000 men and women develop head and neck cancer in the U.S., making it the country’s sixth-most common type. Surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation are the main treatment options but can cause serious side effects. Better treatments are needed, since only about half of patients with head and neck cancer survive for five or more years after diagnosis.

The Einstein study involved a new class of chemotherapy agents known as histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, which affect the availability of genes that are transcribed and translated into proteins. In many types of cancer, out-of-control cell growth results from certain genes that are either too active or not active enough in producing proteins. HDAC inhibitors appear to combat cancer by restoring the normal expression of key regulatory genes that control cell growth and survival.

The Einstein researchers focused on a particular HDAC inhibitor known as LBH589 that has already shown some success in clinical trials involving people with cancers of the blood. The researchers found that LBH589 succeeded in killing tumor cells that had been removed from head and neck cancer patients and grown in the laboratory.

“This report shows that an HDAC inhibitor is effective on head and neck cancer cell lines, and that is the first step toward use in humans,” said Richard Smith, M.D., the lead clinician involved in the study. Dr. Smith is associate professor of clinical otorhinolaryngology-head & neck surgery and associate professor of surgery at Einstein and is also vice-chair of otorhinolaryngology-head & neck surgery at Einstein and Montefiore.The researchers also identified a set of genes whose expression levels change in response to the HDAC inhibitorsa finding that may help doctors identify patients most likely to respond to the drug. Plans call for testing LBH589 on head and neck tumor cells from more patients so that the set of genes that respond to the drug can be more firmly established.

“We are performing studies in mice to confirm these laboratory results, which hopefully will progress to human clinical trials of LBH589 for the treatment of head and neck cancer,” said Michael Prystowsky, M.D., Ph.D., chair and professor of pathology at Einstein and corresponding author of the article.

Study finds higher drug co-pays discourage patients from starting treatment

In Medical Care, Rx Pharmacy on April 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Patients newly diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes or high cholesterol are significantly more likely to delay initiating recommended drug treatment if they face higher co-payments for medications, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

The delay was significant across all conditions, but the impact was largest among patients who had not previously used prescription drugs, according to the study published in the April 27 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

While several studies have established that higher drug co-payments discourage some patients from taking their medications, the new RAND Health study is the first to examine the impact higher out-of-pocket costs have on patients who are beginning drug treatment after being diagnosed with a chronic illnesses.

“Our study clearly shows that out-of-pocket costs reduce patients’ willingness to start treatment for their chronic illnesses,” said lead author Dr. Matthew D. Solomon, the study’s lead author and an adjunct researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “It is indisputable that avoiding treatment for these conditions will lead to higher rates of heart attack and stroke.”

The study included 272,474 retirees who received health coverage from their former employers from 1997 to 2002 and were covered by 31 different health plans. Researchers focused on 17,183 people from this group who were newly diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol, examining their records to see when they began to fill prescriptions for needed medications.

For each of the conditions, patients who had higher out-of-pocket costs were less likely to start prescription drug therapy compared to other patients in the study. For example, among those newly diagnosed with high blood pressure, those starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis dropped from 55 percent to 40 percent when their co-payment doubled. After five years, the differ ence was 82 percent to 66 percent, according to the study.Similar differences were seen among those diagnosed for the first time with diabetes and high cholesterol, according to researchers. Patients starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis with high cholesterol dropped from 40 percent to 31 percent when patients’ out-of-pocket costs doubled. After five years, the difference was 64 percent to 54 percent. Among patients with diabetes, those starting drug treatment within a year of diagnosis dropped from 46 percent to 40 percent when co-pays doubled. After five years, the difference was 69 percent to 63 percent

“Along with behavioral and lifestyle modification, prescription drug therapy is the cornerstone of management for these diseases,” said Solomon, who also is a medical resident at Stanford University. “If left untreated, each of these conditions will increase a person’s risk for having a potentially fatal cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack or stroke.”

The study also showed that patients who had no experience with medications were even less likely to begin recommended drug treatment, an indication that some patients may have a preference against medication use.

Solomon said the new RAND study holds implications for policymakers and insurance officials interested in creating policies to improve medication compliance and raise the quality of care. In addition, it should highlight for physicians the types of patients who may be most likely to ignore recommended drug treatments.

“Epidemiologic studies tell us that we do a terrible job of treating patients with these conditions. Now we know one reason why,” Solomon said.

‘Polypill’ could reduce heart disease, stroke: Researchers

In Rx Pharmacy on April 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Canadian researchers say a single, daily pill combining five medicines could potentially cut by half the number of heart attacks and strokes in middle-aged people.

 The pill — called Polycap — is a cocktail of three blood-pressure lowering drugs, Aspirin to reduce blood clotting and a cholesterol-lowering drug. In tests involving more than 2,000 people in India, each component of the pill did what it was supposed to do.

 In addition, the Polycap was generally well tolerated. There was no evidence of increasing side effects with increasing number of active components in one pill.

 The 12-week study wasn’t designed to see whether the “polypill” actually reduced heart attacks, stroke and death. Larger numbers of people would need to be treated with a longer followup.

“The worry, of course is, would they just take this and sit in front of a TV and not exercise and gain even more weight,” Cannon, a spokesman for the American College of Cardiology, said in an interview. “This has to be done in concert with all the things we’re supposed to be doing — eating better, exercising more and losing weight.”

 The study involved 2,053 people, aged 45 to 80, without cardiovascular disease but with one risk factor for it, such as hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes or smoking.

 The research team wanted to know: Is it possible, physically, to put five different ingredients into one pill? Would it work the same way as taking the compounds separately? Would it be tolerated? Would there be unexpected interactions when the drugs are given in a single pill?

 Overall, the Polycap lowered blood pressure, cholesterol and the clotting ability of the blood “in the same way as if I were taking the pills separately,” says Dr. Koon Teo, professor of medicine at McMaster and cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences. However, it lowered cholesterol slightly less than what would be achieved with taking the cholesterol reducer simvastatin alone.

 There were no excess side effects, Teo says. “So it looks like it’s safe.”

 ”We were excited because it’s a new paradigm of treatment,” he said.

 Getting patients to take multiple drugs, even after a heart attack, is difficult. Teo says the major appeal of the polypill is its simplicity. “People are more likely to take one pill, than five.”

 As well, large numbers of people with risk factors, such as high blood pressure, are untreated, Cannon says.

 

“If all these patients knew they could simply take their polypill, they might be more receptive to it,” he writes in The Lancet.

 

But the findings suggest the pill could potentially reduce cardiovascular heart disease by 62 per cent, and stroke by 48 per cent, researchers from McMaster University in Hamilton and St. John’s Medical College in Bangalore, India write in the journal, The Lancet. The study is to be presented Tuesday at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Florida.

 Heart disease is the leading cause of death worldwide.

 The study is a “first and crucial step” toward realizing the dream of combining several different drugs into one pill to treat many cardiac risk factors, says Dr. Christopher Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

 ”We’re not all the way there yet. We do need a larger study to show this does in fact work for the longer term. But it’s a big step toward having a simple pill that could provide this broad cardio-protection to tens of millions of people worldwide.”

 The Polycap, which is manufactured by Cadila Pharmaceuticals in Ahmedabad, India, contains generic drugs. Cannon says each component would add up to about $17 U.S. a month.

 In an accompanying commentary, Cannon worries the availability of a “single magic bullet” for the prevention of heart disease could lead people to think popping a pill would solve all their problems.

Teva Announces Approval And Launch Of Generic Solodyn(R) Extended-Release Tablets

In Rx Pharmacy on April 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted final approval for the Company’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market its generic version of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation’s acne treatment Solodyn® (Minocycline HCl) Extended-Release Tablets, 45 mg, 90 mg and 135 mg. Shipment of this product has commenced. 

As one of the first companies to file an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification for this product, Teva has been awarded a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity. 

Annual sales of this product were approximately $365 million in the United States for the twelve months that ended January 31, 2009, based on IMS sales data. 

Teva is currently involved in patent litigation concerning this product in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. A trial date has not been set. 

About Teva 

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., headquartered in Israel, is among the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in the world and is the world’s leading generic pharmaceutical company. The Company develops, manufactures and markets generic and innovative human pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients, as well as animal health pharmaceutical products. Over 80 percent of Teva’s sales are in North America and Europe. 

Safe Harbor Statement under the U. S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

This release contains forward-looking statements, which express the current beliefs and expectations of management. Such statements are based on management’s current beliefs and expectations and involve a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our future results, performance or achievements to differ significantly from the results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include risks relating to: our ability to successfully develop and commercialize additional pharmaceutical products, the introduction of competing generic equivalents, the extent to which we may obtain U.S. market exclusivity for certain of our new generic products and regulatory changes that may prevent us from utilizing exclusivity periods, potential liability for sales of generic products prior to a final resolution of outstanding patent litigation, including that relating to the generic versions of Neurontin®, Lotrel® and Protonix®, the current economic conditions, competition from brand-name companies that are under increased pressure to counter generic products, or competitors that seek to delay the introduction of generic products, the effects of competition on our innovative products, especially Copaxone® sales, dependence on the effectiveness of our patents and other protections for innovative products, the impact of consolidation of our distributors and customers, the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and pending legislation that could affect the pharmaceutical industry, our ability to achieve expected results though our innovative R&D efforts, the difficulty of predicting U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other regulatory authority approvals, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative and regulatory pathway for the registration and approval of biotechnology-based products, the regulatory environment and changes in the health policies and structures of various countries, supply interruptions or delays that could result from the complex manufacturing of our products and our global supply chain, our ability to successfully identify, consummate and integrate acquisitions, including the integration of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the potential exposure to product liability claims to the extent not covered by insurance, our exposure to fluctuations in currency, exchange and interest rates, significant operations worldwide that may be adversely affected by terrorism, political or economical instability or major hostilities, our ability to enter into patent litigation settlements and the intensified scrutiny by the U.S. government, the termination or expiration of governmental programs and tax benefits, impairment of intangible assets and goodwill, environmental risks, and other factors that are discussed in this report and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). 

Source
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 

Study Researches Ways Of Getting Drug Information To Consumers

In Rx Pharmacy on April 14, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Consumers are more likely to receive information about medications from magazine advertisements that include a “drug facts box,” rather than the brief summaries currently used, according to a study published on Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, USA Today reports. For the study, Steven Woloshin and colleagues at Dartmouth University, tested the effectiveness of drug facts boxes for a statin and the blood thinner Plavix, both medications for heart disease, as well as a proton pump inhibitor and an H2 blocker, both treatments for heartburn. 

The drug facts boxes included information about the side effects of the medications, as well as the rate that the side effects occurred in clinical trials. In addition, the drug facts boxes quantified the benefits of the medications over a placebo and older treatments. The drug facts boxes also included the year that the medications received FDA approval and alternative treatments that do not involve medication.

According to the study, about 72% of individuals who viewed drug facts boxes for the heart disease medications correctly said that the statin provides a larger benefit, compared with 9% of people who viewed the brief summaries currently used. About 70% of individuals who viewed drug facts boxes for the heartburn medications correctly said that the protein pump inhibitor provides a larger benefit, compared with 8% who viewed the brief summaries currently used, the study found.

Woloshin said that researchers have begun to design a pilot project in which FDA scientists have drafted drug facts boxes as they review new medications (Rubin, USA Today, 2/17). 

The study is available online. 

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery athttp://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 

© 2009 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Consumers Spending Less On Prescription Drugs

In Rx Pharmacy on April 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Consumers say they are spending an estimated 3% less on prescription drugs this year versus last year thanks, in part, to the economic downturn, according to Kurt Salmon Associates’ recent evaluation of more than 8,000 shoppers’ opinions.

The decline is likely the result of a continued shift towards lower-cost generic drugs and an increasing number of consumers who are looking to save money by self-medicating or simply reducing overall drug consumption.

KSA’s analysis suggests that retailers that can manage consumers’ perceptions of price — as much as price itself — are the most likely to be successful in the prescription drug category, especially in the present economy.

Wal-Mart gaining share; Target gets high advocacy and price-to-value

For example, many retailers have adopted discount and generic drugs programs. But Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has been the most successful at marketing its discount drug offering and appears to be gaining share from traditional drug chains, such as Rite Aid Corp., which consumers perceive as having higher prices.

Target Corp. also could prove an advantage in the prescription drug category. Consumers give the multiline retailer high advocacy and price-to-value scores.

Conducted in partnership with Prosper Inc., a leader in online market intelligence, the research includes more than three years’ worth of comprehensive consumer data and shows that:

– Prescription drug users are increasingly price sensitive. In January 2009, 20% of prescription drug consumers cited price as a reason for switching retailers, which is up from 16% in 2008.

– Retailers with a value orientation are winning the share war in this economy. Wal-Mart grew its customer base 9% over the past year.

– The share gains for value-based retailers come at the expense of the stores that consumers perceive as having higher prices. Rite Aid lost a disproportionate amount of market share to Wal-Mart, approximately 2% over the past year, because consumers believe it has higher prices.

– Despite the increasing importance of price perception, location remains the no. 1 reason why consumers choose a particular retailer for prescription drug purchas– Price-sensitive consumers are responding to discount prescription drugs programs. More than half (57%) of Wal-Mart pharmaceutical shoppers cited the retailer’s $4-generic-drugs program as a main reason for their choice of retailer.
Kurt Salmon Associates

http://www.kurtsalmon.comes. Walgreens and CVS continue to maintain share based primarily on convenient locations.

2008 Sees Significant Rise In Prescription Abandonment And Uptake Of Generics

In Medical Care, Rx Pharmacy on April 8, 2009 at 11:05 pm

Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry, today released its annual analysis of the U.S. pharmaceutical market that shows an increased rate of prescription abandonment among consumers. A prescription is defined as abandoned when a patient submits a retail prescription to a pharmacy but never actually picks it up.

Looking at U.S. commercial plan claims for 2008, Wolters Kluwer Health found that prescription abandonment increased by 34 percent nationally compared to 2006 — jumping from an average of 5.15 percent in 2006 to 6.8 percent in 2008. It also found that abandonment increased as the amount of the co-pay increased, especially for new prescriptions. For example, new prescriptions with co-pays of $100 or more carry an abandonment rate of just over 20 percent; while with co-pays of $10 or under, the abandonment is only 4 percent.

“Price sensitivity is clearly a factor as consumers decide to forego certain prescriptions altogether, including some for chronic conditions,” said Mark Spiers, President & CEO, Wolters Kluwer Health, Pharma Solutions. “This disturbing trend may have serious health implications and seems poised to continue especially if the economy deteriorates further.”

Two-Thirds of Prescriptions Filled to be Generic by End of Year

The Wolters Kluwer Health analysis, known as Pharma Insight, also shows that generic medications continue to make significant gains over brands by grabbing more than 60 percent of all U.S. prescriptions filled in 2008, and an even greater percentage of the subset of drugs that are taken orally. According to the data, there were 2.4 billion prescriptions filled for generic drugs and only 1.4 billion for brand-name medications — an unprecedented spread of a billion prescriptions.

According to the data, U.S. prescriptions for generics and brands reached equilibrium in 2005 and then generics continued to build momentum each year thereafter increasing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12 percent since 2004. Conversely, branded drugs slowed pace to a negative 6 percent CAGR for the same period.

“We’re close to the point, certainly by the end of 2009, where two-out-of-every-three prescriptions filled will be generic,” continued Spiers. “These trends are going to become even more pronounced moving forward as there are many blockbusters in major therapeutic areas like cholesterol reducers due to come off patent in the coming three years. The volume of available generics will increase, and there are very few new ‘blockbuster’ drugs in the pipeline to replace them.”

According to Spiers, many factors contribute to the steady growth of generic prescriptions in America, among the most prevalent: patient education, awareness and changing attitudes. “Patients are becoming far more comfortable with the concept of using a generic in place of a brand. This, in part, is due to patient education programs and enthusiasm forged by marketing vehicles such as $4 generic drug programs,” said Spiers.

The data also suggest that the economy is playing an enormous role in patient decision-making. As third-party insurers set higher co-pays for brands, patients are reacting by forcibly choosing generic alternatives. Spiers suggests that the economic downturn is going to further drive this demand and further spur prescription abandonment. “Increased unemployment and high numbers of newly uninsured are encouraging patients to look for ways to cut costs,” added Spiers. “Choosing a generic over a brand fits right into that mindset.”

About Wolters Kluwer Health

Wolters Kluwer Health (Philadelphia, PA) is a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry. Major brands include traditional publishers of medical and drug reference tools and textbooks, such as Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Facts & Comparisons(R); electronic information providers, such as Ovid, UpToDate(R), Medi-Span(R) and ProVation(R) Medical; and pharmaceutical information providers such as Adis International and Source(R).

Wolters Kluwer Health is a division of Wolters Kluwer, a leading global information services and publishing company. The company provides products and services for professionals in the health, tax, accounting, corporate, financial services, legal, and regulatory sectors. Wolters Kluwer had 2008 annual revenues of euro 3.4 billion ($4.9 billion), employs approximately 20,000 people worldwide, and maintains operations in over 35 countries across Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. Wolters Kluwer is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Its shares are quoted on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL) and are included in the AEX and Euronext 100 indices.

About Source

Source(R) is a leading provider of market data and analytics for pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturers to make decisions and recommendations with confidence, as well as pursue market opportunities for their products. Source offers comprehensive patient and physician-level prescribing and usage data to provide manufacturers with a unique set of more actionable information than is otherwise available. Source is part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry.

Source: Wolters Kluwer Health

Prepared Patient: Coping With The High Cost Of Prescriptions

In Medical Care, Rx Pharmacy on April 7, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Cost-cutting measures are creeping into the medicine cabinet. We split pills in half or take the drugs every other day to stretch our doses. We stop filling the prescriptions for our most expensive drugs. We buy prescriptions from online pharmacies with questionable credentials.

As patients pay more for their prescription drugs whether it’s through higher insurance co-pays or shouldering the full costs many people decide to opt out of taking the drugs altogether. But there are safer ways to cut costs than skimping on or skipping the medicines you need.

More emergency room visits, severe and uncontrolled asthma attacks, and an upswing in heart attacks and strokes are just some of the poor health outcomes associated with skipping a prescription due to its cost.

For a chronic disease like high blood pressure where the symptoms are not obvious, skipping the drug may seem like no big deal, according to Rebecca Snead, executive vice president of the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations.

But, “we don’t want someone who can’t afford a medicine to become someone who can’t afford bypass surgery,” warns John Michael O’Brien, a prescriptions cost expert at College of Notre Dame of Maryland.

That’s exactly what happened with to Karen Merrill, who has heart disease. She felt worse when she stopped taking her prescriptions for a while after her heart attack, “and I ended up back in surgery for a bypass,” she said.

When patients decide to stop taking a prescription or otherwise alter their doses without informing their doctors, they may put themselves at risk for overdose or harmful medicine interactions.

“A doctor may think a patient is taking a drug when he really isn’t, and may prescribe another drug when it appears that the first drug isn’t working,” says Michelle Fritsch, a pharmacist and chair of the clinical and administrative sciences department at the College of Notre Dame.

Savings Plan

But maybe your insurance doesn’t quite stretch to cover a brand-name antidepressant, or maybe you are stuck in Medicare’s Part D “doughnut hole,” waiting for your annual cap on prescription coverage to roll over. Maybe you have no insurance and no cash to spend at the pharmacy. How should you handle the costs?

“Every time you fill a prescription, talk to your pharmacist about lowering your drug costs,” O’Brien advises. “Your pharmacist can explain your options and help your doctor choose a medicine that meets your needs.”

However, “I don’t know about you, but I know I would have a hard time standing in line with my pharmacist and saying, ‘I can’t afford this,’” says Merrill, who now works with the American Heart Association as a survivor-advocate.

In many cases, insurance companies directly notify pharmacies about less costly options in a class of cholesterol drugs, for instance, or a new generic version of a drug. “And if a generic is available for a drug you’ve been prescribed, you should take it,” O’Brien says.

People who think generic drugs “are like generic toilet paper” can rest assured that the Food and Drug Administration certifies generic medications as having the same dose, strength, safety and efficacy as their brand-name counterparts, Fritsch says.

Free prescription drugs are available for people who can’t afford their medicines through patient assistance programs or PAPs.

Janet Walton, deputy program director at RxAssist, says it’s not always the uninsured or the poor who are seeking help: “People who are underinsured are calling.”

Merrill sets aside money in a special health savings account to pay for her prescriptions throughout the year, “but come November, December, I’m in my doctor’s office begging for free samples,” she says.

“Samples aren’t a replacement for continuity of care,” says O’Brien, who notes that irregular use of samples can make it difficult for pharmacists to catch drug interactions. Doctor office samples also tend to be expensive brand-name drugs, not generics, “so if you start on a brand-name drug, you’ll soon get a prescription for a brand-name drug.”

Snead and others advise against buying cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, Mexico, and other foreign markets. “The incidence of counterfeit drugs is rising exponentially,” Snead warns. Your online pharmacy may be stamped with a maple leaf flag, “but how do you know that the Web site is really in Canada?” she asked.

Speak Up and Cut Back

“One of the questions that I’ve trained my 77-year old mom to ask is, ‘if I get a new medication, which one of these other medications can I stop taking?’” Snead says.

O’Brien and Snead both recommend a yearly review of all medicines, in consultation with your doctor and pharmacist.

Source: Health Behavior News Service

Heart Drugs: Brand Names No Better Than Generics, Study

In Medical Care, Rx Pharmacy on April 6, 2009 at 4:59 pm

US scientists reviewing 20 years of research and expert opinion on generic versus brand name drugs in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases found no clinical evidence showing brand names were superior to generic versions even though a substantial number of experts writing editorials advised against interchanging them.

The study was the work of Dr Aaron S Kesselheim, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues, and is published online in the 3rd December issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA.

When two drugs are bioequivalent it means that to all intents and purposes after they have been given to the patient they are biologically equivalent to each other, for example the composition, rate and extent to which their active ingredients are present at the target site inside the body are so similar that you can’t tell the difference between them.

And yet there appears to be a general opinion among doctors and patients that despite the fact generic drugs are bioequivalent to brand name drugs, the brand names are clinically superior. But generic drugs are much cheaper, so Kesselheim and colleagues decided to investigate the available clinical evidence on generics versus brand names and the views of editorial writers on the subject with respect to cardiovascular treatments.

For the study, the researchers systematically searched for peer reviewed studies published between 1984 and 2008 and listed in a number of well known databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts.

They selected those studies that compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of generic versus brand name cardiovascular drugs. In a separate exercise they also identified editorials that wrote about substituting brand names with generic versions.

Kesselheim and colleagues then used techniques commonly used in research that reviews other studies, whereby the design, setting, participants, results and funding of each study is extracted and put through a test that assesses the quality of the trial, whilst the results are pooled in such a way that they can then be viewed as if they had come from one giant trial (meta-analysis).

As a separate exercise they reviewed the editorials and classified them as negative, positive or neutral, depending on the authors’ view on generic substitution.

They found a total of 47 clinical trials covering 9 subclasses of cardiovascular drugs, and established the following results:

  • 38 of the 47 (81 per cent) trials were randomized controlled trials (considered to be higher quality).
  • For beta-blockers, 7 out of 7 randomized controlled trials (100 per cent) found generics to be clinically equivalent to brand names.
  • For diuretics, the figure was 10 out of 11 (91 per cent).
  • For calcium channel blockers it was 5 out of 7 (71 per cent).
  • For antiplatelet agents it was 3 of 3 (100 per cent).
  • For statins it was 2 out of 2 (100 per cent).
  • For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors it was 1 out of 1 (100 per cent).
  • And for alpha-blockers, 1 out 1 randomized controlled trial (100 per cent) found generics to be clinically equivalent to brand names.
  • In drugs that have a narrow therapeutic index (where you have to be really careful to give the right dose so as not to injure the patient), clinical equivalence was found in 1 out of 1 randomized controlled trial (100 per cent) for class 1 antiarrhythmic agents, and in 5 out of 5 (100 per cent) for warfarin.
  • Pooling the results of all the trials gave a total of 837 participants and an aggregate effect size of -0.03 (95 per cent confidence interval of -0.15 to 0.08), meaning that across the studies as a whole, there was no statistically significant evidence that brand names were superior to generic drugs.               Reviewing the material from 43 editorials, the researchers found that:

    • 23 of them (53 per cent), expressed a negative view about whether generic drugs could replace or be used instead of brand names.

  • Kesselheim and colleagues concluded that:

    “Whereas evidence does not support the notion that brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.”

    They wrote that the rising cost of prescription drugs is a critical policy issue: it strains the budgets of patients and insurance providers, and leads to poorer health as it works against helping everyone to make sure patients can complete their medication schedules.

    “The primary drivers of elevated drug costs are brand-name drugs, which are sold at high prices during a period of patent protection and market exclusivity after approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),” they added.

    The idea of generics is to help people afford drugs, and these become available after the brand names have had their period of being the only ones on the market, the so called exclusivity period. Many doctors and payers encourage this.

    However, some patients and doctors have been concerned that the generic versions may not be as effective. As Kesselheim and colleagues explained:

    “Brand-name manufacturers have suggested that generic drugs may be less effective and safe than their brand-name counterparts. Anecdotes have appeared in the lay press raising doubts about the efficacy and safety of certain generic drugs.”

    Kesselheim and colleagues suggested that one explanation for the discordance between the clinical evidence and the opinion expressed by experts in the editorials could be that:

    “Commentaries may be more likely to highlight physicians’ concerns based on anecdotal experience or other nonclinical trial settings.”

    Another explanation they suggested was that the:

    “Conclusions may be skewed by financial relationships of editorialists with brand-name pharmaceutical companies, which are not always disclosed.”

    • This compared with 12 (28 per cent) that encouraged substitution.The other 8 editorials did not reach a conclusion on interchangeability.Among editorials covering narrow therapeutic index drugs, 12 (67 per cent) expressed a negative view compared with 4 (22 per cent) in favour generic substitution.

    Nearly half the trials (23 out of 47) and nearly all the editorials and commentaries they reviewed did not reveal where the funding came from, noted Kesselheim and colleagues, who also wrote that:

    “We identified numerous studies that evaluated differences in clinical outcomes with generic and brand-name medications. Our results suggest that it is reasonable for physicians and patients to rely on FDA bioequivalence rating as a proxy for clinical equivalence among a number of important cardiovascular drugs, even in higher-risk contexts such as the NTI drug warfarin.”

    “These findings also support the use of formulary designs aimed at stimulating appropriate generic drug use. To limit unfounded distrust of generic medications, popular media and scientific journals could choose to be more selective about publishing perspective pieces based on anecdotal evidence of diminished clinical efficacy or greater risk of adverse effects with generic medications. Such publications may enhance barriers to appropriate generic drug use that increase unnecessary spending without improving clinical outcomes,” they added.

    “Clinical Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs Used in Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta- analysis.”
    Aaron S. Kesselheim; Alexander S. Misono; Joy L. Lee; Margaret R. Stedman; M. Alan Brookhart; Niteesh K. Choudhry; William H. Shrank.
    JAMA. Vol 300, No 21, pp 2514-2526, December 3, 2008.

    Click here for Abstract.

    Sources: JAMA.

    Teva Announces Approval Of Generic Yaz(R) Tablets

    In Rx Pharmacy on April 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted approval for the Company’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market its generic version for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals’ oral contraceptive Yaz® (Drospirenone and Ethinyl Estradiol) Tablets. As the first company to file an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification for this product, Teva has been awarded a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity.

    Annual sales of Yaz® were approximately $616 million in the United States for the twelve months that ended December 30, 2008, based on IMS sales data.

    In 2008, Teva’s subsidiary Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a supply and licensing agreement with Bayer. Under this agreement, Teva has the right to launch an authorized generic version of Yaz® on July 1, 2011, or earlier in certain circumstances.

    About Teva

    Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., headquartered in Israel, is among the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in the world and is the world’s leading generic pharmaceutical company. The Company develops, manufactures and markets generic and innovative human pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients, as well as animal health pharmaceutical products. Over 80 percent of Teva’s sales are in North America and Europe.

    Safe Harbor Statement under the U. S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

    This release contains forward-looking statements, which express the current beliefs and expectations of management. Such statements are based on management’s current beliefs and expectations and involve a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our future results, performance or achievements to differ significantly from the results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include risks relating to: our ability to successfully develop and commercialize additional pharmaceutical products, the introduction of competing generic equivalents, the extent to which we may obtain U.S. market exclusivity for certain of our new generic products and regulatory changes that may prevent us from utilizing exclusivity periods, potential liability for sales of generic products prior to a final resolution of outstanding patent litigation, including that relating to the generic versions of Neurontin®, Lotrel® and Protonix®, the current economic conditions, competition from brand-name companies that are under increased pressure to counter generic products, or competitors that seek to delay the introduction of generic products, the effects of competition on our innovative products, especially Copaxone® sales, dependence on the effectiveness of our patents and other protections for innovative products, the impact of consolidation of our distributors and customers, the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and pending legislation that could affect the pharmaceutical industry, our ability to achieve expected results though our innovative R&D efforts, the difficulty of predicting U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other regulatory authority approvals, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative and regulatory pathway for the registration and approval of biotechnology-based products, the regulatory environment and changes in the health policies and structures of various countries, supply interruptions or delays that could result from the complex manufacturing of our products and our global supply chain, our ability to successfully identify, consummate and integrate acquisitions, including the integration of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the potential exposure to product liability claims to the extent not covered by insurance, our exposure to fluctuations in currency, exchange and interest rates, significant operations worldwide that may be adversely affected by terrorism, political or economical instability or major hostilities, our ability to enter into patent litigation settlements and the intensified scrutiny by the U.S. government, the termination or expiration of governmental programs and tax benefits, impairment of intangible assets and goodwill, environmental risks, and other factors that are discussed in this report and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

    Source
    Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

    Pharmacists Can Provide Solutions To Healthcare Issues Raised In Recent AARP Study

    In Medical Care, Rx Pharmacy on April 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) commends the American Association of Retired People (AARP) Public Policy Institute for its recent study report, “Beyond 50.09 Chronic Care: A Call to Action for Health Reform.” The survey of chronically ill patients and their caregivers finds health care poses significant challenges for the 70 million Americans 50 and older who have at least one chronic condition. The survey is part of a larger report, “Chronic Care: A Call to Action for Health Reform,” which details the state of chronic care and offers recommendations for improving care for the chronically ill as part of comprehensive health reform.

    The AARP report makes several recommendations to improve care for the chronically ill, including:

    - Increasing the use of health information technology so that doctors, patients and caregivers have the information they need, when they need it;

    - Expanding testing of care delivery models to find out what works and including best practices for chronic disease care in training for doctors and other health professionals;

    - Making innovative changes to payment policy to encourage better performance and outcomes;

    - Making preventive care and medications more affordable to avoid preventable chronic diseases altogether and to better treat those that do occur; and

    - Ensuring an adequate workforce and making the most of the workforce we have, including fostering interdisciplinary teams and identifying nurses and pharmacists as team leaders, as appropriate.

    “The report supports many of the reforms that APhA has been advocating for in healthcare reform including improving quality and safety of medication use, which is particularly important for the chronically ill,” said John A Gans, APhA’s executive vice president and chief executive officer. “Pharmacists can play an essential role in improving medication use”

    This assertion is supported by several findings in the report about the role that pharmacists can play in health care reform including:

    - Providers need to spend more time talking with patients about drug therapies and emphasizing the importance of adhering to them or discussing why they should be stopped. People with chronic illness and their caregivers need to be more proactive in managing care-keeping an up-to-date list of all medicines being used and sharing it with every health professional who writes prescriptions and with all pharmacists involved in a patient’s care. A pharmacist might be able to recommend changes to simplify dosages, minimize side effects, eliminate duplicate medicines, and provide lower-cost options.

    - Patients should consider medication therapy management programs and drug reviews, which all Medicare plans offer to targeted patients with high drug costs. Some health plans and pharmacists also offer these services.

    An increasing evidence base indicates that pharmacists help keep health care costs down through pharmacist-provided patient care services, such as educating patients on how to take their prescription medications properly and safely, as well as administering health screenings and immunizations. With current costs to the health care system to treat chronic diseases at $1.3 trillion annually, taking medications properly can help prevent the need for catastrophic or emergency care.

    As the third largest and most accessible health care profession, pharmacists play a critical role in providing accessible, affordable and quality health care for patients. APhA looks forward to working with the Administration, healthcare organizations and patient advocacy groups such as AARP to address the vital issue of health-care reform.

    About the American Pharmacists Association (APhA)

    The American Pharmacists Association, founded in 1852 as the American Pharmaceutical Association, represents more than 62,000 practicing pharmacists, pharmaceutical scientists, student pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and others interested in advancing the profession. APhA, dedicated to helping all pharmacists improve medication use and advance patient care, is the first-established and largest association of pharmacists in the United States. APhA members provide care in all practice settings, including community pharmacies, health systems, long-term care facilities, managed care organizations, hospice settings, and the uniformed services.

    Source
    American Pharmacists Association

    FDA Approves Generic Topamax To Prevent Seizures

    In Rx Pharmacy on April 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generic versions of Topamax tablets (topiramate) to prevent seizures.

    “Generic drugs undergo a rigorous scientific review to ensure they will provide patients with the same dose of high quality, safe and effective active ingredient as the name brand product,” said Gary Buehler, director of the Office of Generic Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The FDA is committed to providing access to safe and effective generic drugs as soon as the law permits when a brand name drug’s patents and exclusivities expire.”

    Topiramate tablets in several different strengths have been approved to be marketed by the following firms: Roxane Laboratories Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Barr Laboratories Inc., TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., CIPLA Ltd., Glenmark Generics Ltd., Cobalt Laboratories, Apotex Inc., Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Pliva Hrvatska.

    Prescribing information, or labeling, for generic topiramate will differ from the innovator drug, Topamax, because some uses of Topamax continue to be protected by patents and exclusivity.

    The labeling for Topamax and generic topiramate contains an important safety warning about metabolic acidosis, a condition associated with excessive acid in the blood, which can cause symptoms such as tiredness, loss of appetite, irregular heartbeat, and impaired consciousness. Health care professionals should perform a blood test to monitor the level of a patient’s serum bicarbonate.

    The use of topiramate has been associated with serious eye problems, such as a sudden decrease in vision and a blockage of fluid in the eye causing increased pressure in the eye. Patients taking topiramate should contact their health care professional immediately if they have a loss in vision or experience eye pain. These problems can lead to blindness if not treated right away.

    For more information on topiramate, please see the FDA Patient Information Sheet.

    For information on generic drugs, visit here.

    Source
    FDA

    AARP Urges Congress To Lower Prescription Drug Prices

    In Rx Pharmacy on April 2, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    AARP today testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection for its hearing on “The Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2009″ (H.R. 1706).  The legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), will help bring lower cost generic drugs to market sooner by preventing abuses in patent settlements between generic and brand prescription drug companies.

    “Lowering prescription drug prices will be a critical part of comprehensive health reform,” said AARP Board Member Joanne Handy, who delivered the Association’s testimony.  “Generic drugs have proven to be one of the safest and most effective ways for consumers to lower their prescription drug costs.  Consumers lose when drug makers are able to delay competition by paying off generic manufacturers.

    “AARP is proud to endorse ‘The Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act,’ which will put an end to patent settlements that jeopardize the availability of safe, less expensive generic drugs.  We look forward to working with Reps. Rush and Waxman and their colleagues to pass their legislation as a part of health reform this year.”

    AARP’s health reform campaign is working to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of changes including ending patent abuse, allowing for the safe and legal importation of lower priced prescription drugs from abroad, closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap, allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and creating a pathway for the approval of safe generic biologic drugs.

    For a complete copy of AARP’s testimony to the subcommittee, please contact the Media Relations office at the number above.

    AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole.  AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates.  We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world’s largest-circulation magazine with over 34.5 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP’s 40 million members and Americans 50+; AARP Segunda Juventud, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org.  AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors.  We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    Source
    AARP