Kaiser Health News
Doctors’ Lesson for Drug Industry: Abortion Wars Are Dangerous to Ignore
by Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:00:00 +0000
Texas District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s decision April 7 to rescind the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone dealt a blow to more than just people seeking a medication abortion.
It appears to be the first time a court has directly usurped the FDA’s authority to provide the final word on which medicines are safe and effective and, thus, allowed to be sold in the United States. And it could well throw the pharmaceutical industry into turmoil.
If the decision is allowed to stand, it could affect far more than abortion drugs. “It will radically alter the process for approving drugs and will kill innovation and hinder bringing new drugs to market,” Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told reporters in a briefing April 10. It might also invite what she called “fringe groups” to challenge any other drug they object to for political reasons.
So you’d think challenging the decision would be a top priority for the prescription drug industry’s national advocacy group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA. Yet the drug lobby did not join the long list of medical, legal, and academic groups that filed “friend of the court,” or amicus, briefs in the Texas case.
And since the ruling, PhRMA has declined to weigh in beyond the relatively bland statement it made weeks ago. “The FDA is the gold standard for determining whether a medicine is safe and effective for people to use,” said Priscilla VanderVeer, PhRMA’s vice president for public affairs. “While PhRMA and our members are not a party to this litigation, our focus is on ensuring a policy environment that supports the agency’s ability to regulate and provides access to FDA-approved medicines.”
By contrast, many individual drug companies, as well as the biotech industry’s trade group, were quick to decry the ruling. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization said the ruling sets “a dangerous precedent for undermining the FDA and creating regulatory uncertainty that will impede the development of important new treatments and therapies.”
PhRMA’s relative silence is puzzling, said Carole Joffe, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco and an expert on the sociology of reproductive health issues. “PhRMA now has to contemplate the politicization of potentially everything. For Big Pharma, one could argue that a Pandora’s box has been opened.”
Even more puzzling, though, is that PhRMA has only to look at another major health industry player, the physicians’ major lobbying group, the American Medical Association, for an object lesson in how sitting on the sidelines of a polarizing political issue can cost an industry or profession a chunk of its autonomy.
When it comes to abortion, lawmakers at the state and federal level, not to mention judges, have been essentially practicing medicine without a license for over a half-century, since the decision in Roe v. Wade itself. In that case, seven Supreme Court justices signed on to a framework for pregnancy (dividing it into “trimesters”) that did not exist before, at least not medically.
The AMA played a major role in making abortion illegal in the 19th century, when it sought to supplant midwives and others whom doctors saw as threats to their economic and professional power. But in the 20th century, the organization was slow to recognize that doctors’ professional judgments were being supplanted by those of others — lawmakers and judges. The AMA did not even file an amicus brief in the Roe case itself, and for much of the next four decades tried mightily to stay out of the abortion fray, even as warnings grew that medical professionals were losing the right to practice according to the best medical evidence.
After the Supreme Court upheld the first ban on a specific abortion procedure in 2007 — a ban the AMA had initially endorsed, then opposed — it was clear that physicians were losing their primacy over the practice of medicine.
Yet the stigma attached to abortion remained. Even after the AMA formally supported abortion rights, the group “did as little as possible,” said Joffe. Over several decades, most doctors tried to distance themselves from both the abortion issue and their colleagues who performed the procedure, Joffe said.
It wasn’t until 2019 that the AMA stepped out of the shadows on the subject of lawmakers interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. That’s when the group filed suit to block two North Dakota abortion laws, which the organization said “compel physicians and other members of the care team to provide patients with false, misleading, non-medical information about reproductive health.” (A federal judge subsequently blocked the law.)
By the time the Supreme Court was ready in 2021 to take up the Mississippi case that would eventually overturn Roe, the AMA realized what was at stake. The state law being challenged — a ban on all abortions after 15 weeks — “threatens the health of pregnant patients by arbitrarily barring their access to a safe and essential component of health care,” the AMA said in an amicus brief it filed with two dozen other medical groups.
And after the decision reversing Roe in 2022, the AMA’s new president, Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., was quick to lament what had been lost. “Medicine is hard, and it’s hard enough without members of Congress or governors or state legislators or others trying to sit in your exam room with you and second-guess all the decisions that you’re making,” he told KHN’s “What the Health?” podcast in July.
So the AMA has apparently learned its lesson the hard way. Now the question is whether the drug industry will learn that same lesson — and when.
HealthBent, a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KHN’s chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.
By: Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
Title: Doctors’ Lesson for Drug Industry: Abortion Wars Are Dangerous to Ignore
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/mifepristone-texas-court-decision-pharma-industry/
Published Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:00:00 +0000
Kaiser Health News
TV’s Dr. Oz Invested in Businesses Regulated by Agency Trump Wants Him To Lead
SUMMARY: President-elect Donald Trump nominated celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Oz, known for his investments in healthcare, tech, and food companies, holds significant stakes in UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health, Amazon, and other companies involved in health insurance and pharmaceuticals, raising potential conflicts of interest. His financial ties include hospital stocks and pharmaceutical investments. Oz has expressed support for Medicare Advantage and criticized the food and healthcare industries. Critics question whether Oz can separate his financial interests from his role, particularly with companies doing business with the federal government.
The post TV’s Dr. Oz Invested in Businesses Regulated by Agency Trump Wants Him To Lead appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
Kaiser Health News
Florida Gov. DeSantis’ Canadian Drug Import Plan Goes Nowhere After FDA Approval
SUMMARY: Florida’s plan to import lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada, approved by the FDA nearly a year ago, has yet to launch. Governor Ron DeSantis praised the program, anticipated to save state agencies up to $180 million, but officials lack a start date. Despite bipartisan support for drug importation, complications persist, including operational challenges and safety concerns from the pharmaceutical industry. DeSantis has filed lawsuits against the FDA for delays and Florida has already spent $50 million on the initiative with no drugs imported. Other states, like Colorado, face similar hurdles in establishing importation programs.
The post Florida Gov. DeSantis’ Canadian Drug Import Plan Goes Nowhere After FDA Approval appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
Kaiser Health News
California Sets 15% Target for Primary Care Spending Over Next Decade
SUMMARY: California’s Office of Health Care Affordability has set a goal for insurers to allocate 15% of their spending to primary care by 2034, aiming to address the state’s shortage of primary care providers and improve preventive care. The current spending rate is 7%. This ambitious target seeks to reduce long-term healthcare costs by emphasizing early diagnosis and disease prevention. However, the state’s plan faces challenges, as it conflicts with a 3.5% cap on overall healthcare spending growth. The state will monitor progress, offering financial incentives to insurers who meet primary care spending goals, with the hope of expanding access and improving health outcomes.
The post California Sets 15% Target for Primary Care Spending Over Next Decade appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
-
Our Mississippi Home7 days ago
Create Art from Molten Metal: Southern Miss Sculpture to Host Annual Interactive Iron Pour
-
Local News6 days ago
Celebrate the holidays in Ocean Springs with free, festive activities for the family
-
News from the South - Georgia News Feed6 days ago
'Hunting for females' | First day of trial in Laken Riley murder reveals evidence not seen yet
-
News from the South - Alabama News Feed7 days ago
First woman installed as commanding officer of NAS Pensacola
-
Kaiser Health News4 days ago
A Closely Watched Trial Over Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban Continues Tuesday
-
Mississippi Today6 days ago
On this day in 1972
-
News from the South - Alabama News Feed2 days ago
Trial underway for Sheila Agee, the mother accused in deadly Home Depot shooting
-
News from the South - Alabama News Feed2 days ago
Alabama's weather forecast is getting colder, and a widespread frost and freeze is likely by the …