Hi to all,
My mother was diagnosed with CML almost two years ago, and since then I have tried my best to keep updated on new developments that may affect her. I have been following the health care debate particularly closely as my mother is now locked into her current job since she cannot afford to lose the insurance she depends on for her Gleevec. She is a nurse, and it has been particularly frustrating to watch someone who has spent decades taking care of others now forced to work until she reaches Medicare age. Given the choice, I know she would prefer to cut back her hours and spend more time with her young grandchildren, who live several states away and who see her rarely. From reading some of your posts, I know this work/insurance conundrum is not unique to my mother.
So it has been with some hope that I have followed the health care bills working their way through Congress. The thought that some day soon (if you can call a few years soon) my mother might be able to quit her job and buy her own insurance at a decent price is encouraging. However, I was deeply disturbed to discover the Eshoo Amendment today, which has been attached to the House version of the health care bill. This amendment will extend the monopoly protection on biologic drugs to 12.5 years. Reading up on the amendment, it also appears that it throws up so many new regulatory hurdles on generics that in effect it may prevent generic biologics from ever coming to market in the US. For those of you, like me, who have been hoping that, if nothing else, at least the cost of the Gleevec would plummet once the patent expires, this is extremely upsetting news.
Regardless of what you might think of the overall health care bills taking shape, I think it is important for our community to do what we can to stop this Eshoo Amendment from becoming law. I found at least one website that is advocating to remove the amendment, and they are asking for people who use these drugs to contact them. (Incidentally, I didn't find Gleevec on the list of drugs at that site, but I assume it is an oversight). If anyone has any more information on the Eshoo Amendment, please post. I will keep looking into it and will probably write a letter to the editor of my local paper as well.
Thanks everyone,
Justin
I thought I had understood that this legislation would not reset the clock.
Here is Representative Eshoo's response to criticisms of the legislation:
You've got me curious. What's the web site? I'd be interested to see what the actual complaints are and what medications are on the list.
This whole thing is crazy making.
Thanks for the info, Justin.
Blessings
Here is the website: http://publicoptionplease.com/biologics/
I've looked into it a little more (plus received a comment on a duplicate posting I made), and it seems that Gleevec may not be affected by this amendment. However, looks like a lot of important drugs are on the list. And since many patients on Gleevec may at some point find it necessary to switch to another drug, this could still be an important amendment.
Rep. Eshoo's response is definitely worth ready (thanks for the link to her response). Seems like there is a real debate shaping up over what exactly this amendment will do. I think there are some complicated legal issues pertaining to patents and the issue of "evergreening" that are making this a tricky one to figure out. Here's a website that offers some opposing points to Eshoo's posting: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/02/waxman-to-eshoo-youve-got-an-evergreening-problem
Hope this isn't just creating a circle of confusion, but it could potentially have a major impact on us all. Seems like we might need a patent attorney to straighten this all out.
When it comes down to it, the science and terminology are beyond my kin. I agree that Big Pharma needs financial incentive to develop meds to fight various diseases. Unfortunately, we can't rely on humanitariam motivation. Neither can we require it.
It seems from Rep. Eshoo's response says that there is no difference between current patent protection periods and the proposed periods. Indeed, it seems she's trying to clear the way for generics to come into being more quickly.
I think this, perhaps, points to the problems of the "blogoshpere" more than problems with the legislation. Seems anyone with an opinion can present it as fact and undercut confidence in much needed change in our system. I'm not sure which one is lying but one of the two women are. And as there are public records of what the actual amendment says, I'd bet it's the original blogger.
Oh well, it's always interesting to see different sides of issues. It was also interesting that with as many meds as I've had and am currently taking, I don't believe a one was on that list.