Opinion

Welcome to the new look and branding of Pharmaceutical Executive-reimagined to better reflect you, our audience, and expand on the content you've long trusted us to deliver.

The US could theoretically treat every single American living with HIV without spending an extra dollar on drugs. And President Trump can broker a deal to do it, write Anil Soni and Ya’ir Aizenman.

A 2019 study reveals further marginal decline in the pharma industry's reputation. Sven Klingemann suggests some "recovery solutions".

Outside of raising prices, pharma can generate new revenue from just three other sources, write Tom Kottler.

Last week’s announcement by UnitedHealth Group of its planned acquisition of pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) Catamaran for $12.8 billion officially puts the pharmaceutical industry on notice that the “war” on drug prices is escalating, writes Michael Griffith.

THE CALENDAR SAYS IT'S WRAP UP TIME, not just for gifts, but for some of the trends that shaped big Pharma-for good or bad-during the past year. A simple way to close the book on 2014 is to draw some insights from our three feature stories this month.

Richard Barker, former Director General of ABPI, proposes a new agenda on how to restore public confidence in the value behind science.

Despite the gloom, most forecasts show the US will stay atop the industry in profits for at least the next generation of products.

Social media now gives companies a plethora of creative ways to digitally spread recent company news and keep customers informed

HTAs are gridlocked by diverse national requirements, a lack of alignment on processes, and even on the value of their outcomes.

The UK coalition government's consultation on the intro of value-based pricing has invited caution and resistance

GSK's Deirdre Connelly puts the focus on four steps to cement a new compliance culture

The Orphan Drug Act was passed 25 years ago. But the challenge of actually getting rare disease drugs and therapies to patients still remains

This time, powerful interest groups (like pharma) that sank the Clinton healthcare bill are on the side of change

Pharma can stand to win hearts, minds, and tax credits by launching an eco bandwagon

The first wealth is health, wrote American thinker Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, history has taught us (even before Emerson) that health and wealth are inextricably linked-the more money one has, the healthier one is likely to be.

As I work with pharma companies, I'm often asked "When will we get major reform of the healthcare system?" and "What will the reformed system look like?" And sometimes "How will we get there?" This is not the same as asking "How should we reform the system?" Or "What should a reformed system look like?"

The US healthcare system may be broken, as such sages as Michael Moore suggest, but it's not likely to be fixed as long as our domestic debate remains stuck on the cost of prescription drugs. Meanwhile, obesity and diabetes are becoming national epidemics. Talk about sicko.

If pharma is seen as a genuine contributor to the policy debate on comparative effectiveness, it could influence funding, pricing, and coverage decisions

In march, us rep. rahm "Mr. Television" Emanuel (D-IL) reintroduced legislation aimed at what he calls "driving down the price of prescription drugs." But the only thing such legislation would accomplish would be the "driving down" of pharmaceutical innovation.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard the word crisis used to describe the healthcare system of one country or another, I would be rich. And with the '08 elections revving up, we can expect to hear a crisis chorus from many presidential and congressional candidates wise to the fact that healthcare often ranks as voters' No. 1 issue.

For several decades, conventional wisdom in the pharmaceutical industry has held that a large sales force is the key to commercial success. However, in recent years, a number of warning signs have emerged about the effectiveness and long-term viability of this expensive asset. While few are saying it publicly, a number of pharma executives are now exploring the possibility that it could be only a matter of time before the industry's dependence on personal selling comes to an end.

Myth vs. Reality: The American healthcare system needs a makeover. That requires policies based on accurate information about how our country’s system compares to others’. To start, we must separate fact from fiction.

Critics of the pharma industry have gotten good at selective reporting. So good, I've started tuning out. But, with a public official pulling similar punches, my ears can't help but perk up.

I feel vulnerable to accusations that I work on the dark side, that I've sold out to corporate medicine.

California has proposed legislation for a pilot program to reinforce access to treatment for mentally ill offenders. This is a step in the right direction, but it should be the subject of national policy, not a localized effort.

I've just returned from Europe, where I spoke with various think tanks, thought leaders, and pharmaceutical companies on the issue they call "information-to-patients" (ItP). That's what we on the other side of the pond refer to as direct-to-consumer communications. In Europe, they choose to abstain from using the "A" word-advertising. But rhetoric counts. "Information to patients" seems quite paternalistic when compared with the new-worldly "direct-to-consumer" moniker.

High-deductible health plans go against the goals of employers, pharma, and the public.They don't reduce out-of pocket drug costs.

Attacking articles in medical journals, those ghostwritten by professional medical writers paid by pharmaceutical companies, is the media's latest attempt to taint anything supported, promoted, or approved by Big Pharma.

Often, post-approval marketing studies don't materialize because drug companies question their value. Independent review of the need for such studies would address pharma's concern that they may be warranted.