After Another Merger Monday In Health Care, CVS Is Still The Company To Watch In 2018

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2018/01/23/after-another-merger-monday-in-health-care-cvs-is-still-the-company-to-watch-in-2018/#2dbe116f4d7c

The health care sector rallied yesterday on another “Merger Monday” with the announcement of Sanofi’s (SNY) purchase of Bioverativ (BIVV) for $11.6 billion, and Celgene’s (CELG) $9 billion purchase of 90 percent of Juno Therapeutics (JUNO). But there’s still one transformative merger that will define and reshape the U.S. health care market in 2018: the CVS/AETNA $69 billion deal announced last December.

CVS is best known for its 9,700 retail pharmacies and 1,100 walk-in clinics, but its most significant profit driver is its pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) enterprise—a middleman between pharmaceutical manufacturers and dispensers like drugstores. The company generated $177.5 billion in net revenue in 2016.

With its purchase of Aetna, another bold company and the nation’s third largest health plan, CVS upended uncomfortable business incentives built into its business model. In theory at least, the CVS PBM has new incentive to bring down drug prices and push for the most efficacious—not necessarily the most expensive—treatment choices, to achieve more competitive insurance premiums. They can also favor common sense preventive and primary care through convenience clinics.

This is what makes the CVS/Aetna deal different. It crosses sectors and realigns previously competing business incentives to better target consumer demand. Most of the merger proliferation we have seen over the past few years involves companies in similar categories within the health care industry. Providers merge with other providers, health plans with other health plans, and pharmaceutical companies with others in pharma.

Realigning incentives is the central problem in the health care marketplace, which is built on thorny knots of unintended consequences and senseless rules that resist untangling. The most famous of those knots are fee-for-service payment rules, still largely dominant, whereby payors reimburse for any and all services, regardless of quality. Among its hazards, fee-for-service incentivizes infections because it results in more care and thus pay better. Nobody thinks that is a good idea, but the business model is extremely difficult to unravel. CVS seems up to the challenge.

CVS Chief Executive, Larry J. Merlo, is the man for the job. His signature style is a laser-focus on the company’s core mission of “helping people on their path to better health,” which he is determined to accomplish even when short-term profit incentives nudge in a different direction. That was why Merlo led CVS to discontinue tobacco sales in 2014, and why CVS recently banned digitally altered photos on cosmetic products sold in their stores. Maybe it sounds logical that a health enterprise shouldn’t sell cigarettes or promote eating disorders and depression, but it takes unusual courage to turn away lucrative business.

Many greeted the news of the CVS/Aetna merger as a play to head off new ventures coming from Amazon or other new players. But what makes me optimistic about this particular deal is the new company’s combination of health industry and retail savvy. Many companies have one but not the other. Enterprising outsiders often enter the health care industry with good backing and an idea that would definitely help patients, only to end up six feet under the health care lobbyists, special interests, regulatory twists, and perverse incentives that have dogged the health care system over decades. There are large graveyards full of great companies that naively believed that normal business models work in health care. CVS is not naïve.

 

Can Patrick Soon-Shiong silence his many critics?

Can Patrick Soon-Shiong silence his many critics?

LOS ANGELES, CA - MARCH 22: CEO of Abraxis Health Institute Patrick Soon-Shiong during a Urban Economic Forum co-hosted by White House Business Council and U.S. Small Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University on March 22, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. Topics discussed at the forum included the Obama administration's support for policies that create private sector-jobs and future entrepreneurs. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

On the phone, Patrick Soon-Shiong speaks slowly and deliberately. He clearly trusts himself, but he doesn’t trust journalists anymore.

A series of scathing articles by STAT News and Politico sent stocks in his publicly-traded companies tumbling earlier this year. On Monday, he has an opportunity to change that narrative somewhat, with the unveiling of data from human trials of his cancer vaccine at a major oncology conference.

The stories allege that despite his bold claims, Soon-Shiong’s NantWorks subsidiaries are underperforming and reliant on contracts from other companies in the group. Reporters have also claimed that one of his companies, NantHealth, has received contracts from institutions that had received donations from his nonprofit foundation — a major conflict of interest. This was not adequately disclosed prior to the massive initial public offering of NantHealth, they argue, which may violate SEC laws.

For his part, Soon-Shiong, dismisses the allegations noting that part of the motivation behind those stories was political: “They had never written about me until they saw this picture of me with Trump.”

Speaking to MedCity on Wednesday after his recent appointment to a national health IT advisory committee, Soon-Shiong detailed how the various threads of his career are converging toward a pivotal moment. A solution for healthcare is almost within reach and he’s poised to unveil what he believes is a disruptive cancer therapy – the Nant vaccine – at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago on Monday.

This story clearly clashes with many other viewpoints in the industry.

Where Are All the New Diabetes Drugs?

http://www.realclearhealth.com/2017/02/20/where_are_all_the_new_diabetes_drugs_275278.html?utm_source=RealClearHealth+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=43886a5bc1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-43886a5bc1-84752421

Image result for Where Are All the New Diabetes Drugs?

As oncologists race forward with new treatments verging on science fiction and biotech companies press on with drugs for once-hopeless rare disorders, one of the world’s most pervasive diseases looks like it’s been left behind.

There are few new drugs on the horizon for diabetes, which affects about 29 million Americans. Most of the treatments in late-stage development are simply improved versions of what’s out there — taken weekly versus daily, or orally instead of by injection.

So has pharma run out of ideas in diabetes?

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $3 billion effort aims to rid world of major diseases by end of century

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, on Wednesday announced a $3 billion effort to accelerate scientific research with the wildly ambitious goal of “curing all disease in our children’s lifetime.”

The many components of the initiative include creating universal technology “tools” based on both traditional science and engineering on which all researchers can build, including a map of all cell types, a way to continuously monitor blood for early signs of illness, and a chip that can diagnose all diseases (or at least many of them). The money will also help fund what they referred to as 10 to 15 “virtual institutes” that will bring together investigators from around the world to focus on individual diseases or other goals — an idea that has the potential to upend biomedical science.

Being a scientist in academia today can often be a solitary endeavor as the system is set up to encourage colleagues to keep data exclusive in the hopes that this strategy helps them be more competitive at getting publications and grants. But as more Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg are seeking to make their mark in the biological sciences, they are emphasizing the power of collaboration and openness.

A centerpiece of the new effort, called Chan Zuckerberg Science, involves creating a “Biohub” at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) Mission Bay campus that will bring together scientists from Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley and UCSF.

Zuckerberg and Chan, among the world’s 10 wealthiest couples, with a net worth of $55.2 billion, emphasized that their timeline is long — by the end of the century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/09/21/mark-zuckerberg-and-priscilla-chans-3-billion-scientific-effort-aims-to-rid-world-of-major-diseases-by-end-of-century/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Svl89mXmop0eKm1ONaWLwOcWmwcRGCy8FUngddK86AtKbQfVhPnQoOqSc6AIYgJMq5XZ9DxFkVx40RYXKzME9pkqnwA&_hsmi=34737932&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_content=34737932&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email

 

 

Trust in Healthcare: Warning Signs For Pharma

http://www.edelman.com/post/warning-signs-for-pharma/

 

The 2016 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER shares disturbing news about a widening gap in trust in all major institutions between the informed public and mass population. While trust is generally rising among more educated, affluent audiences, trust levels have barely moved since the Great Recession in the remaining 85 percent representing the mass population in the 16th year of our survey of more than 33,000 respondents.

The story for the healthcare industry is a cautionary tale and one that bears watching. At a global level, and using general population (informed public plus mass population) findings* with 28 countries surveyed, healthcare is near the bottom with a trust score of 61, just ahead of Telecommunications, Energy and Financial Services. In the U.S. it is tied for second to last with the automotive industry, and is doing just a little better than Financial Services, which although in last place has experienced a remarkable rebound in trust since the financial crisis.

Digging deeper into the industries that collectively represent healthcare and perceptions of the general population, there are warning signs for the pharmaceutical industry in particular. Consider this: while the moves may be small, trust has increased at a global level in four of the five health subsectors – Hospitals/Clinics, Consumer Health, Biotech and even Health Insurers, who were lower ranked among this peer set last year. Only trust in Pharmaceuticals has declined. And in the U.S., trust has increased in only two of the five subsectors, with both Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology declining by two points and Consumer Health remaining flat.

Put another way, global trust in those on the front lines of delivering care or on the shelf delivering value to consumers is on the rise, while trust in the research-based companies that deliver the innovation through these channels is declining. If these trends continue, we’ll experience a growing trust gap between those who do the innovating and those who deliver on innovation, in addition to the gap already evident between the informed public and mass population. Lesser trust in pharma and biotech companies carries with it broad implications for the ability to attract and keep employees, license to operate in the larger health and business ecosystem, and greater support for regulations that may threaten a license to lead.

Some takeaways for healthcare companies in general:

How ‘digitizing you and me’ could revolutionize medicine. At least in theory

How ‘digitizing you and me’ could revolutionize medicine. At least in theory

There’s a whole lot of hype around precision medicine.

Proponents — up to and including President Barack Obama — predict a revolution that will bring us medical treatments as precisely tailored as a bespoke suit: Drug doses adjusted to your genome. Chemotherapy customized to your tumor’s DNA. Diets adapted perfectly to your risk for diabetes.

To propel research, Obama has proposed spending a $215 million on a Precision Medicine Initiative. The first step: Rally 1 million volunteers (or even more) to give up a slew of intimate details about their health, medical history, diet, lifestyle, genetics — and even the granular details of the bacteria that line their guts.

Bill Gates Calls U.S. Drug Pricing System ‘Better Than Most’

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/bill-gates-calls-u-s-drug-pricing-system-better-than-most?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=31344233&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_IwIHqZOj5Uimtit1dADkgETVDbXoDQwj9rnv-X62TCgc0moUvyuIvvz78lEeOdY3_XlQXobqra8EKSy-AP-8omkHofA&_hsmi=31344233

Billionaire Bill Gates, whose foundation seeks to spread modern medicine through the developing world and wipe out diseases of the poor such as malaria, said he supports the U.S. drug pricing system even as politicians have intensified their criticism of high costs.

“The current system is better than most other systems one can imagine,” Gates said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “The drug companies are turning out miracles, and we need their R&D budgets to stay strong. They need to see the opportunity.”

Paying for future success in gene therapy

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6289/1059.full

Gene Therapy

DEVELOPMENT OF GENE THERAPY. Forty-four years have elapsed since an article appeared in Science on the possible therapeutic benefits of gene therapy (1). The early history was marked by poor trial design and a need for greater attention to basic aspects of viral gene transfer and disease biology (2). After some tragic setbacks and years of research to redesign existing vectors and identify safer ones, several trials have recently delivered promising results in regard to both safety and efficacy in several immunodeficiency disorders (3, 4), hemophilia B (5), a form of congenital blindness (6, 7), beta-thalassemia (8), and metachromatic leukodystrophy (9). We presume that gene therapy for at least one disorder currently in clinical trials will be established as safe and efficacious and that will lead to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in the next 3 years.