mastouille.fr est l'un des nombreux serveurs Mastodon indépendants que vous pouvez utiliser pour participer au fédiverse.
Mastouille est une instance Mastodon durable, ouverte, et hébergée en France.

Administré par :

Statistiques du serveur :

589
comptes actifs

#bigPharma

0 message0 participant0 message aujourd’hui
Suite du fil

Ultimately I feel like I could search high and low for hours without coming up with a worse use of my time than blow-by-blow coverage of the fascist GOP's attempts to pass a nightmare, class war theft and murder budget; while the Republicans have experienced some setbacks, it seems extremely likely that Senate Republicans are going to successfully vote to negligently murder labor class Americans to enrich the wealthiest people and companies in our society, at some point very soon. We'll probably talk more about which horrifying parts of the absurdly-named "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" survived this process soon enough, but I think it's safe to say the final version of the bill the Senate sends back to the GOP-controlled House is still going to be a dystopian neofeudalist nightmare that will invariably rack up a huge body count so long as fascists (of various types) control the US government.

In the meantime, I'd like to offer up a hearty "fuck you" and "thanks for nothing, you absolute maggot" to Martin Heinrich, the Democratic Senator for New Mexico, and the lone non-Republican sponsor of the the ORPHAN Cures Act - a provision included in the GOP's class war reconciliation budget that blocks Medicaid from negotiating prices for any drugs that treat more than one rare disease.

commondreams.org/news/big-phar

'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win

"Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."

"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."

Look, before any of my libbed-up readers start screaming at me about blaming Democrats for a Republican budget reconciliation bill the GOP technically has the power to force into law, please understand that Heinrich is by no means the only villain in this story; between fifty-three Senate Republicans and nonsensical ruling by the chamber's parliamentarian, this tragedy has plenty of authors. The reality however is that this is a Big Parma price support measure that is unquestionably bad for Americans and public healthcare programs that will have to pay more vital medicines the government absolutely should be negotiating prices on. How big of a giveaway? Well, the Congressional Budget Office says passing this provision will cost Americans roughly $5 trillion (with a t) over the next decade. All of which is of course money that could be spent on providing better healthcare for more people otherwise. This is literally stealing healthcare funding from the American people under the guise of supporting "innovation" and any politician who supports it is absolutely helping some of the most evil corporations in our society rob you fucking blind. The fact that Heinrich co-sponsored this bullshit is really just the neoliberal corruption cherry on top of the fascist corpo-humping shitcake here.

Common Dreams · 'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win | Common DreamsThe provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
#USPol#Budget#OBBBA

Gilead has announced that lenacapavir, the game-changing HIV prevention drug just approved by the FDA will cost $28,218 USD per person per year.

Researchers say a generic version could be made for just $25 per person a year.

theguardian.com/society/2025/j

The Guardian · ‘HIV-ending’ drug could be made for just $25 per patient a year, say researchersPar Kat Lay
#health#HIV#BigPharma
Suite du fil

#Auspol #USpol #BigPharma #PBS

continued…

<<“I think we are paying our way. Big pharma have an international price that they disclose and make explicit, and that’s the price that they want to seek in every country when it comes to negotiations for government reimbursement,” says Scuffham. “But they also have a pricing negotiation agreement that is confidential commercial-in-confidence. So we need to know what [are] the true prices that we are paying, what the government pays for those drugs.”

If the Trump administration adds Australia to its Most Favored Nation pricing basket – using PBS-listed prices to benchmark what the US pays for medicines – there may be little Australia can do to stop it. The US doesn’t need Australia’s consent. It can unilaterally include any country whose prices are public and accessible, and Australia’s PBS is among the most transparent in the world.

That makes Australia an easy target – and a politically convenient one – for a US administration intent on forcing allies to share more of the cost burden for both security and pharmaceutical innovation.

What can Australia do in response?

Not much, says Medicines Australia chair Sue MacLeman. “This is their domestic policy,” she says. “We try not to comment on another country’s internal decisions – but that doesn’t mean they don’t have global consequences.”

MacLeman is focused on other solutions, particularly the urgent need to modernise Australia’s own health technology assessment system.

A major review commissioned by Health Minister Butler as part of the government’s 2022-2027 Strategic Agreement with Medicines Australia delivered 50 recommendations last year, aimed at overhauling Australia’s health technology assessment system.

Chaired by Professor Debora Picone, the review examined how new medicines and health technologies are evaluated for public funding – with a focus on ensuring faster, fairer and more transparent access for Australian patients.

While an implementation group, comprising government officials, industry representatives, clinicians and patient advocates, is now working on the reforms, for MacLeman the case for prioritising those changes is clear.

“They would ensure medicines are more appropriately valued, speed up access and make Australia a more attractive market for new launches,” she says.

Some measures, such as lowering discount rates or introducing a bridging fund for innovative therapies could be implemented quickly without legislation.

Done well, MacLeman believes these reforms could even help “take the heat out of the conversation with the US” and signal to the Trump administration that Australia is willing to evolve – on its own terms.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on June 14, 2025 as "Exclusive: PBS listings frozen over Trump’s executive order".

END

Suite du fil

#Auspol #USpol #BigPharma #PBS

continued…

<<US drug companies have long opposed schemes like the PBS, which delivers some of the lowest medicine prices in the developed world. They argue that the PBS systematically drives down what they can charge, undermining global pricing power and limiting their ability to recoup the high costs of research and development.

On Monday, Albert Bourla, chairman and chief executive of US pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer, told Goldman Sachs’s global healthcare conference that he was hoping Trump’s Most Favored Nation pricing proposal would deliver cheaper medicines for US consumers on the one hand and, conversely, an increase in international drug prices.

Asked whether governments in Europe and the United Kingdom, which employ subsidy programs similar to Australia’s, could pay more for medicines, Bourla was adamant that they could.

“Yes, they can increase prices,” Bourla said. “Are they willing to do it? Of course not. They don’t. They are having, let’s say, free-riding, all these years, and they want to continue that.”

Bonny Parkinson, associate professor at Macquarie University’s Centre for the Health Economy, says it’s no surprise pharmaceutical companies are delaying new listings on the PBS in response to the uncertainty triggered by Trump’s May 12 order.

Each submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee requires a substantial investment of time, data and resources, she notes, making companies wary of proceeding while global pricing rules remain in flux.

“Our own research has said, on average, it costs about $830,000 per submission,” Parkinson tells The Saturday Paper. “So yeah, it is a large investment and if there’s going to be uncertainty here, it makes sense that maybe you would want to hold back on putting in and spending that money until the environment is a little bit more known.”

In the end, says Parkinson, the whole PBS process is like one big, protracted negotiation.

“I think the government does have to weigh up how much they’re willing to spend on medicine versus other parts of the healthcare system but also other demands for taxpayer-funded services,” says Parkinson.

“So the reality is that there are trade-offs. There probably is some capacity in the system to pay a little bit more, but if we’re paying more for medicines, it does ultimately mean either we’re taxing people, the Australian population, more or, alternatively, we are forgoing something else such as giving hospitals less money or forgoing preventative healthcare services.”

Still, in the view of Griffith University Professor Paul Scuffham, one of Australia’s leading health economists, the price Australia pays for drugs listed on the PBS is fair.>>

/5

Suite du fil

#Auspol #USpol #BigPharma #PBS

continued…

<<These arrangements, BioPharmaDispatch reported, have been a common feature of PBS pricing policy for more than a decade and are considered crucial to ensuring Australia’s access to innovative medicines.

“If we’re paying more for medicines, it does ultimately mean either we’re taxing people more or ... we are forgoing something else such as giving hospitals less money.”
In 2023-24, there were 930 different medicines and 5164 brands listed on the PBS, costing the government $17.7 billion. Over the same period the pharmaceutical industry collectively paid back more than $5.3 billion in rebates to the Australian government, nearly 30 per cent of the total cost of the PBS.

Further delays in new drugs being listed on the PBS would place pressure not only on patients waiting for subsidised access to new treatments but also on the Albanese government’s ability to defend the integrity of Australia’s flagship medicines subsidy program amid rising geopolitical and commercial headwinds.

At the National Press Club on Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signalled he would stand firm in the fight over who pays for pharmaceutical innovation – and to defend the PBS from external interference.

Albanese is expected to have his first face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit next week. Asked whether he would walk away from the meeting if he didn’t like the deal on offer, he replied: “On things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the media bargaining code, our biosecurity in agriculture – they’re not on the table as far as we’re concerned.”

Take one example. Donanemab, a new treatment for early stage Alzheimer’s disease developed by US multinational Eli Lilly, is already approved for use by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration but has not been listed on the PBS.

Health Minister Mark Butler revealed last month that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which determines the advice to government about which medicines end up on the PBS, will be considering Donanemab in July.

Before the drug can be listed on the PBS, Eli Lilly’s global head office would have to approve the price offered by the Australian government.

“Lilly believes there needs to be a serious conversation about the medicine reimbursement process in Australia, to ensure the PBS is enabling people to access new medicines,” Tori Brown, general manager Lilly Australia and New Zealand, tells The Saturday Paper. “Australians deserve a medicines evaluation system reflecting 21st century pharmaceutical innovation – which is why Health Minister Butler has instigated a review of the PBS. Despite Australia’s high GDP per capita, our reimbursed medicine prices are amongst the lowest globally. The low pricing of medicines in Australia does not reflect the value of innovative medicines or fairly contribute to research and development costs.”>>

/4

Suite du fil

#Auspol #USpol #BigPharma #PBS

continued:

<<Some of that effect is already visible, with industry sources saying there is evidence that pharmaceutical companies are pausing pricing approvals for new PBS listings, and in some cases reconsidering whether to apply for market authorisation at all, wary that Australia’s low published prices could be used against them in US negotiations.

“We also could see some medicines withdrawn from the Australian market to actually avoid detrimental pricing sequences,” MacLeman says. “And so, from our perspective, there will be a potential flow-on effect to Australia, and we may find that Australians will miss out on new medicines, and that it may have an impact on our very vibrant life sciences ecosystem.

“Because these innovative medicines companies will make decisions about where they’re going to invest and that could include not only the approval of medication and the reimbursement of medication but also where they do their clinical trials and where they invest in the education of our clinicians and provide healthcare.”

Another industry insider described the response from pharmaceutical companies as “not coordinated but cautious”. They said it was “more of a defensive crouch in a system where pricing in one market can now threaten revenue in another”.

“It’s a wait-and-see approach,” one Australian pharmaceutical executive tells The Saturday Paper. “But every delay could mean that someone here goes without treatment.”

Last week, Australian pharmaceutical industry trade publication BioPharmaDispatch reported that global pharmaceutical companies have imposed a pause on pricing approvals, including for new PBS listings, while the industry builds its understanding of the implications of Trump’s executive order.

According to BioPharmaDispatch, these delays are being compounded by the increasing resistance of health department officials to approve special pricing arrangements, under which pharmaceutical companies rebate the difference between the published price for medicines and the private price that the Australian government is actually prepared to pay.>>

/3

#Auspol #USpol #BigPharma #PBS

From the Saturday Paper 14 Jun

Industry sources reveal drug companies have stopped negotiating listings on the PBS and in some cases are considering not listing in Australia as they seek to lift profits under Trump. By Jason Koutsoukis.
Exclusive: PBS listings frozen over Trump’s executive order

<<Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been effectively frozen since May, after United States President Donald Trump issued an order to change how pharmaceutical companies price drugs.

Industry sources say drug companies have stopped listing new medicines with the scheme, hoping Trump’s order will allow them to lift prices for Australia.

At the centre of the dispute is Trump’s May 12 executive order reviving his controversial “Most Favored Nation” pricing proposal, a populist idea floated during his first term.

The premise is simple: the United States should pay no more for medicines than the lowest price paid by peer nations. In a globalised pharmaceutical market, the proposal could curtail Australia’s access to cheaper medicines.

By linking US prices to those in countries such as Australia – where the federal government uses rigorous health technology assessments to drive hard bargains with drug companies – Trump’s policy threatens to upend the commercial logic of launching new drugs in smaller, lower-priced markets.

“We are hearing that in the headquarters of companies, that they are having this conversation about the US’s Most Favored Nation policy and what that flow-on effect would have across the world,” says Sue MacLeman, chair of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry’s peak representative body.

“And companies may delay application for both product registration in Australia through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and also reimbursement through the PBS of new medicines as they seek to avoid us referencing to prices that undervalue innovation and affect global prices.”

If Australian PBS prices become a global benchmark – not just in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, but for US health insurers – drug companies may simply stop offering Australia competitive deals. Worse, they may not offer the product at all.>>

/2

Ah au fait.
Vous l'avez vu la gigantesque arnaque ?
Le #Covid est passé de "pandémie" à "maladie saisonnière".
Du coup ça fait 2 vaccins avec rappel qu'on se fera 2 fois par an : Grippe et Covid.
🤡
Ou, comment multiplier par 2 les revenus de #bigpharma sur du vent...

🗨️ Hello #katharinawitt, I hope you consider to cancel your sponsoring deal with Procter & Gamble, a company with ISR investments, and therefore involved in the #genocide in #gaza 2025

#germany #palestine #bigpharma

#news Procter & Gamble (P&G) plans to lay off approximately 7,000 employees, about 15% of its global non-manufacturing workforce, over the next two years, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Thursday.

Report: Al Mayadeen JUN-06

english.almayadeen.net/news/Ec

#BigPharma pour les nuls–#Kadhafi: «C’est un business. Les virus sont créés afin que des sociétés capitalistes en tirent un maximum de profits (2009)

Les médicaments ne doivent pas se vendre», exhortait le dirigeant à la tribune des Nations unies.

Décidez que les médicaments et vaccins sont gratuits et vous verrez que ces «virus inconnus» arrêterons d’apparaître.

Parce qu'ils ont été créés pour justifier les vaccins. Les sociétés pharmaceutiques travaillent dur à les créer… Surtout les agences de renseignement.

Et le «Guide de la révolution» de la Jamahiriya d’ajouter:

«Et même si un vrai virus menaçait l’humanité, le monde devrait coopérer pour créer un vaccin gratuit.»

Von der #Leyen et son complice Albert #Bourla ne sont pas tout à fait d’accord.

How could anything made from gila monster venom be bad for you?

The Disturbing Side Effects of Ozempic
The Project
https://youtu.be/-1E2LWhRqGY

Ozempic Users Are GOING BLIND!
https://youtu.be/AWNyO9E-1kU

Ozempic's Dirty Secret: Exposing the Thyroid Cancer Risks
Dr. Brian Yeung, ND
https://youtu.be/9-J3mRAwyTE

Ozempic, Wegovy use may be linked to "eye stroke" and blindness, study finds
https://youtu.be/d3DOJmwUYms

Scientists Explain ‘Ozempic Blindness,’ Link Between Sudden Vision Loss and Weight Loss Drugs
https://www.prevention.com/health/a63774334/ozempic-blindness-weight-loss-drugs

Exploring Connections Between Weight-Loss Medications and Thyroid Cancer: A Look at the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/edm2.70038

From Weight Loss to Vision Loss: A Potential Risk of Semaglutide
https://rhochistj.org/RhoChiPost/from-weight-loss-to-vision-loss-a-potential-risk-of-semaglutide/amp

Ophthalmic Complications Associated With the Antidiabetic Drugs Semaglutide and Tirzepatide
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/article-abstract/2829326v

#Ozempic #FDA #health #MedicalQuackery #MedicalMalpractice #Pseudoscience #fraud #hoax #Skeptic #BigPharma