“May You Live in Interesting Times.”

I’ve been hearing this phrase a lot lately around our industry. Historically, I’ve been the type of person who has readily accepted and even encouraged change. It just keeps life more interesting. I have always assumed a very positive connotation to the use of this expression. Just the other day the proverb came up again, in a positive context. However, this time someone pointed out that the phrase may in fact be attributable to an ancient Chinese curse. While the phrase’s true origin remains unsubstantiated, it may be related to a Chinese proverb that reads: “It’s better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man (person) in a chaotic period.” I guess even for a “change junky” such as myself, this may be more reflective of my true feelings at the moment.

Because of my 30 years in the healthcare industry, people have encouraged me to write about healthcare reform in this publication. But my response has been: “Who needs to read another article about that?” Having lived through “Hilarycare” and based upon what I’ve seen so far of “Obamacare,” I would conclude that there’s not much worth talking about anyway. Thus far, my assessment of the reform bills is that the “treatment is worse than the disease” and I don’t hold much hope for substantive change.

Healthcare is not an area where compromised Congressional solutions will produce effective results. The pharmaceutical industry’s response to the healthcare reform movement has been interesting. Contributing $80 billion or so to the effort and publicly supporting a cause that is essentially undefined is very curious. Let’s just hope that as the reform dust settles, it will prove to have been a brilliant strategy.

The one piece of data I have found to be the most intriguing in this season of reform was an NIH funded study that was mentioned in the July 2, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The study examined the medical records of Medicare enrollees and found that the extra cost of extending prescription coverage to them was substantially offset by lower spending on other medical care for people who previously had limited or no prescription-drug coverage. More specifically, “After 2 years on Part D, enrollees in the no-coverage groups had increased their monthly drug spending by $41, as compared with that in the no-cap group, but that was roughly offset by a decrease of $33 in their monthly medical spending, perhaps because increased use of medication led to improved control of chronic illness.” In groups who had previous coverage, decreases in monthly medical spending more than offset the increase in drug spending.

As with all studies of this nature, findings are subject to several limitations. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that there was no increase in spending in Parts A and B of Medicare as a result of Part D, which may provide further substantiation that appropriate use and adherence to medication can lower overall healthcare costs. Another study, conducted by the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy (funded by Novartis) found that Part D in 2006 resulted in “small but statistically significant improvements in the health status of previously uninsured beneficiaries.”

My excitement about these findings stems from the sense of urgency and importance being placed on our industry to produce defensible outcomes-related information. And yet, little has been discussed in the press or blogosphere about these studies and results. This is surprising to me. In fact, I would contend that the industry missed an opportunity to drive substantive dialogue about the findings. With this data in hand, the industry might have provided some meaningful direction on the wildly shifting healthcare reform debates.

It would appear, at least for the foreseeable future, that our industry will continue to move forward in a state of transition. However, I think that even in these “interesting times,” there is still an opportunity to have an impact and there is much to gain by being an active participant in the conversation. The industry must continue to respond to the marketplace changes, win back public goodwill, provide more value for money, and prove that their medicines really work when provided to those in need.

I know that, here at InfoMedics, we will continue to support our pharmaceutical clients and maintain our focus on facilitating more effective dialogue between patients and physicians. We work hard to improve the effectiveness of pharmaceutical marketing by empowering doctors and patients to communicate more often, more effectively. And we know that it makes a difference – doctors gain confidence in their prescribing decisions and patients know that their doctors are hearing them. By supporting those critical communications at the point of care, the industry can make a huge difference.

Subscribe to FUSE

Previous Issues

infomedics.com