I-MAK’s Distorted View of the U.S. Patent System

In an opinion piece published at CNBC.com, Tahir Amin — co-founder of I-MAK — blames the U.S. patent system for our country’s “high drug prices.” The author commits many of the same errors we see regularly from critics of the biotech industry.

For example, he ignores the fact that the trend on prescription drug costs is actually heading in the right direction. Not surprisingly, he also neglects to mention that insurance companies have continued to shift more prescription drug costs onto patients through higher deductibles and co-insurance requirements.

Setting aside Amin’s flawed approach to prescription drug pricing, his views on the patent system and the prescription drug ecosystem are severely skewed and perhaps more dangerous to the future of biomedical innovation.

Patent “evergreening” is a red herring. Amin and others claim that brand name drugmakers are gaming the system by receiving additional patent protection for frivolous add-on inventions. But the facts tell a different story. According to academic studies, there are on average only 2.5 “secondary” patents per drug, and more than 75% of these secondary patents were filed before the drug received FDA approval. These are not “new patents on old drugs” as critics want us to believe. What’s more, these patents usually relate to valuable clinical improvements, such as supplying a drug in a special dosage form to patients with special needs.

Generic medicines are coming to market at a record rate. If there is some coordinated effort by the biotech industry to block generic competition, it isn’t working.

According to representatives of the generic drug industry, 89% of all drugs dispensed in the United States are generics. As OECD health statistics show, this far exceeds the share of generics sold in other countries, such as the United Kingdom (83%), Germany (81%), Canada (73%) and France (30%).

Meanwhile, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb recently praised his agency for approving the “highest ever number of generic drugs” last year (more than 1,000 generic approvals). Once generic medicines are approved, they are gaining greater market share more quickly than ever before. And according to a report in the Journal of Medical Economics, the time it takes for a generic medicine to reach the market has remained steady for the last two decades.

I-MAK wants innovation, but wants to punish innovators. How else to explain I-MAK’s attempts at filing patent challenges against the company that recently discovered the first cure for hepatitis C? Amin balks at the cost of the cure, but omits several important facts.

  • He cites the list price of the cure, but any honest review of the facts will show that this is almost never what the drugmaker makes or what patients pay. That’s because every day drugmakers provide significant rebates off the list price of the drug to help promote broader patient access. These savings reached an estimated $154 billion in 2017, and the question is whether insurance companies and middlemen are passing the savings along to patients.
  • Competition from other innovators is driving down prices, and the cure for hepatitis C is a great example. Less than two years after the first hepatitis C cure hit the market, the average discount to payers was roughly 50% due to intense market competition from other drugmakers who soon released their own innovative cures. Today, Hepatitis C patients have multiple medicines to choose from at a fraction of the cost of the first treatment and a more than 90% chance of beating the disease.
  • Third, and perhaps more important, the costs associated with not curing hepatitis is far greater and more devastating. Before a cure for hepatitis C hit the market, the cost of treating the disease ranged roughly between $155,000 and up to $489,000. Today, the cost of care for a patient with the disease is approximately $60,000. Thanks to biomedical innovation, a cure for a deadly disease is saving lives and saving money throughout the health care system. Yet insurers still discriminate against those who need treatment, despite the benefit it provides patients and our health care system more broadly.

Our nation develops more new medicines than the rest of the world combined (57% of all new medicines to be exact), thanks in no small part to a patent system that rewards and protects innovation. These are facts Amin appears willing to ignore, because it fits well with his organization’s mission of paying lip service to biomedical innovation while pursuing an agenda that threatens the discovery of new cures and treatments. Patients and policymakers: Beware.

Co-Pay Accumulator Programs Are a Bad Deal for Patients

As we see time and time again, health insurance providers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are beginning to shift a much greater portion of prescription drug costs to patients and consumers. In many cases, these requirements can cost thousands of dollars out of pocket and often result in limited access to essential medicines – a dangerous and expensive combo.

To offset these costs, many pharmaceutical companies offer programs that assist patients with their out of pocket costs, including deductibles and co-pays, for their prescriptions. These financial contributions made by the drug manufacturer help patients afford their medicine while paying down their health insurance deductible and continue until the individuals’ deductible and out-of-pocket maximum limits are reached. At that point, the health plan picks up the rest of the tab.

Yet in recent months, health plans and PBMs have begun to implement “co-pay accumulator” programs – an effort to prevent funds provided by these assistance programs from applying to a patient’s out of pocket maximum or deductible. As a result, patients are left with steep costs when the value of patient assistance is exhausted.

For more on this emerging practice, check out our latest issue brief.

House Passes SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act to Combat America’s Opioid Crisis

Opioid abuse and addiction in America has reached epidemic heights. As a nation, we’re spending more than $500 billion annually in health and social costs to combat this growing problem. What’s more, the Department of Health and Human Services reports more than 40,000 lives lost in 2016 from overdosing on these pain management treatments.

Long-term solutions to combating this crisis will depend upon biomedical innovation and the development of novel and safer, next generation therapies to treat both pain and addiction.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed important legislation designed to help address this epidemic and to ensure that more innovative treatments are available to patients. The bill, H.R. 6 (the Substance Use-disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment – SUPPORT – for Patients and Communities Act), included several of BIO’s recommendations pertaining to enhancing and improving the ability to utilize expedited approval pathways, which is an important step in getting new innovations to patients.

Specifically, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to hold a public meeting within one year and update or develop new guidance documents covering topics such as:

  • The use of innovative clinical trial designs, real world evidence, and patient experience data for the development of therapies for treating pain and addiction;
  • Eligibility criteria for Sponsors to qualify for expedited approval pathways;
  • Methods for evaluating acute and chronic pain; and
  • Possible endpoints for use in clinical trials for pain and addiction therapies

By clarifying these points and the criteria for expedited approval qualifications, we can encourage greater investment into the development of much-needed novel and safer therapies.

The reality is that it often is not clear to companies who are developing therapies in this area as to whether they qualify for expedited approval pathways or what the FDA’s expectations are for qualifying for such pathways. Additionally, inefficient tools for evaluating pain, like the current “1-10 scale” which does not consider acute versus chronic pain, pain perception, or other comorbidities such as depression and a lack of endnotes makes clinical trials for pain and addiction therapies more difficult.

The legislation, by providing Industry Sponsors and investors a clear path forward through regulatory clarity, would also help support the discovery and utilization of less-addictive medicines – a critical component of a comprehensive plan to solve the opioid crisis.

To date there have been several bills introduced in both Chambers to fight against this growing crisis and we applaud Congress’ hard work in advancing these critical pieces of legislation.

BIO will continue working to promote policies to fight this disease by encouraging the research and development, as well as the timely approval of, and patient access to, novel medicines that improve the way we treat pain and addiction for current and future generations.

For more information about the biopharmaceutical industry’ commitment to combatting the opioid crisis, please visit http://www.bio.org/opioid.

New Report Offers “Distorted View” of Biopharma Industry

This week, the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance released a report entitled, “A Tangled Web: An Examination of the Drug Supply and Payment Chains.” The report is the latest to look at the nation’s complex drug cost ecosystem.

More patients are finding that what they have to pay for prescription drugs is simply unaffordable. That’s why BIO has repeatedly called on policymakers to advance reforms that will help provide all patients affordable access to the medicines they need. Real reform requires a holistic approach, one that recognizes the roles insurers, pharmacy benefits managers, hospitals and other health care actors play in determining what people pay for their prescription drugs.

Unfortunately, this report provides a distorted view of the biopharmaceutical industry. For example, it doesn’t mention the fact that 90% of all biopharmaceutical companies are unprofitable and most biotech companies are small businesses. It also fails to recognize that when compared to other industries, the biotech sector collectively ranks near the bottom in terms of profitability. Finally, it gives scant attention to the tremendous value biopharmaceutical innovation provides patients and our broader health care system.

Biopharmaceutical innovators invest enormous amounts of time and resources bringing new cures and treatments to market, yet a large share of what’s spent each year on prescription drugs goes to insurance companies and other middlemen. While we disagree with the conclusions in this report, we have long been encouraging policymakers to carefully review the complex way drugs are delivered to patients. We believe such an effort will ultimately lead to real solutions that provide all patients access to the medicines they need at a cost they can afford.

Former Anti-GMO Activist: To Accept GMOs Is To Accept Science

There is no doubting that genetic engineering will be a major part of the future of food and agriculture. And even though 88 percent of scientists believe genetically engineered foods are safe, according to a Pew Center poll, and GMO farming can be more environmentally friendly, GMOs have always been met with a lot of public resistance. There is hope, however, that acceptance of GMOs will become more widespread if more people rely on the science-based evidence that supports the technology rather than baseless fear and sensationalism, writes former GMO-opponent turned proponent Mark Lynas in “Confession of an Anti-GMO Activist,” which was recently published in the Wall Street Journal.

Mark Lynas

“Opposition [to GMOs] was largely inspired and led by environmentalists, who asserted that genetically modified crops and foods would cause a range of harms.”

Lynas, a science writer, was once so opposed to GMOs that he would protest and lobby to get GMOs banned in stores, even going as far as destroying test fields where GMO crops were being grown and studied. Since his days as an anti-GMO activist, however, he has come to see the harms that he once thought GMOs caused were unfounded in science. Anti-GMO activism was actually doing the opposite of its intention.

“The anti-GMO campaign has deprived much of the world of a crucial, life-improving technology—and has shown the readiness of many environmentalists to ignore science when it contradicts their prejudices. That’s not the example we need just now as the planet faces the very real threat of climate change.

Contrary to our initial fears, the overall impact of genetically modified crops has been to dramatically reduce the amount and toxicity of pesticides sprayed by farmers.”

Opponents of GMOs often spew weak arguments, such as consumption of GM crops leads to cancer, autism or other diseases and disorders, to support their claims. As Lynas notes, however, the science rejects these claims:

“The view that GMO foods have no discernible impact on health is now the well-established consensus across the international community. It includes not just the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] but the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.K.’s Royal Society, the French Academy of Science, the African Academy of Sciences and numerous others.”

Even so, Lynas recounts the internal struggle he faced of accepting the science in support of GMOs as it went against his prejudices. Once Lynas recalibrated his beliefs, reaffirming his convictions to science and supporting GMOs, he received backlash from the community he used to be a part of.

“I have often been attacked, especially by my onetime activist friends, for changing my mind on GMOs. But what was the alternative? To stick to a position that I knew to be false in order to avoid losing reputation? Environmentalism, perhaps more than any other philosophy, requires science. And science means that you must change your mind when the evidence changes, however inconvenient that might be.”

With strong evidence that points to GMOs being perfectly safe, environmentally friendly and an overall improvement to farming, it is saddening that there is still such a huge debate surrounding GMOs. Hopefully soon, for the sake of the environment, more people realize what Mark Lynas has and come to support the science of GMOs.

ICYMI: Op-Ed by Rep. Gus Bilirakis on Lowering Drug Costs

Yesterday, U.S. Representative Gus Bilirakis of Florida published an op-ed outlining how to “Lower Drug Costs Through Competition and Innovation.” Bilirakis writes that “leveraging the power of the free market and incentivizing competition among drug makers will drive costs down – not government mandates.” He cites the success of the Medicare Part D program – holding a 90 percent satisfaction rate among seniors and coming in significantly under budget from original CBO estimates – to show that private sector competition helps patients afford needed medicines.

In the Part D program, plans compete for consumers’ business and aggressively negotiate discounts and rebates from drug manufacturers. A recent study of 12 widely used therapeutic classes in Part D found that plans received average discounts of over 35 percent.Bilirakis closes by noting:

Bilirakis closes by noting:

We can modernize the FDA and clear the backlog of generic drugs waiting for approval. We can reduce unnecessary regulations that hinder innovation and competition. We can remove legal and regulatory barriers so insurers and drug innovators can make more arrangements to “pay for performance.” And we can quickly implement the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, using real-world evidence and innovative clinical trial design to get new medicines to market faster.

In the end, we all want affordable prescription drugs and a health care system that spurs innovation. I believe the best approach to accomplish this goal is harnessing the power of the free market to bring costs down and get treatments to patients faster.

Read the full op-ed here.

BIO 2017 Innovation Zone Company Snapshot: NuvOx Pharma

The next big medical breakthrough may start in a small business with a big idea. Recognizing the potential and promise of early-stage companies for addressing unmet medical needs, the BIO International Convention will once again host the Innovation Zone on the exhibit floor of the San Diego Convention Center, June 19-22. Eighty emerging companies will showcase biotechnology breakthroughs in drug discovery, diagnostics, and other therapeutic platform technologies.

The Innovation Zone was created through a partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) with the intent to group Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)-funded companies together on the exhibit floor of the BIO International Convention. The SBIR program provides U.S. federal funding to small businesses engaged in research and development with demonstrated potential for commercialization. Companies are rigorously vetted through the NIH and NSF SBIR review process prior to receiving the funding.

Today we spoke with Innovation Zone exhibitor, John McGonigle, Business Development Associate at NuvOx Pharma, which is supported by NIH’s SBIR program.

BTN: What is your company’s lead product or technology?
NuvOx Pharma is developing a nanotechnology platform of therapeutics to treat life-threatening diseases characterized by hypoxia. The Company has clinical programs in cancer (Phase II), stroke (Ib/II) and sickle cell disease (Phase Ib).

BTN: How has the NIH’s SBIR program helped your company grow?
The NIH’s SBIR program has been instrumental in the development of NuvOx Pharma. For example, our oncology program was started by an NCI SBIR Phase I grant to help us reformulate an EMEA approved ultrasound contrast agent as a stable emulsion for oxygen delivery.  A Phase II NCI SBIR grant supported IND enabling animal studies, and helped us show that the drug can raise tumor oxygen levels to make tumors more sensitive to radiation therapy. We completed a Phase Ib/II clinical trial in brain cancer, and the FDA has allowed our IND for a Phase II clinical trial in this indication. We have applied to the NIH for a Phase IIb SBIR Bridge Award, which would match investor funds to support the Phase II clinical trial. In addition, the Company has received Phase I SBIR/STTR grants to develop nanotechnology products for heart disease (endocarditis and myocardial infarction) and cancer (pancreas and breast).

BTN: What are the upcoming milestones and long-term priorities for your company?
Long term, we recognize that hypoxia can be life-threatening in many medical conditions, including some of the biggest killers in the world such as cancer, stroke and heart attack. We intend to save lives by using our nanotechnology to deliver oxygen to hypoxic tissue more effectively than red blood cells. We have animal data showing improved outcomes in cancer, stroke, myocardial infarction, sickle cell disease, hemorrhagic shock, and traumatic brain injury.

Short term, we have several major milestones coming up in the next year. We are on track to start the Phase II clinical trial in oncology this fall.  We have an active Phase Ib/II clinical trial in stroke and we should have the first randomized data from that trial within the year.  We are on track to start a Phase Ib clinical trial in sickle disease this summer.  The NHLBI has recently funded a study in heart attack in pigs, which could provide the data needed to file an IND for a clinical trial in that indication.

BTN: What do you hope to gain out of your participation at the 2017 BIO International Convention?
We are seeking investors to help us develop our drug assets and corporate partners to help us develop our nanotechnology products.

BTN: Tell us something about your company that investors might not know…
$100M was spent developing the core technology for a diagnostic indication – as an ultrasound contrast agent.  It was used in 2,200 patients, and approved in Europe, but never marketed due to competitive pressures. NuvOx was formed to reposition the technology for its oxygen delivery ability. We have devised new formulations with the support of the NIH.  We have tested the nanotechnology products in multiple models – oxygen delivery and/or therapeutic effect has been shown in 26 peer-reviewed publications, many of which were supported by NIH funding, in particular by the NCI and NHLBI.  We have expanded the IP – and have 5 patents issued, 1 patent allowed and 12 patents pending.  The FDA regulates the technology as a Biologic, allowing 12 years exclusivity for a first in class indication – and we are the only technology in clinical trials in our class.  We would like to thank the NIH for its forward-thinking and continued support.  Feel free to stop by NuvOx Pharma’s kiosk in the NIH’s Innovation Zone at BIO San Diego if you would like to learn more.

BIO 2017 Innovation Zone Company Snapshot: NuvOx Pharma

The next big medical breakthrough may start in a small business with a big idea. Recognizing the potential and promise of early-stage companies for addressing unmet medical needs, the BIO International Convention will once again host the Innovation Zone on the exhibit floor of the San Diego Convention Center, June 19-22. Eighty emerging companies will showcase biotechnology breakthroughs in drug discovery, diagnostics, and other therapeutic platform technologies.

The Innovation Zone was created through a partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) with the intent to group Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)-funded companies together on the exhibit floor of the BIO International Convention. The SBIR program provides U.S. federal funding to small businesses engaged in research and development with demonstrated potential for commercialization. Companies are rigorously vetted through the NIH and NSF SBIR review process prior to receiving the funding.

Today we spoke with Innovation Zone exhibitor, John McGonigle, Business Development Associate at NuvOx Pharma, which is supported by NIH’s SBIR program.

BTN: What is your company’s lead product or technology?
NuvOx Pharma is developing a nanotechnology platform of therapeutics to treat life-threatening diseases characterized by hypoxia. The Company has clinical programs in cancer (Phase II), stroke (Ib/II) and sickle cell disease (Phase Ib).

BTN: How has the NIH’s SBIR program helped your company grow?
The NIH’s SBIR program has been instrumental in the development of NuvOx Pharma. For example, our oncology program was started by an NCI SBIR Phase I grant to help us reformulate an EMEA approved ultrasound contrast agent as a stable emulsion for oxygen delivery.  A Phase II NCI SBIR grant supported IND enabling animal studies, and helped us show that the drug can raise tumor oxygen levels to make tumors more sensitive to radiation therapy. We completed a Phase Ib/II clinical trial in brain cancer, and the FDA has allowed our IND for a Phase II clinical trial in this indication. We have applied to the NIH for a Phase IIb SBIR Bridge Award, which would match investor funds to support the Phase II clinical trial. In addition, the Company has received Phase I SBIR/STTR grants to develop nanotechnology products for heart disease (endocarditis and myocardial infarction) and cancer (pancreas and breast).

BTN: What are the upcoming milestones and long-term priorities for your company?
Long term, we recognize that hypoxia can be life-threatening in many medical conditions, including some of the biggest killers in the world such as cancer, stroke and heart attack. We intend to save lives by using our nanotechnology to deliver oxygen to hypoxic tissue more effectively than red blood cells. We have animal data showing improved outcomes in cancer, stroke, myocardial infarction, sickle cell disease, hemorrhagic shock, and traumatic brain injury.

Short term, we have several major milestones coming up in the next year. We are on track to start the Phase II clinical trial in oncology this fall.  We have an active Phase Ib/II clinical trial in stroke and we should have the first randomized data from that trial within the year.  We are on track to start a Phase Ib clinical trial in sickle disease this summer.  The NHLBI has recently funded a study in heart attack in pigs, which could provide the data needed to file an IND for a clinical trial in that indication.

BTN: What do you hope to gain out of your participation at the 2017 BIO International Convention?
We are seeking investors to help us develop our drug assets and corporate partners to help us develop our nanotechnology products.

BTN: Tell us something about your company that investors might not know…
$100M was spent developing the core technology for a diagnostic indication – as an ultrasound contrast agent.  It was used in 2,200 patients, and approved in Europe, but never marketed due to competitive pressures. NuvOx was formed to reposition the technology for its oxygen delivery ability. We have devised new formulations with the support of the NIH.  We have tested the nanotechnology products in multiple models – oxygen delivery and/or therapeutic effect has been shown in 26 peer-reviewed publications, many of which were supported by NIH funding, in particular by the NCI and NHLBI.  We have expanded the IP – and have 5 patents issued, 1 patent allowed and 12 patents pending.  The FDA regulates the technology as a Biologic, allowing 12 years exclusivity for a first in class indication – and we are the only technology in clinical trials in our class.  We would like to thank the NIH for its forward-thinking and continued support.  Feel free to stop by NuvOx Pharma’s kiosk in the NIH’s Innovation Zone at BIO San Diego if you would like to learn more.

Convention Programming to Feature “One Health” Concept

Bio-based Technologies Address Human, Animal, Plant and Environmental Health

At its heart, the concept of One Health is rooted in the notion that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are all interconnected. At BIO’s 2017 International Convention (June 19-22 in San Diego), programming will feature the One Health concept through stories that show how science and technology are making tomorrow’s breakthroughs possible.

On Monday, June 19, BIO will host “One Health Day,” bringing together different parts of the BIO family with sessions focused on issues linking human, animal and environmental health. Scheduled speakers include:

Keynote:  One Health for the 21st Century

  • Dr. William Karesh, Executive Vice President for Health and Policy at EcoHealth Alliance

“The very concept of ‘One Health’ is ancient,” says Dr. William Karesh, Executive Vice President for Health and Policy at EcoHealth Alliance. “But our world has changed dramatically, and what’s really exciting is that with 21st Century innovation we have the opportunity to begin to end the pandemic era.”

Human, Animal and Plant Health Connectedness – Industry’s Role:

  • Dr. Carsten Brunn, Bayer’s Head of Pharmaceuticals, Americas Region
  • Frank Terhorst, Bayer’s Global Head of Seeds

“With emerging issues like a rapidly aging population and new and increasingly complex medical needs, our industry is at the forefront of advancements in science and technology that will help cure and prevent some of the most difficult-to-treat conditions, and improve lives,” said Dr. Carsten Brunn, Bayer’s Head of Pharmaceuticals, Americas Region. “With Bayer’s focus across the life science ecosystem, we are actively working to discover and develop innovations that impact the health of people, animals, and plants.”

“As the world’s population is projected to increase by more than three billion people in the next thirty years, we will require an adequate supply of healthy food as well as improved medical care,” stated Frank Terhorst, global head of seeds at Bayer CropScience. “Our research and development activities, fundamental to the well-being of society, are therefore linked by the concept of ‘One Health,’ with the goal of finding solutions to some of the major challenges of our time.”

Panel Discussion:  How to Move “One Health” Forward

  • Dr. Eddie Sullivan, CEO, SAB Biotherapeutics and Chairman, BIO Food & Ag Section Governing Board (moderator)
  • Dr. Laura Kahn, Research Scholar, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Co-Founder, One Health Initiative
  • Dr. Nikos Gurfield, Adjunct Professor of Pathology, UC San Diego and County Veterinarian, San Diego County Vector Disease and Diagnostic Laboratory
  • Dr. William Karesh, Executive Vice President for Health and Policy at EcoHealth Alliance

“Science and technology hold the promise of securing a healthier world for humans, animals and the environment,” says Dr. Eddie Sullivan, CEO, SAB Biotherapeutics and Chairman, BIO Food & Ag Section Governing Board. “To make these breakthroughs a reality, we’ll need a collaborative approach for addressing existing political and economic obstacles and opportunities.”

In our speaker presentations and panel discussions, attendees will hear stories that illustrate the concept of “One Health” and how modern technologies are enabling us to solve global challenges through a collaborative One Health-focused approach. Panelists will also explore the barriers to success and what industry and others can do to solve the problems One Health is poised to address.

BIO 2017 International Convention (BIO 2017) is in San Diego June 19-22 and registration is now open! Check out the complete BIO 2017 program including Keynotes, Super Sessions, Educational Tracks and Fireside Chats with scientific experts, government leaders and leading biotech CEOs. And stay tuned for more updates as we approach BIO 2017!

Filed under: Food And Agriculture, , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Report Shows Drug Spending Growth Slows Dramatically

Contrary to continued misleading claims about the increasing costs of prescription medicines, a new report was released this week offering more evidence that the competitive market for medicines is working to contain costs and slow spending growth. After price concessions from drug companies, net prices for brand name drugs grew just 3.5% last year, according to the report from the QuintilesIMS Institute.

The report also found that net spending growth on medicines slowed by half in 2016 compared to the prior year, rising just 4.8 percent – exactly in line with the growth rate for healthcare spending overall, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). That spending growth is projected to remain stable over the next five years – and has been revised downward from other recent projections:

The outlook for U.S. spending growth on medicines has been revised significantly downward as a result of weaker than expected new product spending and a slowing of invoice price increases for branded products…Average growth was projected in the 6-9% range prior to the autumn of 2016 but projections have been revised down to 4-7% through 2021.

The report also projected that net price growth for patent-protected branded drugs will be in the range of 2-5 percent through 2021; well in line with overall healthcare inflation.

Visit DrugCostFacts.org to learn more about the debate around the cost and value of innovative medicines.