| 
		Pharma industry shuns Trump push for 
		radical shift at FDA 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [February 15, 2017] 
		By Deena Beasley 
 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's 
		vow to roll back government regulations at least 75 percent is causing 
		anxiety for some pharmaceutical executives that a less robust Food and 
		Drug Administration would make it harder to secure insurance coverage 
		for pricey new medicines.
 
 The prospect of big change at the regulatory agency comes as drugmakers 
		are under fire for high prices, including Marathon Pharmaceuticals LLC, 
		which said Monday it was "pausing" the launch of its Duchenne muscular 
		dystrophy drug after U.S. lawmakers questioned its $89,000 a year price.
 
 Industry trade group Biotechnology Innovation Organization told Reuters 
		that during high-level discussions with Trump advisors, lobbyists urged 
		the administration not to name a new commissioner of the Food and Drug 
		Administration who would act rashly to speed up the agency’s approval of 
		new medicines.
 
 That sentiment was echoed by executives at more than a dozen 
		pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, who told Reuters that the FDA is 
		already adopting new drug development models and warned that a looser 
		review process would put patients at risk.
 
		
		 
		"People often argue that the FDA is too restrictive," said Roger 
		Perlmutter, head of research and development at Merck & Co Inc. "We have 
		the sense that the balance is pretty right ... you have to have a 
		well-characterized risk/benefit profile."
 That stance underscores the unique position the drug industry finds 
		itself in when it comes to regulating its products. While most sectors 
		welcome less oversight, drugmakers say a robust review process is 
		critical in convincing physicians and insurers that a pricey new 
		medicine has value.
 
 Otherwise, the time and money it takes to get a new drug to market - 
		estimates run as high as $2.6 billion - would be lost if insurers are 
		not willing to pay for the product.
 
 "It is great that the administration is seeking deregulation ... to make 
		sure the private sector can be more competitive," said John Maraganore, 
		chief executive officer at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc and co-chair of 
		BIO's regulatory committee. "But payers are looking for evidence of 
		value."
 
 He said the FDA should speed the approval of lower cost generic versions 
		of drugs that have lost patent protection, but warned that allowing 
		novel products to be launched without extensive testing could be 
		dangerous.
 
 "Any change at the FDA that allows drugs to be tried out on patients 
		without clinical evidence is a damaging approach," said Jeremy Levin, 
		chief executive officer at Ovid Therapeutics Inc., which is developing 
		drugs for rare diseases.
 
 Health insurers are pushing back against high-priced drugs. Sales of 
		expensive new cholesterol drugs from Amgen Inc and Regeneron 
		Pharmaceuticals Inc have stalled as insurers limit coverage until they 
		see results of trials designed to prove that the drugs significantly 
		lower the risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular crises.
 
 "It is one thing to get a drug approved, but you have got to get 
		reimbursed," said Paul Perreault, CEO at biotech company CSL Ltd, adding 
		that won't happen unless payers see proof that a new drug is better than 
		what is already available.
 
 To be sure, some pharmaceutical executives have been vocal about the 
		need for deregulation. Reducing regulation "will help with drug prices, 
		because it will induce more competition," Pfizer Inc CEO Ian Read said 
		on a recent conference call.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			A view shows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
			headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland August 14, 2012. 
			REUTERS/Jason Reed/File Photo 
            
			 
			After top executives at Merck, Johnson & Johnson and others met at 
			the White House last month with Trump, who pledged to “streamline” 
			the FDA, industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and 
			Manufacturers of America said the meeting found common ground such 
			as tax reform, and removal of outdated regulations. The trade group 
			declined to comment on changes at the FDA.
 The prospect of a shake-up at the FDA is being welcomed by a new 
			class of investor with ambitions to disrupt the current drug 
			development model, in which larger pharmaceutical players often buy 
			or license early-stage medicines, and reap the bigger rewards if 
			they succeed.
 
 "The system we have now has its roots 50, 60 even 70 years ago ... 
			it has become incredibly expensive," said Tim Shannon, of venture 
			capital firm Canaan Partners.
 
 He supports the notion that some prescription medications could 
			reach the market, possibly at discounted prices, once testing shows 
			they are safe. If such controlled usage indicates that they are also 
			effective, prices could then be raised.
 
 "We want to make healthcare itself more efficient," he said. "Let 
			the marketplace decide how valuable a drug is."
 
 The fate of deregulating the FDA will be driven by its next 
			commissioner. President Trump said last month he has a "fantastic 
			person" lined up for the role.
 
 Candidates, according to sources close to the administration, 
			include former FDA staffer Scott Gottlieb, and Jim O'Neill, a 
			colleague of Trump supporter Peter Thiel who has advocated for 
			allowing some medicines to reach the market once they are shown to 
			be safe, even if there is scant evidence that they work.
 
 
			
			 
			A recent survey of drug company executives conducted by Mizuho 
			Securities found that 72 percent said Gottlieb should be Trump's 
			pick to head the FDA.
 
 "There is no groundswell of movement for change," said attorney Jim 
			Shehan, head of Lowenstein Sandler's FDA regulatory practice. "The 
			industry likes certainty."
 
 (Editing by Edward Tobin)
 
			[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
			reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |