Eli Lilly lowering price of Zepbound
Hugely popular weight loss drugs known as GLP-1’s are finally getting cheaper, well at least one is, and that’s the case with Eli Lilly drug Zettbound.
Cheddar
In a recent ep-ed, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan CEO Tricia Keith laid out a number of cost drivers in the health care system.
Unfortunately, she didn’t take any responsibility for the role that Blue Cross plays in the increased costs to patients. Instead, she assigned blame to other players in the system, without proposing what health insurers could actually do to help reduce costs.
I lead the Michigan Biosciences Industry Association, or MichBio, an association of research and manufacturer companies that develop life-improving and life-saving medicines for patients in need.
Michigan has been on the leading edge of some of the most blockbuster drugs that continue to help people live better and longer lives.
Just two examples include Lipitor, the best-selling cholesterol-lowering drug in history, which was developed in Ann Arbor at Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, and AZT, the first approved treatment for HIV/AIDS, discovered at Wayne State University, giving hope to millions across the globe.
The fact is, medical science has never been more promising, and despite all the groundbreaking innovation in medicine, spending on medicines remains a small and stable 14% of total health spending.
I was especially surprised that Keith didn’t mention the role that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) play in inflating the costs of prescriptions for patients. They’re the middlemen that set the actual price of medications. Pharmaceutical companies sell their products at much lower costs, but PBMs mark up the price and make billions in profits as a result. Some PBMs are owned by the actual pharmacies, so they’re making huge profits off every step in the health care process.
Instead, Keith proposed eliminating the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products. The result would be a less informed patient, and lead to insurance company bean counters telling your doctor what they can and cannot prescribe. This would not make health care better; it would make bigger profits for health insurers.
If Keith wants to go down the advertising route, Blue Cross should consider reducing its advertising and sponsorship budget. You can’t attend a sporting event without seeing their logo plastered all over the stadium.
What if they, instead, reduced their costs to patients with those funds? Maybe they wouldn’t have to charge double-digit premium increases every year.
Keith also complains about patent protection for companies that have made major discoveries. Can you imagine investing billions into research and development to come up with a life-saving medicine, you file for a patent and are told it’s only valid for seven years?
In fact, 90% of prescriptions in the U.S. are filled with lower-cost generics and biosimilars.
As a company, you have to cover your investment costs within that timeframe, and then generics manufacturers are allowed to make and sell your product. Seven years is a very short timeline, but without even that minimal protection, who would do the research and testing that’s necessary?
The bottom line is that everyone in the health care ecosystem has a role to play in reducing costs for patients.
So instead of pointing fingers, how about if everyone sits down and figures out what is best for patients?
That may be the optimist in me hoping for that kind of result, but it’s the only way we’re going to do what’s right by the patients that the system is supposed to help.
Stephen Rapundalo
The writer is president and CEO of MichBio, the Michigan Biosciences Industry Association
