|
|
Post by mango on Aug 15, 2017 16:53:35 GMT -5
In 2012, U.S. House of Representative Dana Rohrabacher made a floor speech that honors Al Mann, and requested the government take seriously Al's recommendations on how to improve the current system.
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Aug 15, 2017 18:45:31 GMT -5
This is the letter Al Mann wrote that Dana Rohrabacher was referencing to in his floor speech honoring Al Mann. The link also includes the transcript of the video that is in the other thread. I feel this deserved its own thread. Despite Al's disgust with the federal government's failure to acknowledge a reality that effects the now and the future, and had hindered his and others efforts to help others—Al never gave up on his journey to help others in need. Even at the age of 90, he crafted each day to help another person. I might forward this letter to some Representatives that Al might not have had an email address of at the time of his forwarding of this letter. Of all generations of people, I consider the G.I. Generation to have included the greatest. My grandfather was 11 years older than Al Mann, and was a sergeant in the Mars Task Force 612th Field Artillery Battalion during WWII. Our government has taken the efforts of those of that generation for granted, and have treated veterans very poorly. We have to do better. LETTER FROM AL MANN: The Senate has just passed a bill to speed the availability of generic drugs. Hopefully that bill will die in the House. I say that the problem is not the pricing of drugs but the cost. What are needed are means for effectively lowering the expense and time to get a new drug approved. That would lower the costs and hopefully the pricing of drugs, and that would certainly be a worthwhile objective.
I am shocked and disappointed at the lack of understanding of this issue by the Congress. I certainly agree that we must seek ways to lower health care expense. I say that to do so we must focus on ways to LOWER the COST of providing health care NOT just targeting the PRICE.
There are multiple reasons for the price of drugs, but I assert that the earlier generic drug law has actually led to an INCREASE in the PRICING of drugs. It takes as long as 15 years—or even longer—and $1–$1.5 billion to gain regulatory approval of a new drug. With only 20 years of exclusivity before a generic drug is approved it should be obvious that the price of a new drug must be very high just to recover the development cost let alone a profit. Even the price of the generic version of a drug is typically only moderately discounted from the innovative drug rather than priced based on the manufacturing cost.
If you question the impact of the current generic drug law just ask yourself how many $5 and $10 drugs there were before that law. It only costs pennies to make a pill. However, only by charging high prices can the high costs of pharma development be recovered with any profit during the brief period of patent protection remaining after regulatory approval.
Passing legislation to further ease and speed the availability of generic drugs will not likely lower pricing; if anything it would likely just reduce innovation of new drugs. That slowing is already beginning; most of the major pharma companies have already begun downsizing R&D. Surely that is not in our interest when there are new advanced technologies that could significantly improve and extend life.
We need to evaluate how we can speed and lower the cost of bringing a new drug to market rather than counting on the generics. There are various approaches that should be explored. One approach might be to delay approval of a generic to allow more time of exclusivity rather than to ease the generic regulatory process. There was such a delay built into the earlier bills, but that was certainly not adequate. Unfortunately it will not be easy to reverse the pricing practices of drugs—the companies and Wall Street have all gotten used to the high prices.
Of course the price of drugs is but a tiny part of the cost of health care. We ought to be reexamining many aspects of our health care system. We do need to reduce the price of health care—including the cost and the price of drugs. However, the challenge is not so simple as just approving generic drugs more quickly.
In fact the problem is not just the pricing; today many potentially valuable improvements and even new breakthrough drugs do not ever reach the market because of the regulatory hurdles. This problem and the costs will certainly become far greater as we move to more personalized medicine.
The consequence of easing the creation of generics may even worsen from what we see today; future breakthrough therapies may simply not become available in the U.S.! I just heard from a very credible person of a meeting of 12 advanced pharma companies discussing how to deal with the current regulatory challenges. I am told that 11 of those 12 companies are intending to launch their new products outside the U.S. and just to ignore the U.S. patients. Heretofore wealthy foreign patients came to the U.S. for superior medical treatment. Perhaps that practice may be reversing.
We want to protect our people from unsafe drugs. The challenge is how to do so in a more cost effective and more timely manner. I have suggested that we should redirect the regulatory standards to concentrate on safety, to lower the initial bar for efficacy to minimal requirements during a reasonable safety trial and then to issue a ‘‘provisional’’ approval. That provisional approval would be subject to a thorough review of clinical benefits compared to risk AND cost in something like a more rigorous REMS program.
Our nation is in a crossroad on many fronts. In health care the barriers are preventing our ability to topple diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s that so many of is will face. Not only are we harming and even precipitating death of many of our people but we are losing economic growth and the engine for good paying jobs. Our government is the most significant obstacle to medical progress today. We have new tools from new science that could make such a difference if only there were not the barriers to innovation that we see today.
I am 86 years old and surely my objective is not self serving. For the past four decades I have been committed to trying to find solutions to unmet and poorly met health care needs. Yet I am so disgusted by the overly restrictive process to medical innovation that has been created by our government that I have begun to sell off most of my several ventures. It is no longer worth the effort and the agony.
I am sending this communication to all the Representatives whose e-mail addresses I have. I would appreciate your forwarding this to your other colleagues.ALFRED E. MANN. Letter From Al MannHONORING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DR. AL MANN; Congressional Record Vol. 158, No. 85 (House of Representatives - June 07, 2012) |
|
|
|
Post by drman7 on Aug 16, 2017 15:08:57 GMT -5
In 2012, U.S. House of Representative Dana Rohrabacher made a floor speech that honors Al Mann, and requested the government take seriously Al's recommendations on how to improve the current system. Mango - Where do you find this stuff? This is good stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Aug 19, 2017 17:30:20 GMT -5
In this fundraiser speech US House Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says Al Mann is his hero.
Start at 29:50
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Aug 19, 2017 18:14:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Mar 6, 2019 23:20:48 GMT -5
Towards the end of Rohrabacher's speech, he slips and says Al was 91 years of age... Rohrabacher say's the word, "today," before *almost* correcting himself, and then concluding with the 91 (leaving the date open for interpretation). Dana Rohrabacher was a genuine, close friend of Al's. If Dana said 91, without hesitancy and without correction, then I am led to believe that Al was born on the day of either Feb. 25 or Feb. 26... I've never been able to find an official birth date. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, but I've always been curious nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by robbmo on Mar 7, 2019 13:15:33 GMT -5
Towards the end of Rohrabacher's speech, he slips and says Al was 91 years of age... Rohrabacher say's the word, "today," before *almost* correcting himself, and then concluding with the 91 (leaving the date open for interpretation). Dana Rohrabacher was a genuine, close friend of Al's. If Dana said 91, without hesitancy and without correction, then I am led to believe that Al was born on the day of either Feb. 25 or Feb. 26... I've never been able to find an official birth date. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, but I've always been curious nonetheless. I believe his birth date is November 6th, 1925, and he passed away on February 25th, 2016 |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Mar 8, 2019 14:38:32 GMT -5
Towards the end of Rohrabacher's speech, he slips and says Al was 91 years of age... Rohrabacher say's the word, "today," before *almost* correcting himself, and then concluding with the 91 (leaving the date open for interpretation). Dana Rohrabacher was a genuine, close friend of Al's. If Dana said 91, without hesitancy and without correction, then I am led to believe that Al was born on the day of either Feb. 25 or Feb. 26... I've never been able to find an official birth date. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, but I've always been curious nonetheless. I believe his birth date is November 6th, 1925, and he passed away on February 25th, 2016 Do you know where I can find that online? |
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Mar 8, 2019 15:55:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robbmo on Mar 8, 2019 21:16:54 GMT -5
|
|
