Tallkrangel om pillepriser

Norge er markert dyrere enn Sverige på kopilegemidler, viser en ny prisundersøkelse laget av IMS Health. Samme analysebyrå konkluderte nylig med at Norge er billigst! (e24.no 4.7.2007)

Apotekforeningen bekymret for HODs prisundersøkelse (apotek.no 1.10.2007)

Legemiddelindustrien bruker dobbelt så mye på reklame som på forskning (PLoS Med 5(1))

Stater vurderer lover for å begrense tilgang til legers forskrivningsinformasjon for "Data Mining"-firmaer (kaisernetwork.org 20.8.2008)

Data miners kjemper mot lov som skjermer leger (boston.com 20.8.2008 (Associated Press))

- Hvem er billigst?

Tallkrangel om pillepriser
e24.no 4.7.2007
Norge er markert dyrere enn Sverige på kopilegemidler, viser en ny prisundersøkelse laget av IMS Health. Samme analysebyrå konkluderte nylig med at Norge er billigst! (...)

Svensk handlekurv.
Tar man utgangspunkt i en svensk handlekurv med de mest omsatte kopilegemidler, er prisene i de andre nordiske landene 60-200 prosent dyrere enn i Sverige. Og tar man utgangspunkt i en europeisk handlekurv med de mest omsatte kopilegemidler i Europa, er Sverige 30-50 prosent billigere enn de andre nordiske land, konkluderer IMS Health.

Den norske Apotekforeningen fikk IMS Health til å regne på en annen måte da de bestilte en prissammenligning nylig. Den konkluderte med at prisene på kopilegemidler - utenom avpatenterte originaler - er 16 prosent høyere i Sverige og 13 prosent høyere i Danmark i forhold til Norge.

Det er samme mann i IMS Health som står bak de to undersøkelsene. (...)

(Anm: IMS vil indtage Danmark – igjen. IMS Health vil endnu engang forsøge at indtage det danske marked for lægemiddeldata. Og denne gang har den internationale data- og rådgivningskoncern et ”hemmeligt” våben med sig i bagagen. (medwatch.dk 7.5.2015).)

- Apotekforeningen bekymret for HODs prisundersøkelse

Apotekforeningen bekymret for HODs prisundersøkelse
apotek.no 1.10.2007
Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (HOD) vil ekskludere IMS Health som leverandør av ekstern prisundersøkelse, fordi IMS Health tidligere har hatt oppdrag for Apotekforeningen. Andre leverandører, som også har hatt oppdrag for Apotekforeningen, er imidlertid aktuelle. (Apotekforeningen 01.10.07) (...)

(Anm: Global drug spending will rise 30% by 2020, to $1.4 trillion. Global spending on drugs will increase 30% to $1.4 trillion by 2020, as more patients get access to treatments and technology drives patient adherence. According to research by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where medicine use will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020. This is up 31% from 2005 and 24% from 2015, as the medicine use gap between developed and ‘pharmerging’ markets narrows. (pharmafile.com 18.11.2015).)

(Anm: Läkemedelskostnader spås skjuta i höjden. Läkemedelskostnaderna globalt kommer att öka med 30 procent till år 2020, enligt en ny prognos. (lakemedelsvarlden.se 18.11.2015).)

- Legemiddelindustrien bruker dobbelt så mye på reklame som på forskning

The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States (Kostnader for legemiddelpushing: Et nytt estimat over utgifter til legemiddelreklame i USA)
PLoS Med. 2008 Jan 3;5(1):e1.
(...) IMS, a firm specializing in pharmaceutical market intelligence, is usually considered to be the authority for assessing pharmaceutical promotion expenditures. (...)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), an American industrial lobby group for research-based pharmaceutical companies, also contends that pharmaceutical firms spend more on research and development (R&D) than on marketing: US$29.6 billion on R&D in 2004 in the US [5] as compared to US$27.7 billion for all promotional activities.[4] (...)

Finally, IMS data seem inconsistent with estimates based on the information in the annual reports of pharmaceutical companies. For example, in an accounting study based on the annual reports of ten of the largest global pharmaceutical firms, Lauzon and Hasbani showed that between 1996 and 2005, these firms globally spent a total of US$739 billion on “marketing and administration.” In comparison, these same firms spent US$699 billion in manufacturing costs, US$288 billion in R&D, and had a net investment in property and equipment of US$43 billion, while receiving US$558 billion in profits [9]. (...)

There is a significant discrepancy between the two sets of data in the cost of detailing: US$7.3 billion for IMS and US$20.4 billion for CAM. (...)

In the case of samples, there is also a large difference between the IMS (US$15.9 billion) and CAM (US$6.3 billion) estimates. (...)

Conclusion
From this new estimate, it appears that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim. While the amount spent on promotion is not in itself a confirmation of Kefauver's depiction of the pharmaceutical industry, it confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry and provides an important argument to petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion. (...)

- Stater vurderer lover for å begrense tilgang til legers forskrivningsinformasjon for "Data Mining"-firmaer

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Data-Mining
medpagetoday.com 23.6.2011
WASHINGTON -- Data on which doctors are prescribing which drugs is speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and pharmaceutical companies have every right to buy that information and use it to target their marketing efforts, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The nation's high court handed down a verdict Thursday in the Sorrell v. IMS Health case, striking down by a 6-3 vote a 2007 Vermont law that that bans the practice of data mining -- the sale and use of prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a drug, including drug detailing -- unless a physician specifically gives his or her permission to use the information.

Vermont argued that selling prescriber-identifying information is "conduct," not "speech," but the Supreme Court didn't buy that and ruled that "the creation and dissemination of information are speech for First Amendment purposes." (...)

Courts Will Have to Decide Who Owns Prescription Data
Psychiatr News 2011;46(1):8-9 (April 15) (American Psychiatric Association)
The country's two largest drug-store chains are sued in separate cases involving their sale of consumers' prescription data, in one case to pharmaceutical manufacturers and in the other to data-mining companies.

A parent who had his two daughters' prescriptions filled through a Walgreen Company drugstore has sued the company, charging that it had no legal right to sell the girls' prescription information to so-called data-mining companies that then sell it to pharmaceutical companies for marketing purposes.

In the class-action suit, which was filed in California in March, plaintiff Todd Murphy insists that such information is the property of the patient who pays for the prescription, and thus Walgreen sold something it did not own. This is a change of tactics from other lawsuits challenging the legality of data-mining practices, which were based on breaches of confidentiality of physician prescribing information. (...)

Data-mining and the Supremes: A Viewer’s Guide
postscript.communitycatalyst.org 1.4.2011
Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear IMS v. Sorrell, about the right of Vermont and other states to restrict a practice called data-mining – the collection and sale of doctors’ prescribing histories that drug companies then buy and use in marketing to MDs and other prescribers. Vermont’s law banning this practice was struck down in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, after the First Circuit upheld similar laws. (Both New Hampshire and Maine have standing laws, and Massachusetts is considering a bill this year supported by consumers and the state medical society that would do the same.)

Prescription data-mining is a multi-million dollar business for companies that buy prescription records from pharmacies and physician lists from the American Medical Association, and then match these to produce profiles that they sell to drug companies. The companies then arm their drug reps with this information to market their drugs to individual prescribers. (Way more about that in the PostScript archives)

Why did the court strike the law? The drug industry trade group PhRMA and the ‘data-mining’ companies, like IMS, who sell this information argued that it was ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment.

Speech? Are your purchases on Netflix speech? This seems like a stretch. (...)

States Consider Legislation To Restrict Access to Physician Prescribing Information for Data Mining Companies (Stater vurderer lover for å begrense tilgang til legers forskrivningsinformasjon for "Data Mining"-firmaer)
kaisernetwork.org 20.8.2008
A number of states have begun to consider legislation that would restrict access to physician prescribing information for data mining companies as part of a "backlash against pharmaceutical marketing efforts," the AP/Arizona Republic reports. Data mining companies, such as IMS Health and Verispan, collect information on which medications physicians prescribe and the quantities in which they prescribe them and sell the data to pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical company sales representatives use the information to target physicians who prescribe medications manufactured by competitors and determine the effectiveness on their marketing efforts.

According to IMS Health officials, without such information, pharmaceutical companies would have to hire more sales representatives. However, state lawmakers maintain that, in the 10 years after IMS began mining physician prescribing information in 1993, pharmaceutical companies tripled spending on marketing efforts and doubled their number of sales representatives.

As many as 18 states this year have considered legislation that would restrict access to physician prescribing information, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have passed such laws. U.S. District court judges have struck down the Maine and New Hampshire laws as unconstitutional, and, in response to the court decisions, Vermont delayed the implementation of a similar law until 2009. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court heard an appeal of the lower court decision on the New Hampshire law earlier this year and likely will rule on the case this month. In the event that the appeals court overturns the lower court decision, "it could open floodgates to similar efforts nationwide," the AP/Republic reports (Perrone, AP/Arizona Republic, 8/20).

But the political tide may be turning against IMS Health and competitors like Verispan, a unit of Surveillance Data Inc. After years of steady growth, they are fighting against laws in three New England states to keep prescribing information out of their hands. (...)

States fight to shield docs from drug data mining
azcentral.com 19.8.2008 (Associated Press)
WASHINGTON - When most patients go to the pharmacy to fill a new prescription, they don't think twice about turning over the note from their doctor.

After all, how much could the scrawled handwriting on that tiny slip be worth?
Not much to the average consumer - but to the world's largest drugmakers, the information is an invaluable sales tool to track which drugs individual doctors are prescribing across the country.

Companies like IMS Health Inc. have built an industry by gathering prescription data and selling the information to pharmaceutical companies for millions of dollars each year. Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc. and nearly every other drugmaker use the data to identify which doctors are prescribing their drugs and which are prescribing the competition. When salespeople show up at their offices, most doctors don't know they're targeted based on prescribing habits. (...)

The challenges to so-called data-mining companies are part of a backlash against pharmaceutical marketing efforts, which involve courting doctors with gifts, meals and perks.

State advocates say the sales push drives up the cost of health care by convincing doctors to prescribe the latest, most expensive medications - instead of cheaper, sometimes better, options.

"We want doctors to make their decisions based solely on their best medical judgment, rather than the best interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers," said New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Laura Lombardi. (...)

- Data miners kjemper mot lov som skjermer leger

Data miners fight law that shields doctors (Data miners kjemper mot lov som skjermer leger)
boston.com 20.8.2008 (Associated Press)
(...) Companies like IMS Health Inc., based in Norwalk, Conn., have built an industry around gathering prescription data and selling the information to pharmaceutical companies for millions of dollars each year. Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., and nearly every other drug maker uses the data to identify which doctors are prescribing their drugs and which are prescribing the competition. When freebie-wielding salespeople show up at their offices, most doctors don't know they're being targeted based on their own prescribing habits.

But the political tide may be turning against IMS Health and competitors like Verispan, a unit of Surveillance Data Inc. After years of steady growth, they are fighting against laws in three New England states to keep prescribing information out of their hands.

Judges in Maine and New Hampshire have handed the companies early victories, declaring laws aimed at stopping the commercial use of prescription data unconstitutional. But an impending decision by the federal appeals court in Boston could overturn those actions and open the door to more restrictions nationwide. (...)

- En konstitusjonell rett å selge forskrivningsdata?

Marketing Pharmaceuticals (Markedsføring av legemidler )
A Constitutional Right to Sell Prescriber-Identified Data? (En konstitusjonell rett å selge forskrivningsdata?)
JAMA. 2012;307(8):787-788 (February 22)
Pharmaceutical companies have strong economic interests in influencing physician prescribing behaviors. They advertise directly to consumers and to physicians. Beyond general marketing, manufacturers promote their drugs to physicians through “detailing”—sales representatives (“detailers”) visiting medical offices to persuade physicians to prescribe their products.

By law, pharmacies receive specific information with every prescription, including the physician's name, the drug, and the dosage. Pharmacies sell these records to prescription drug intermediaries (data miners), who use advanced computing to analyze prescriber-identified information (which physicians prescribe what drugs, in what dosages, and with what prescribing patterns). Data miners, in turn, lease sophisticated reports to pharmaceutical companies to refine detailers' marketing tactics, armed with knowledge about physician prescribing practices—for example, who are high or low prescribers and early or late adopters of new drugs.

Detailing raises vital health policy questions, including its effects on clinical decision making (safety, quality, and cost) and the patient-physician relationship (privacy and professionalism). Yet private companies claim a First Amendment right to buy and use prescribing data for product marketing. The tensions between privacy and commercial speech have deep implications for public health regulation. (...)

- Forsinket behandling koster milliarder

Forsinket behandling koster milliarder
dagensmedisin.no 25.6.2013

Kostnadene ved at pasienter i USA, av ulike årsaker, ikke får behandling i tide, er beregnet til cirka 240 milliarder norske kroner i året.

Det viser beregninger det internasjonale analyseselskapet IMS Health har gjort.

Størst potensial for å redusere kostnadene ved forsinket behandling ligger i å fange opp personer som trenger medisin for diabetes.

De ekstra kostnadene ved at ulike pasientgrupper i USA ikke får medisin i tide, koster cirka 40 milliarder dollar, omtrent 240 milliarder norske kroner. (...)

Diverse artikler

Nye legemidler: – Norge er «forsiktig»
Anne Grete Storvik
dagensmedisin.no 4.9.2012
– Norske helsemyndigheter er «forsiktige» med å innføre nye kreftlegemidler, sier IMS-Health-sjefen.

Graham Lewis, økonom og visepresident Europa i Global Pharma Strategy, IMS Health, sier han ikke er overrasket over det norske prioriteringssystemet for innføring av nye legemidler, men påpeker at Norge er forsiktige med å innføre ny medisin.

- Vanskelig balanse
– Med forsiktig, mener du at det går for sakte?

– Ikke akkurat for sakte; Norge gjør det samme som Storbritannia, så de er ikke alene om det. Men de er forsiktige; og vurderer mer ut fra kost-nytte og lignende. For å evaluere effekten av kreftmedisiner trenger man to til tre år med erfaring fra bruk i «den virkelige verden». Ofte setter myndighetene slike premisser. Mer innovative land sier imidlertid at dette er for lenge å vente – og viser til at i mellomtiden så vil ikke pasientene få medisiner de kanskje kan ha nytte av. Det er en vanskelig balanse, sier Lewis til Dagens Medisin. (...)

IMS Health legger ned i Norge
dagensmedisin.no 31.7.2012
Statistikk- og analyseselskapet IMS Health har valgt å legge ned sitt kontor i Oslo.

Nå overfører statistikk- og analyseselskapet IMS Health den norske kundeporteføljen til Stockholm-kontoret.

Betjenes fra Stockholm
Norske kunder skal betjenes av kontoret i Stockholm.

–Vi har tilbudt våre ansatte i Norge om å bli med på flyttelasset til vårt kontor i Stockholm, som nå også skal betjene det norske markedet, sier Tom Rönnlund, sjef for IMS Health i de nordiske og baltiske landene.

I slutten av juni pakket derfor den gjenværende representanten for IMS Health i Norge tingene sine for å flytte til Sverige.

- Ikke dramatisk
Rönnlund tror ikke flyttingen vil medføre at de norske kundene får noe dårligere oppfølging.

- Vi har vært i direkte kontakt med alle våre kunder og gitt dem beskjed om hva som skjer. Fra nå av skal kontoret i Stockholm betjene de norske kundene, noe som skal gå helt fint. Det er ikke mer dramatisk enn det, sier Rönnlund i en pressemelding. (...)

[e-drug] Launch of new IMS Institute
essentialdrugs.org 24.3.2011
E-DRUG: Launch of new IMS Institute

E-Druggers,
I am sending out a press release about the launch of a new institute by IMS Health. As some of you may know IMS Health has been very helpful to WHO and others in the past five years providing data on public health issues. Of particular value were the quarterly reports produced by IMS Health on the impact of the recession on global pharmaceutical consumption. (See http://www.who.int/entity/medicines/areas/policy/imsreport/en/index.html) They are now moving to make their data more widely available through this health informatics institute so if you have a good question of public health significance that they can answer from their data bases ask it and see what assistance they could give you. Do look at their website at http://www.theimsinstitute.org and send queries to info@theimsinstitute.org (...)

Total U.S. Prescriptions Drop as Consumers' Health Care Costs Rise
kaisernetwork.org 16.7.2008
The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday examined how U.S. prescription drug volume has "fallen steadily" since early 2007 and in recent months have "slipped in and out of negative territory" because of a "troubled economy and the growing burden of out-of-pocket health care costs." Preliminary data gathered by IMS Health and Wall Street analysts show that the growth rate prescriptions for branded medications began to decline early last year. Between January and May this year, the growth rate of brand-name medication declined to 1.5%, the lowest rate since 1996, compared with an average growth rate of 3% between 2003 and 2007. In May, prescription drugs accounted for 30.6% of all dispensed medications, down from 45.9% in 2003, IMS found. (...)

Websidene er designet og tilrettelagt av Hein Tore Tønnesen © 2009