




Sam Mar
1K posts







"Although Republicans and Democrats will sometimes approach this in a different way," @SenMikeLee tells @burgessev on permitting reform, "The need is so pressing and undisputed ... it's not quite as stark a contrast between what Republicans want and what Democrats want right now."

Heather Knuckles shares her mother's tragic story of receiving a liver with metastatic cancer, prompting calls for accountability in organ procurement practices. @SchmittNYC

WATCH: In today’s @WaysandMeansGOP Oversight Subcommittee hearing, I exposed the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in the organ procurement industry. I look forward to working with @HouseGOP to restore trust in the transplant system and prevent this outrageous and shockingly evil abuse of taxpayer dollars.

At @RenPhil21, we want to give donors more ways to bet on science and tech. Thanks to @elidourado and the @AsteraInstitute team, we will be standing up a new offering that will leverage DAFs to bring down the cost of capital of energy and infrastructure projects. More here:

One quarter of all kidneys from organ donors get thrown in the trash. At Statecraft, we uncovered why a corrupt monopolist has managed organ procurement for 40 years, and how it’s getting fixed. statecraft.pub/p/how-to-stop-…


Scooplet: a group of Dem and GOP governors led by @GovernorShapiro and @GovStitt are sending a letter to key House and Senate committee leaders laying out detailed priorities for Congress to act on permitting reform, including NÈPA, transmission, Clean Water Act changes

Scooplet: a group of Dem and GOP governors led by @GovernorShapiro and @GovStitt are sending a letter to key House and Senate committee leaders laying out detailed priorities for Congress to act on permitting reform, including NÈPA, transmission, Clean Water Act changes



A post on drug patents, exclusivity periods, and Medicare negotiation, and how pharma is trying to use the complexity to pull a fast one to grab $10 billion. A pharma company gets 20 years of patent protection on a drug, starting from date of filing. However, due to lengthy clinical trials and reg approval, the effective patent life can be materially shorter. Given this, the industry pushed for other protections including an exclusivity period free from generic competition starting at the date of drug approval. Hatch-Waxman established a 5-year exclusivity period for small molecules. When the ACA created a pathway for biosimilars (essentially generic biologic drugs), pharma argued that biologics are more complex and costly to develop and should get a longer time. In exchange for industry support for the ACA, the Obama admin granted a longer exclusivity period for biologics: 12 years. The provisions for Medicare negotiations in the IRA follow this precedent, with biologics getting 13 years before being eligible for price negotiation vs 9 for small molecule. But now pharma has flipped the rhetoric. Instead of biologics getting extra years, the new phrase is a "pill penalty." They are arguing that small molecule drugs are now at a disadvantage and that Medicare negotiation timing should be aligned. Of course, they're not arguing that biologics should not get the added years, or that instead of one being 9 and the other 13 that it could be averaged to 11, but that pills should also now get 13 years. This is despite decades of argument that biologics are different and deserve more. Pharma has gotten some support from members of Congress (remember, pharma ranks among the top spenders on federal lobbying.). The EPIC Act removes the so-called "pill penalty" and would mandate 13 years before small molecule drugs be eligible for negotiation. This would cost the federal govt $10 billion and hurt access by patients. In an executive order last month entitled "Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First," Trump specifically called out the "pill penalty" and wrote the HHS Secretary should work with Congress to: "align the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries." The order specifically acknowledges that it would raise costs but then makes hand gestures that some unmentioned action should also happen to make sure it doesn't. This does not "Lower Drug Prices" as the title suggests. Meanwhile, the administration is putting out feelers for other ways to reduce costs. Step 1 is to stop considering policies that increase them. Drug lobbyists did a great job and should get a big bonus this year. But if we want lower pharma costs, more access, and lower deficits, the biologic premium should be brought down to match small molecules, not the other way around.




