Health Outcomes Communicator Great communication ideas for healthcare economists Issue 30 – July 2008  
In this issue
Regulating DTC ads
Social networking for patients
The mean versus the gene
‘Big box' companies and public health
Is the NHS on its last legs?
Links
Rx website
Greenflint website
Health economics booklets microsite
Feedback
Tell us what you think
...

Welcome to the July issue

Welcome to the July issue of HOC. In it, you'll find part 2 of Mary Gabb 's article on DTC marketing, Julie Stauffer introduces us to www.PatientsLikeMe.com, a social networking initiative for patients, and Dr John Bridges of Johns Hopkins University Medical School intrigues with some thoughts on ‘the mean versus the gene: will national healthcare systems ever adopt personalised medicine?' Your editor interviews Walgreens Healthcare CEO Stanley Blaylock about how Big Box companies are promoting in-store healthcare delivery.

David Woods

“ But know also, man has an inborn craving for medicine. Generations of heroic dosing have given his tissues such a thirst for drugs... the desire to take medicine is one feature which distinguishes man, the animal, from his fellow creatures. It is really one of the most
serious difficulties with which we have to contend. Even in minor ailments,
which would yield to dieting or to simple home remedies, the doctor's visit
is not thought to be complete without the prescription.”
Sir William Osler, Canadian physician (1849-1919)

 

Regulating DTC ads – Are we attempting to herd cats?

By Mary Gabb (mary.gabb@rxcomms.com)

In a previous issue of HOC , we outlined some of the commonly expressed pros and cons of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), which is currently allowed only in the United States (US) and New Zealand but under consideration for Europe .

On May 5, 2008, three executives, from Pfizer, Schering-Plough/Merck and Company, and Johnson & Johnson, appeared before the US Congress Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, to answer questions regarding three specific “potentially misleading and deceptive tactics” used in DTCA for Pfizer's Lipitor, J&J's Procrit, and Vytorin, which is sold by Merck and Schering-Plough. The congressional subcommittee asked whether the three companies would be willing to commit to six guidelines:

  • Follow the American Medical Association's guidelines regarding the use of actors and health professionals in DTCA.
  • Not market products in DTCA until a valid outcomes study of the product is completed.
  • Place a 2-year DTCA moratorium on new prescription drug products, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine .
  • Not market off-label uses for prescription products in DTCA.
  • Add the FDA toll-free MedWatch phone number in all DTCA.
  • Include “black box” warnings in DTCA for products that contain such warnings.

All three companies agreed to only two of the six guidelines (following AMA guidelines on use of physicians in DTCA and placing a 6-month moratorium on DTCA for new products). Some of the companies also agreed to specific guidelines, or more often, agreed to work with FDA guidance or seek advice from the FDA on the proposed guidelines. The trade association for the pharmaceutical industry, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), also participated in the congressional hearing. In 2005, PhRMA had developed its own guiding principles on DTCA.

DTCA are reviewed by the FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC). The reviews are for the most part voluntary, except for specific categories of drugs, such as cancer drugs, where the risk-to-benefit ratio may be weighted on the risk side. In the latter cases, the advertisement must be submitted ahead of time – but the pharmaceutical manufacturer does not have to heed the DDMAC advice nor even wait for the comments before it releases the ad.

Nonetheless, PhRMA maintains that DTCA is one of the most highly regulated forms of advertisement in the US . To date in 2008, the FDA DDMAC has issued 5 warning letters outlining regulation violations in promotional advertisements.

****

The changing face of DTCA

The New England Journal of Medicine reports on a new form of DTCA of which we may be seeing more – for medical devices. (NEJM 2008;358:21). The article also describes the differences in DTCA requirements based on format – television ad, web site, and patient-education brochure. For example, the FDA requires that only “major risk information” be disclosed in broadcast DTCA, but these ads must direct viewers to other sources of information on associated risks. Print advertisements, by contrast, must include all information about associated risks (ie, major side effects, contraindications, and precautions contained in the FDA's label). As an example, a television ad for a drug-eluting coronary stent listed 4 potential adverse events related to use of stents in general, but none associated with the product. The web site listed 10 device-related adverse events, and 5 that were product-specific. The patient education brochure listed 31 device-related adverse events, and 13 product-specific adverse events. So, patients must do their homework, depending on the type of DTCA they see. A spokesperson from the FDA said that all ads – for devices and drugs – are required to not be false or misleading and to present information that is in accord with product label

back to top

www.PatientsLikeMe.com – The power of patient-provided information

By Julie Stauffer (julie.stauffer@rxcomms.com)

Pharmaceutical companies depend on data – and lots of it – to develop drugs and measure their effectiveness. And many patients are eager to supply that information if it might mean better treatments or better quality of life.

That's the premise of PatientsLikeMe.com. Launched in 2006, it connects patients to other people dealing with the same life-altering disease. Not only does it allow users to share experiences and provide peer support, it also generates a goldmine of data by encouraging patients to track and quantify their symptoms, medications, and outcomes.

Today, the pharmaceutical industry relies on point-in-time, survey-driven information, explains David S. Williams III, the site's co-founder and head of business development. In contrast, PatientsLikeMe provides a much wider range of data.

Pharmaceutical companies can monitor its forums for insight into patient perspectives or recruit its members for clinical trials. Most exciting, however, is the opportunity to examine real-world, long-term data on how patient attitudes, decisions, and outcomes change over the course of their disease.

You now have a different longitudinal way of looking at how patients interact with your medication that you never had before,” Williams says.

To date, nearly 20,000 people from around the world have joined PatientsLikeMe, which offers on-line communities for patients with ALS, multiple sclerosis, HIV, Parkinson's, and a variety of mood conditions. Williams predicts those numbers will increase to one million patients and 200 communities by the end of 2011.

“The people we're attracting are that 5-15% of people in every single disease who will share their information openly. We know that target group exists,” he says. Once PatientsLikeMe proves that sharing medical information provides more collective benefit than keeping it private – establishing best care practices and accelerating research into treatments – he anticipates more people will overcome their privacy concerns.

But even data from the 5-15% segment alone has tremendous value, especially for a prevalent condition like heart disease. “The Framingham heart study has 5,000 people,” Williams points out. “We're talking about building 200 Framingham heart studies in 200 different diseases.”

How reliable is the information generated by PatientsLikeMe? Although patients misinterpreting or misreporting information is a very real possibility, the aggregated data is structured to make outliers evident. Because these charts and graphs are posted on the site, patients have an opportunity to spot and correct mistakes themselves. If a patient sees that she is the only person who reported taking a particular medication for a particular purpose, for example, she may realize that she's misunderstood why her doctor prescribed it.

Unlike most “health 2.0” businesses, PatientsLikeMe forgoes advertising in order to maintain high credibility with its members. Instead, revenues come from selling data to carefully screened partners that develop or sell drugs, devices, insurance or medical services aligned to the needs of patients.

While it's a model that promises profitability, the ultimate goal is to benefit the patients themselves. As the site's founders explain, “When patients share real-world data, collaboration on a global scale becomes possible. New treatments become possible. Most importantly, change becomes possible.”

“Look to your health; and if you have it praise God, and value it next to a good Conscience; for health is the second blessing that we Mortals are capable of: a blessing that money cannot buy, and therefore value it, and be thankful for it.”
Izaac Walton (1593-1683) – English author

back to top

The mean versus the gene: will national healthcare systems ever adopt personalised medicine?

By John F P Bridges

While outcomes for any given treatment differ significantly among patients, national healthcare systems continue to take a top down population perspective in reviewing not only epidemiologic data but to evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new medicines.

This top down approach, coupled with a growing need for cost containment, has recently caused many governments to institutionalise these practices through health technology assessment institutions. The purpose of these agencies is to promote better quality or value for money in the healthcare system; but this has led to medicines and technologies either being considered good (in other words, good for all) or they are deemed bad and are blacklisted.

Whether it be data from a randomised control trial, a comparative effectiveness study or a cost-effectiveness study, the focus is on the average patient's health outcomes, where all individuals are treated equally (or to be more correct, identically). Variation is something that we consider only when it comes to statistical inference, viz. does the average effect differ from zero.

This is a major over simplification since patients do vary: their needs vary; their preferences vary; their circumstances vary and, most important, their outcomes vary. Even if you wanted to treat individuals equally on ideological grounds, these top down approaches ignore the risks and uncertainties in medical decision making. For example, rather than understanding risk in clinical trials, we attempt to make it go away by demanding larger and larger trials (a movement away from the individual, towards the population).

As technology progresses, we are increasingly aware that the variation in benefits and adverse consequences of many healthcare interventions are predictable. As our knowledge of genetics and proteinomics expands, our ability to predict these events grows exponentially. This has prompted many healthcare innovators to develop diagnostics to tailor medicines for particular patients – in what is often referred to as personalised medicine. Governments everywhere have been eager to support these start-ups, almost to the point of frenzy and with little accountability.

One key problem exists, however, in that these new technologies are incompatible with the fundamental principles of many national healthcare systems and with the top down evaluation that has been implemented. Hence a bottleneck is occurring – ironically with government playing a dual role of promoting and rationing medical technology. In order to alleviate this bottleneck, we either have to address the funding crisis through personalised approaches to healthcare finance (The Netherlands and Switzerland have attempted this) or we need to stop wasting money on research and development of personalised medicine technologies that are unlikely to be funded in the future.

Essentially this means that healthcare systems need to decide whether they want to focus on the mean (the average effects of medicine) or on the gene (by accommodating personalised medicine.

John Bridges, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Senior Fellow at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and founding editor, The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (see http://thepatient.adisonline.com )

 

back to top


‘Big box' companies and public health

By David Woods (david.woods@rxcomms.com)

Whether it's because of a shortage of primary care physicians, impatience at the length of time it takes to see one, or simply increasing costs, the so-called big-box companies are getting more involved in health issues. Steven Burd, CEO of Safeway, told attendees at the World Health Care Congress (WHCC) in March that 70% of healthcare costs are driven by behaviour and he called for introducing market forces into preventive medicine and drug compliance. Safeway has attracted a coalition of more than 50 other companies in promoting healthful behaviours. At Jefferson Medical College 's Department of Health Policy's 17th annual Dr. Raymond C. Grandon Lecture, Dr. John O. Agwunobi, a senior vice president at Wal-Mart, spoke about bridging the worlds of business and public health. And also at WHCC, Stanley B. Blaylock, president of Walgreens Health Services, described his company's healthcare initiatives.

In an interview with HOC, Blaylock noted that Walgreens has more than 6200 retail pharmacies, and that 146 of these have “Take Care” in-store clinics that the company is adding to at the rate of one a day. In March, Walgreens became the exclusive specialty pharmacy provider for Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager collectively owned by 10 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which together serve more than 20 million health plan members.

Medmark, a Walgreens specialtiy pharmacy of which Mr. Blaylock, a former investment banker, was a cofounder, will provide Prime Therapeutics with medication fulfilment and complement Prime's existing patient education and clinical support services. Its pharmacists and nurses will counsel patients on the importance of medication adherence and on managing side effects.

Blaylock describes the company's new employer on-site clinics as “Take Care on steroids.” He notes that in the US more than 7000 employers have over 1000 employees, and 200 of these, including Sprint, BMW, and Disney, are Walgreens clients. Taking healthcare to the workplace, he says, increases productivity and accessibility while decreasing absenteeism. It's also more user-friendly, he believes. The next step for Walgreens, says, Blaylock, is to integrate the company's health services more fully in an attempt to provide something closer to the so-called ‘medical homes' – comprehensive, community based primary care.

While Safeway, Wal-Mart, and Walgreens may all serve different client bases and adopt differing strategies to serve them, there is clearly a growing trend towards store-and work based healthcare delivery as we try to come to grips with the increasing challenges of cost, access, quality, and efficiency.

back to top

Is the NHS on its last legs?

By Ruth Whittington (ruth.whittington@rxcomms.com)

With the NHS in the UK nearing its 60th birthday, there's been considerable talk about whether the system should be put into retirement. At the recent European-based World Healthcare Congress in Berlin the Chief Executive Officer David Nicholson explained why he felt that there was plenty of life in the old girl yet.

Nicholson pointed out that the last 18 months have seen significant change in the NHS. One year ago, the NHS was in its third year of producing a deficit – averaging about £0.5 billion annually. In 2007 the organisation managed to turn this around so successfully that they created a surplus of £0.5 billion, and this year the surplus is projected to be 3 times that. Now, why, you may ask, is a surplus a good thing in a non-profit organisation? Simply because when you have money you have an element of control over what you do. Being constantly in debt leaves you on the back foot and leaves little room for manoeuvre. So it is with the NHS, Nicholson claims.

Thinking of the NHS as purely a system helps with the implementation of change, according to Nicholson. He described the changes that have happened in the NHS as a series of phases. The first phase began in the post 1997 era with a focus on building capacity based on national targets. In this phase the NHS grew by almost a third, in staff buildings and all levels of healthcare provision. Phase Two of the change was in providing reforms in healthcare delivery – setting up tariff systems and organisational models. Phase Three, underway at the moment is the individualisation and personalisation of care – making patients partners in their own healthcare provision. From the 1st of April (a somewhat unfortunate choice of date) patients will have free choice of their secondary healthcare. The NHS is hoping to introduce an element of choice and contestability into healthcare, and also to integrate primary and secondary care a little better with advanced IT systems. To that end, they are working closely with BT Health to develop electronic patient records. A start of this phase is the ability for patients to interact with their own healthcare records via HealthSpace on the web. So it seems, with an exciting future ahead, the NHS is heading a second youth/swinging sixties/second wind

back to top

 

Health economics for non-health economists


We know only too well the challenges of communicating the rigor and value message of health economics to those who are less informed about this intricate science. It would be great if there were something available which they could read and magically know what you are talking about… interested?...read on!

Rx Communications in partnership with Greenflint have published a series of beginner's guides which put the core principles of health economics into a digestible language that people can understand. Beginner's guides currently in the pipeline are:

  • Demonstrating the value of healthcare
  • Introduction to health economics concepts
  • Why do medicines cost so much?
  • How do I know I am getting the best treatment?
  • Health economics methodology.

The Booklets are available in a generic format or they can be customised and branded to suit your organisation and its culture. The booklets are also available in digital format so they can be downloaded and read offline or placed on your organisations internet or intranet.

In addition to the literature, Rx Communications also provides an interactive training module to work simultaneously with the booklets to support the learning process, and this can be situated on your internet, intranet or on a branded CD-ROM or flash drive.

For more information or a media pack, please contact duncan.dibble@rxcomms.com ; alternatively click here to view an interactive example of our first booklet.

 

 


back to top

duncan.dibble@rxcomms.com

 

Previous issues

If you have missed any of our earlier issues, email duncan.dibble@ rxcomms.com for a copy. Just a few of our previous articles are Getting drugs accepted, Healthcare blogs and How to make the most of conferences. A full list is available at http://www.rxcomms.com/hocezine.asp

HOC is available for print in pdf format – free

You can of course print this e-newsletter straight from your inbox (for best results select landscape in your printer’s print set up), but HOC is also available as a professional 4-page A4 newsletter in pdf format for you to print and keep for reference. Simply email duncan.dibble@ rxcomms.com for past copies. If you would like to be sent a pdf version each month let us know and we’ll send one as soon as it is available.

back to top

Healthcare Outcomes Communicator is designed to help you explain and enhance your role and value as healthcare economists and outcomes researchers. But we need input from you – the professionals working "in the trenches". So we encourage you to give us your feedback about how we're doing – to communicate with us so that we can better communicate with you.

Yours sincerely
David Woods and the Rx Communications team

This material is published in good faith and is subject to editorial scrutiny before publication, however no warranty or guarantee of its accuracy is expressed or implied. No liability will be accepted by Rx Communications for any loss resulting from use of this resource. Our regular readership are assured that their details will not be passed on or used in any other promotional activity without permission.
Produced by Beaumore Publishing Solutions