An ACA primer: Much more than insurance

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/an-aca-primer-much-more-than-insurance/429497/

Remember the Affordable Care Act? Enacted in 2010, it expanded healthcare insurance to millions of uninsured Americans and increased access to care. But the ACA is much more than expanded coverage; it set in motion a variety of reforms in the healthcare delivery systems aimed at lowering costs and improving quality of care.

That fact was lost on presidential candidate Donald Trump, who told Fox News recently, “I don’t use much Obamacare, I must be honest with you, because it is so bad for the people and they can’t afford it.” Trump’s comments imply Obamacare is an insurance plan people can buy, which is not the case. As we wrap up year six since the ACA was enacted, here‘s what the law is really about and how it impacts providers.

FDA zeroes in on hospitals that underreport medical device-related injuries, deaths

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/fda-zeroes-hospitals-underreport-medical-device-related-injuries-deaths

FDA inspected 17 hospitals after events had been reported to other entities, found no corresponding reports filed with them.

Five specialty pharmaceutical trends to watch

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/five-specialty-pharmaceutical-trends-watch?cfcache=true&ampGUID=A13E56ED-9529-4BD1-98E9-318F5373C18F&rememberme=1&ts=13102016

Image result for pharmaceutical trends to watch

 

Cancer immunotherapy is moving fast. Here’s what you need to know.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/09/28/cancer-immunotherapy-is-moving-fast-heres-what-you-need-to-know-now/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-90GFt-2pDEeiq7Ku9hLdsslR1XHDgKpjVctG0o9kL7exd66VU__9Dx29EN9MGPnc53jtuSofaZSJj3dQKQj8BU9lhksQ&_hsmi=35091656&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_content=35091656&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email

Image result for cancer immunotherapy

The idea of using the body’s immune system to fight cancer has been around for a century, but only in the past half a dozen years have dramatic breakthroughs begun rocking the medical world.

“That’s when the tsunami came,” says Drew Pardoll, director of the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunology at Johns Hopkins University, and those advances are spawning hundreds of clinical trials nationwide, plus generating intense interest from patients, physicians and investors.

Many cancer researchers compare the progress to medical milestones such as the discovery of penicillin or the development of chemotherapy. Over the next decade, the growth in the field will be “exponential,” predicts Philip Greenberg, head of the immunology program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “Making something better is enormously different than making something work that doesn’t work.”

At the same time, researchers remember the past anti-cancer efforts that fizzled after initially showing promise. That explains the consensus sentiment at this week’s international immunotherapy conference in New York: Turning science into cures will take years of perseverance against daunting hurdles.

Here’s a primer about new treatments and how they work:

‘Superbug’ scourge spreads as U.S. fails to track rising human toll

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-uncounted-surveillance/

Fifteen years after the U.S. declared drug-resistant infections to be a grave threat, the crisis is only worsening, a Reuters investigation finds, as government agencies remain unwilling or unable to impose reporting requirements on a healthcare industry that often hides the problem.

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/quality/hidden-toll-drug-resistant-superbugs-0?spMailingID=9540993&spUserID=MTMyMzQyMDQxMTkyS0&spJobID=1001565259&spReportId=MTAwMTU2NTI1OQS2#

 

Some biosimilars are just as good as some pricey biologics

Some biosimilars are just as good as some pricey biologics

A new study suggests that a group of biosimilar drugs, which are used to treat such afflictions as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease, appear as safe and effective as their more expensive brand-name counterparts, which are known as biologics. A biosimilar drug is a nearly identical variant of a biologic and is expected to provide the same result in patients.

The analysis arrives as the US health care system, which is increasingly overwhelmed by high-priced medicines, looks toward biosimilars to provide savings. In the United States, where regulators have approved just two such drugs, some estimates say prices will be 20 percent to 30 percent less than the cost of biologics.

But until more biosimilars become available, there is some debate over the extent to which physicians will become sufficiently comfortable prescribing these drugs. Biologics are made from living cells and the brand-name biotech industry, for instance, says the complex processes needed to develop biosimilar drugs may produce slight changes that can affect safety and effectiveness. The threat of lower-priced competition has prompted brand-name drug makers to petition the Food and Drug Administration to delay approvals, among other tactics.

The study authors, however, argue their findings should put some of those concerns to rest. After analyzing 19 studies, they maintain the available data indicates biosimilar drugs based on brand-name versions of anti-TNF inhibitors should be considered interchangeable. The anti-TNF inhibitors include such big sellers as Amgen’s Enbrel, AbbVie’s Humira, and Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade.

“This is the $1 billion question — are the biosimilar versions comparable? And we found, in just about every outcome examined, that the biosimilars fare very well,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, who is codirector of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, and one of the authors of the study, which appeared today in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Health Care Payment Is Shifting to Reward Value, but Can Information on Health Care’s Value Be Shared?

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/rewarding-value-means-sharing-information/

If you wanted to know the headlines in 1962, you watched the evening news, read the daily newspaper, or listened to the radio. Those were your only options.

But if you want to know the headlines today, the range of sources available to you is nearly limitless.

As news has evolved, we also have seen a rapid transformation in access to health care news and information. When the Food and Drug Administration began to regulate communications around the marketing of pharmaceuticals in 1962, neither the FDA nor Congress could have predicted the evolution of our health care system or the information explosion we have seen in the past 20 years.

When Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, which created a pathway through Section 114 for pharmaceutical companies to proactively communicate health economic information with specific stakeholders, health care looked dramatically different than it does today. We did not yet have biologics or personalized medicine. We got our information through paper health care records, not real-time feedback from mobile health devices, searchable electronic health records, and other data sources. We have revolutionized how we treat many conditions, and who pays for medications now includes Medicare Part D, exchanges, and consumer directed health plans.

Given these changes, broader exchange and communication of how treatments work in the “real-world,” how they compare to alternatives, and their related impact on the total cost of care is needed. In fact, the ability to communicate valid, reliable information from many sources is critical to helping us achieve the common goal of delivering more efficient, high-quality health care.

Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of FDAMA Section 114, the exchange of information remains limited.

Ambiguities in the law’s language, coupled with a continued lack of guidance about its scope, have led to a lack of information exchange due to concerns from biopharmaceutical companies regarding the risk of penalties for violating standards.

FDA temporarily halts blood donation in two Florida counties over Zika fears

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/07/28/fda-temporarily-halts-blood-donation-in-two-florida-counties-over-zika-fears/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9xCQqmKpuPRvC0yO5ltWEPRYK82cRmfulyUJ8yLTgSBjI_Qdel96twtK7euZ0YwY95qFzloHJjXBJf4Pys20-wQflewg&_hsmi=32252777&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_content=32252777&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking blood centers in two Florida counties to immediately stop collections. The counties are investigating possible local transmission of Zika virus.

In a notice sent to blood centers and posted on the agency’s website Wednesday evening, the FDA said it is requesting all blood centers in Miami-Dade or Broward counties to “cease collecting blood immediately” until those facilities can test individual units of blood donated in those two counties with a special investigational donor screening test for Zika virus or until the establishments implement the use of an approved or investigational pathogen-inactivation technology.

The action by the FDA comes as health officials in Florida said Thursday they were continuing to investigate two Zika cases that could have been spread by local mosquitoes, in addition to two similar cases they announced last week. Health officials have not confirmed whether any of the infected individuals acquired the virus from local mosquitoes, but it seems increasingly likely.

“These may be the first cases of local Zika virus transmission by mosquitoes in the continental United States,” the FDA said in its notice and in a media statement Thursday. It said it was making the request of blood-collection establishments “in consideration of the possibility of an emerging local outbreak of Zika virus, and as a prudent measure to help assure the safety of blood and blood products.”

Can the government encourage the development of new antibiotics?

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-antibiotic-resistance-government-incentives-20160711-snap-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+First+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=31540667&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8KSOwnDu9wgUrlDN8u_2HnowEpWjJZShjqIFvN-mLC_3gavkn6QZ5XuGYVoKPH71cmkDrEhbc1BXnicLRSAOV4ZkDaTQ&_hsmi=31540667

Antibiotics

It’s been nearly 30 years since scientists have found a new class of antibiotics. But U.S. lawmakers tried to give the drug industry a boost in 2012.

That year, they passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. It included provisions — collectively known as Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now, or GAIN — aimed at streamlining the government approval process for new antibiotics. It also boosted financial paybacks to drug companies that develop them.