Michael Steinberg, over at SeekingAlpha, has a health care reform piece up, this morning, extolling the virtues of a (presently non-existent) more-rational market for health care delivery. No news in any of his observations, but this caught my eye -- and, it bears repeating here:
. . . .I felt compelled to write this article after carefully reading Merck and Schering-Plough’s advertisement in my Sunday newspaper. The soon to be merged companies state in bold type: “Vytorin has not been shown to reduce heart attacks or strokes more than Zocor alone.” Zocor is already available as a generic, so you would have to be brain dead to believe that any participant in a rational free market would select Vytorin without adverse financial incentives to doctors and patients. And that’s without even considering the potential adverse effects of Vytorin. . . .
Do go read all of Mr. Steinberg's, but that -- in a nutshell -- is why health care reform is going to be so hard. And divisive -- at least among the various competing (monied) vested interests.Now, on an only-partially-related note -- Jim Edwards, over at Bnet Pharma, has a new piece up, on why Leerink Swann thinks Arbiter 6 HALTS (more background) is very-likely a complete train-wreck for Zetia's prospects. Do go read his -- but here is a snip, from the Leerink Swann letter:
. . . .Commercial importance of ARBITER 6 to Zetia/Vytorin should not be ignored. Consultants point out that a negative outcome could have more impact on Zetia/Vytorin than we believe since:
(1) a negative outcome would make ARBITER 6 the third study where Zetia/Vytorin failed to demonstrate superiority on the primary endpoint; and
(2) the difference in effect on atherosclerosis may be substantial given the short treatment duration. Another risk is if the data are championed by Steve Nissen. A win for Zetia seems like a low probability but would be a major surprise relative to expectations. . . .
Do go read his.
No comments:
Post a Comment