Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Access to Medicines’ Category

I’m catching up on my reading now, so passing on links to a number of  important studies , some ongoing , published in late 2010, including:

Public Citizen
Pharmaceutical Industry Is Biggest Defrauder of the Federal Government Under the False Claims Act

MSF/Doctors Without Borders
Access to Essential Medicines: Ten Stories That Mattered in 2010

ProPublica
Dollars for Docs: What Drug Companies are Paying Your Doctor

American Medical Students Association
AMSA PharmFree Scorecard 2010 : Conflict of Interest Policies at Academic Medical Centers

and in the news Supreme Court Reviews Data Mining & Free Speech

Also of  note, the upcoming conference of the National Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices :NLARx Meeting on Drug Pricing & Affordability, Friday, January 21, 2011, Washington D.C.  


Read Full Post »

Beyond the challenges planned to overturn the Affordable Care Act in the US, we need to keep abreast of news  from around the world affecting access to care , such as these headline stories:

HIV Patients May Soon Face a Choice: Full Price Meds or No Meds At All

U.S. Backs Drug Firms in Lawsuit Over Prices

Deadly Spin Strikes a Chord

Firms fight move to obtain cheap anti-blindness drug Avastin

and from North America, illustrating that it’s not only quality control and manufacturing issues, but the profit motive that contributes to shortages of important drugs:

Report warns of medication shortages across Canada

A push to ease prescription drug shortages: Sen. Klobuchar to propose easing imports of medication from abroad

Darcy Malard-Johnson, a pharmacist at the University of Minnesota’s cancer clinic, said 13 of the 150 drugs on the current shortage list are cancer drugs. Most have been around for years, she said, and that may be one of the problems. Because they’re generic, they’re not as profitable to make or sell as newer drugs. And there’s no way of knowing when a company will simply decide to stop making it.

The shortage of oncology drugs in particular was also highlighted in NCI Cancer Bulletin in an article entitled Continued Shortage of Chemotherapy Drugs Causing Concern.

The FDA’s Drug Shortages  website includes current shortages, status updates, and a list of drugs to be  discontinued, per the following terms:

Companies are required under 21 CFR 314.81(b)(3)(iii) to provide FDA with a six month advance notice of the discontinuation of sole source products that are life-supporting, life-sustaining or for use in the prevention of a debilitating disease or condition. From time to time, FDA also receives notification for other products. These discontinuations are provided below for informational purposes only.

Health Canada currently does not conduct such monitoring or provide information on drug shortages, actions that the Canadian Pharmacists Association has urged the government to take on quickly to address the serious and growing problem.

Read Full Post »

The end of the year with its annual holidays found many  of us here in Washington State feeling anything but in a festive mood, given the imminent decimation of core health and human services, as part of  the Governor’s proposal for balancing of the state’s  budget in the new year and for the biennium.  On September 13th, Governor Gregoire’s Executive Order 10-04 instructed all state agencies to make reductions in their allotments from the State General fund in order to meet the requirement for a balanced  budget. On September 29, DSHS issued its initial plan of how the 6.3% across-the-board budget cuts would be applied to Department programs to meet this mandate. The proposed cuts were aimed at every program and service (included some entirely state-funded and other linked to Medicaid)  not technically defined as “mandatory,” affecting the state’s most vulnerable populations in all age-groups from pre-cradle to grave, and including  primary care delivered at community health centers.

By December, a supplemental budget proposal with even worse news was issued, containing further  proposals for achieving the needed $4 billion in savings to balance the budget. The drastic cuts to almost every aspect of civic life, was driven by outcomes of  ballot measures  from the November elections, which dashed any hopes even of short-term new revenue generation  from snack sales, rejection of a first-ever state income tax to have been levied only on the wealthiest among us, and hamstrung future legislative efforts to raise taxes with the 2/3 majority approval stipulation.  By December 30, the Governor released the latest list of planned budget cuts,and the timeline for their elimination. While some of the worst of the cuts have been staved off or delayed temporarily, it still remains to be seen whether the remaining services will be funded, even in vastly reduced mode, and how many human beings affected by the cuts will even survive.

While at this stage in my life nothing surprises me any more, the discrepancy between what is happening to these most basic of services and the treatment of the high-profile, socially attractive high tech sector by state government should be a wake up call to all of us who value a decent society. While the majority of Washingtonians have not misbehaved, it seems like the most vulnerable among us are being singled out for punishment.

State Dollars > Private Venture

During exactly same time period that the budget cuts were first announced in October, another state agency, the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, gave a grant of $5 million to a private, for-profit business, the Omeros Corporation, a Seattle biopharmaceutical company, for  research into speculative personalized medicines. The grant to Omeros was rolled into a package deal for the firm, that included $25M from Paul Allen’s Vulcan Capital. Even Xconomy: Seattle‘s biotech reporter Luke Timmerman expressed great surprise at this development in his Dec. 14 article entitled Life Sciences Discovery Fund Debunks Perceptions with Omeros Deal, Shows State Can Bankroll Companies. If the research ever pans out, then there is the possibility of financial returns to the state at some unknown time in the future.

A bit of background: Washington’s Life Sciences Discovery Fund was established by the Legislature in 2005 to disburse the tobacco settlement funds allocated to the state. While the the fund originally had been allocated $350M for a 10-year period, when the State’s budget crisis threatened to shut down the program in 2009, it survived with a budget cut of 41% or $39M in funds for FYs 2009-2011. The LSDF’s  stated mission is as follows:

The Life Sciences Discovery Fund supports innovative research in Washington state to promote life sciences competitiveness, enhance economic vitality, and improve health and health care.

which the  program website further explains as intending to “foster growth of the state’s life sciences sector and improve the health and economic wellbeing of its residents.”

But given the crisis situation we now face–in context of course of the ongoing national recession–emergency measures are needed.  It hardly seems the time for state government to be investing in private companies, purely ethical issues aside for the moment. Obviously, it’s going to take more than redirecting the “mere” $5M given by the LSDF to a private venture to save public health services in Washington State, but those funds certainly could have turned things around for a good number of the axed programs, such as the Basic Health Program insurance plan and so many Medicaid services.  While research is important, without access to care, medical innovations are meaningless.  What good is research, if there is no safety net? Given the LSDF’s mission, it should be part of the logical solution needed  now: making sure that all Washingtonians can benefit from the medical knowledge available today. And the state government can take a leadership role too in education on the need for investment in our human capital. Despite laments over the election outcomes,and grim prognostics, the official ChooseWashington.com website continues to highlight the array of attractive tax incentives, some of which I had commented on previously, for certain types of companies to set up shop here, along with the absence of a personal income tax.

Another part of the Governor’s plan to balance the budget, announced December 14, is to eliminate Boards and Commissions. No mention was made in this announcement, however, about the status of  a brand-new board, the Global Health Technologies Competitiveness Board established in July 2010, after SB 6675 Creating the Washington global health technologies and product development competitiveness program and allowing certain tax credits for program contributions, was approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gregoire. Per RCW 43.374.010, among the Board’s charges are seeking funding from the private sector, foundations, and the federal government in order to issue grants to local enterprises …to stimulate our economy and foster job creation in the emerging field of global health while improving the health of people in our state and the world. The program is required to be administered by a 501(c)6 tax-exempt nonprofit organization, which contracts with the Dept. of Commerce for administrative services.

The Global Health Technologies Competitiveness Program (GHTCP) was awarded $1M by the Legislature (evidently not subject to the budget cuts) and issued its first RFP in mid-November, with awards expected to be announced early in the new year, along with a second RFP announcement, according to the Washington Global Health Alliance.

Think Globally, Act Locally ?

These new developments beg the question of just exactly what these specific state-funded programs are doing to improve the health  of Washington residents in the here and now. I write these words from the perspective of understanding full well how domestic and  international health are inextricably linked, whether regarding diseases rapidly transcending national borders or concerning the impact of international trade agreements on availability of medicines for US Medicaid programs, just to name a few examples. I myself am alive today partly as a result of medical advances developed here in Seattle, and I am also directly involved with both local and global health equity work, which makes me even more appalled at what is going on. Global health has been described as Seattle’s “next hot industry,” but few are the public voices applying critical thinking skills to analyze what this actually means for local folks. One of the exceptions is that of Seattle journalist Tom Paulson, who now offers insights on his Humanosphere blogsuch as a November 2010 story on a still-vague, 5-year  $1M  Swedish Medical Center pilot project called Global to Local targeting two low-income communities in  South King County.  Tom pointed out the irony  of this program being rolled out at the very same time that well-established and proven-effective, public health services are being slashed. According to the article, G2L is based on a concept that the “best practices” used by local actors in overseas health programs can be applied here at home too, while structural reasons for domestic health and healthcare inequalities are not addressed. And another observer, Steve Gloyd, MD of Health Alliance International and the UW Dept. of Global Health, has opined that there can be an upside to calling global health an “industry”:

“Maybe using the word will shock people into recognizing that when a local biotech firm says it is working on a vaccine to help people in Africa, some will see it is actually just trying to make a few people in Seattle rich.”

Next year, a new nonprofit called Global Health Nexus will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Seattle World’s Fair with a major conference and exhibition showcasing the region’s global-health advancements. One has to wonder if anyone working to improve health at the local level will be invited to present, or if we’ll be able to afford the registration fees. Perhaps advocates can submit an abstract for a session there featuring real-life Washingtonians sharing first-hand accounts of the outcomes of state budget cuts on preventable health problems, such as  a child who has  been experiencing asthma attacks since elimination of the Children’s Health Program; an adult with diabetes who had to get their leg amputated due to lack of non-emergency podiatry care;  or the relative of a patient who died due to a wrong diagnosis resulting from lack of a medical interpreter;  or we could show  videos of overflowing ERs full of patients bumped from the Basic Health Program and unable to be seen at community clinics. Then maybe we could pass the hat among the rich and famous to take to up a collection for local health.

Read Full Post »

A friend recently shared this personal story with me, in the hopes that it will inspire people to demand price controls on drugs, as well as an end to the Rx profiteering by insurance companies. This is a story about a commonly-prescribed generic drug, levothyroxine, used for hypothyroidism and other thyroid conditions. The fact that this is a common and generic drug is significant. Since it is a widely used drug, the following story gives perspectives on the scope and amount of profit being made on just this one medicine. And in turn, this small story can help increase understanding of the magnitude of the Rx pricing problem.

Now for the story. My friend recently retired from nursing at not quite age 65, and had been paying costly COBRA premiums until she could enroll in Medicare. The hospital where she had worked offered a comprehensive plan through one of the big insurers in Washington state, including a $7 co-pay for drugs on the plan’s formulary. Levothyroxine was one of these.

After retirement, my friend planned an extended out-of-area trip, so she wanted to purchase a full 3-month supply of her medicine to take with her. She had coverage via COBRA for October,  but could not get benefits from Medicare Part D until her Medicare activation date the following month. So she planned to pay the $7 co-pay for her medicine for October, plus the out-of-pocket price for the supply for the next 2 months.  She had checked the Rx price look-up feature of the  insurance company’s website, and learned that the retail price of levothyroxine was listed as $24-$28 for a 30-day supply. My friend then took her script for 90 days of levothyroxine to be filled at the community pharmacy she had always used, and got a big surprise.

This time, the surprise wasn’t the sticker shock we have come to expect all too frequently, but just the opposite,  and equally problematic. The pharmacy told her that while she was welcome to apply her co-pay to 30-days worth of the medicine, they could sell her the entire 90-days worth for a total of $10!!!!!

While this was good for her pocketbook, she was astounded to think about how much this basic generic drug had been marked up to benefit the insurance company and the manufacturer who set the price reported to the insurer. While the pharmacy was undoubtedly making a modest return on this Rx, it was presumably not out to gouge its customers, quite remarkable these days. And this is not even a one of the costly drugs, even at the retail price listed by the insurer. When one figures how many scripts are written for levothyroxine across the country each month, the dollar amounts are staggering.

The lesson to individual consumers is that while we must continue to push for price controls on Rx drugs, we also need to shop around for prices, even if insured. And it’s good to remember that even for those with Rx  insurance coverage, there is no requirement that an Rx benefit be used, if a better cash price is found. It can be difficult to check medicine prices, but well worth the time spent doing research over the phone and via the Internet. Plus there are resources for some states and communities that offer Rx price-comparison tools that include commercial pharmacies. For example. folks in Illinois can check prices for drugs and medical procedures, on Leslies List, an independent website created by primary care physician Leslie Ramirez, to help improve access to care. In my state, there is a price-checker tool for drugs on the formulary of the Washington Prescription Drug Program. BTW, all WA state residents can request a free WPDP card to use at participating pharmacies. I have found in some cases, the WPDP price for certain medicines is less than the co-pay charged by my insurance company. It pays to compare prices between big box stores, supermarket pharmacies, and community pharmacies. The “$4 generics” that have been so widely promoted may not always be the best  deal, nor actually sold at that price. Another resource for helpful tips on shopping for drugs and their prices is Consumer Reports.

Caveat emptor!

Read Full Post »

The first international  “Selling Sickness” Conference held October 7-8 in Amsterdam drew some 200 participants from around the globe to discuss the issues and trends in marketing of prescription drugs. While most attendees were from Europe, all regions of the world were represented at the event. Slide shows of the presentations, along with a list of attendees, may be viewed on the conference website.

Many of  conference presentations  focused on the  phenomena and techniques of  promotion of “disease mongering”: use of pharma promotions to depict normal life issues as diseases and to encourage consumers to visit doctors to seek prescriptions to treat these disorders.  My poster displayed at the conference focused on a different facet of inappropriate drug promotion, the equally problematic practice of misleading promotion of a very useful new drug for genuine and deadly diseases. The poster Glivec in Global Perspective, covers highlights of the worldwide promotions for the breakthrough cancer drug Glivec, done for a different purpose. Since Glivec is quite effective for most patients for whom it is indicated, its manufacturer Novartis has used promotions to aim to secure both its excessive global price and monopoly patent status for the drug.

Novartis, a relatively new company on the scene, formed from the  merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz  in 1996, has invested heavily in patient relationship marketing to further its goals. Influencing patient groups by all the well-known techniques used to woo doctors to prescribe certain medicines–along with patient-specific types of outreach–has been used to induce enthusiastic lobbying for Glivec, and ostensibly to keep patients from recognizing and protesting the real cause behind access problems for this drug, its exorbitant price. Novartis has not hesitated to approach cancer groups, and to help create new ones, through emotional manipulation of the genuine despair  linked to the diseases and the experiences of patients with health systems. Yet most patients continue to seem to be unaware of  what is really going on, showing the power of the promotions. This poster was created as an educational resource on drug promotion as a critical public health issue. While no health system, insurer, government, or individual has unlimited resources, the vast majority of patient groups lobbying for access to Glivec, along with other costly drugs, act as if cost were irrelevant. Unless things change, access to this and other important medicines is only going to get worse. Those of us with both personal and professional experience in this realm can play an important role in spreading the sunshine on this vital topic. Supporting information and references were too lengthy to include in the poster, so have been organized as a separate document.

Read Full Post »

That might be the conclusion drawn by readers of a recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek. Recession Causing Cancer Patients to Quit Life-Extending Drugs which was the August 4 feature in  the Executive Health column. This news story earned billing as  the Outrage of the Week in  NLARx News from the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices.  The original article discusses the dire plight of patients  in California with GIST ( gastrointestinal stromal tumor) who lost their jobs and hence insurance, and  are no longer able to afford the Gleevec which has been keeping them alive to the tune of $5000/month.  Or for those who still have insurance, the unaffordable cost of the co-pays, often 50-70% of the Rx retail cost, in accordance with the now-common tiered formulary systems.  Equally outrageous however is that the article completely misses the boat when discussing remedies for the situation.  Author Amanda Gardner describes how patient assistance programs (PAPs) may be available temporarily for some patients as a stop-gap measure, and posits how things should get better  as the provisions of  the Affordable Care Act  roll out.  In the meantime, however,  the very survival of many of the patients  described is in jeopardy  with no solution in sight, if we are to believe such spokespeople as  Stepehn Finan, senior policy director of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network , who was quoted stating that [the PAPs]

…….. are the only real options at this point for people who are pressed to afford their prescription costs.

Yet the urgent need for something to be done about the exorbitant price of drugs  is not mentioned in this article. Unaffordable medicines are not inevitable. Real remedies exist such as allowing CMS to negotiate for drug prices like the VA does,  instituting price controls, and allowing  prompt development of generics of the most costly drugs. The grip of Big Biopharma  lobbyists on Congress will remain strong if the public continues to believe that nothing can be done.

For the record, the vast majority of funding for the research that led to creation of Gleevec came from government coffers and nonprofit sector sources, and drug’s first US patent expires in 2015.

Read Full Post »

During the first week of July, an action alert  was sent out by  the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices (NLARx)  about the need for states to take immediate action on this. The full memo can be read via the link on the Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Reform page of the NLARx website .  Among the key factor making this an urgent issue are the retroactivity requirement of state rebates to the federal government to  Jan.1;  and that while CMS is barred from sharing  AMP and federal Best Price Data with the states, very few states require manufacturers to report drug prices directly to them.

The Progressive States Network  also published a useful  short article on the topic :

Preventing Loss of Medicaid Drug Rebate Funds for States

While the new Affordable Health Care law provides a variety of funding opportunities for states, a provision governing how rebates on drug prices negotiated for prescription drugs are shared could shift billions of dollars from cash-strapped states to the federal government. However, if states move quickly, they can act aggressively to secure both federal best price rebates and state supplemental rebates that can realize Medicaid rebates as high as 40-50% – increasing the rebate portion states hold onto and off-setting losses………….

The NLARx annual conference is coming up August 15-18 in Portland , Maine and this topic will be discussed in detail.

Read Full Post »

Allison Bass’ most recent blog post should serve as inspiration to all , especially to those who think that nothing can be done:

Fighting for lower drug prices, or how to counteract Big Pharma’s lobbying

She gets right to the point with her analysis and recommendations:

Why? The reason is glaringly obvious: Congress won’t give the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to negotiate lower drug prices because too many of its members are in bed with the industry. That’s why HHS was expressly prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices in the Medicare Part D legislation enacted during the Bush administration.

<snip>

It’s difficult for individual consumers to have much of a voice in the face of such well-oiled (forgive the pun) special interests. But it doesn’t hurt to try. So I will repeat what I told the Mount Holyoke crowd: Pick up the phone or write a letter/email to your Congressional representatives telling them that you want Congress to pass a law giving HHS the power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid (and while you’re at it, ask for a ban on direct to consumer advertising too).

Obviously this was a select crowd she was speaking to, but the message is clear and vital for us all. Time for everyone to become a broken record on the topic.

Allison is a journalist and medical writer, and author of the book  Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and A Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial.  Her blog focuses on “the serious flaws in our health care system and the need for reform.”


Read Full Post »

From Pharmalot, May 24, 2010:

Wyeth Marketing Targeted Blacks Illegally: Lawsuit

A pair of former hospital sales reps filed a whistleblower suit alleging Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer, illegally promoted its Rapamune kidney transplant drug for use with other organs and targeted African-Americans, even though this is a high-risk patient group, according to the product labeling ………..

<snip>

“Despite limited data on high-risk patients, Wyeth targeted transplant centers that catered primarily to African-American patients, typically in urban areas……………  Wyeth also instructed reps to use journal articles, including one published in Transplantion in July 2002 to off-label market Rapamune to African-Americans for combinations that were not approved by the FDA…………….

From Oncology NEWS International, May 13, 2010:

Global cost-sharing programs for pricey drugs fall short

Survey results indicate patient access schemes in the UK and the U.S. need refinement.

With the cost of cancer drugs increasing at a rate that is generally thought to be unsustainable, many countries are faced with the difficult question of how to ensure access to these drugs without breaking the financial resources of individuals and systems paying for them……….

From BBC News,  June 3, 2010

Cancer fund cash ‘will run out’

Making more cancer drugs available could cost far more than government estimates according to a BBC investigation.The government has allowed for a £200m cancer drug fund to pay for more cancer treatments from next year. But the cost could rise to £600m based on figures from drug manufacturers and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

<snip>

Health economist Professor Alan Maynard……………..said many of the cancer drugs were portrayed as wonder drugs when they only extend a patient’s life by three to four months.”The pharmaceutical companies’ PR has been first class.”

Read Full Post »

These news items have as yet not received much attention, but highlight health issues of concern:

Asda to sell cancer drugs at cost price

Asda is to sell cancer drugs on a not-for-profit basis while thousands of NHS patients continue to be denied medicines that are deemed too expensive.

The supermarket giant called on other pharmacists to follow its lead and lower the price of all cancer drugs that are prescribed privately, to give patients access to drugs that are not always available on the NHS.

The move could save cancer patients thousands of pounds on the cost of treatments that may extend their lives by weeks, months or years, but which have been judged to be too expensive to be routinely available for free from the health service.

The move comes as the Government restated a pledge to make more expensive treatments available to NHS patients from April next year, with a £200million fund to pay for cancer drugs………..

What is not mentioned in the article is urgent need for price controls on medicines.  If the NHS  is going to be successful in implementing the new cancer drugs fund, it’s going to need to negotiate prices with the biopharmas.  No health system public or private, nor any insurer, employer, or individual has endless resources, although the drug companies typically act like purchasers do.  And for the most part , advocacy campaigns by patient and disease groups, no matter their location, seem to focus only on demands for drugs, not that  genuinely useful drugs be made available by being affordable.  With so many patient groups receiving industry funding, this is no surprise, but it certainly is not a sustainable position for resolving the access problems.  While the conflict-of-interest issue may have often garnered more attention in the UK than in the US,  it’s a growing, worldwide phenomenon.  And even in the UK, most ordinary folks simply cannot afford to pay out of pocket for drugs with 5- and 6- figure annual costs, nor can the NHS if it is to continue to fulfill its mission.

Asda is a large UK supermarket chain, part of the Walmart group.  Earlier this year, Asda pharmacies started selling specialty prescription drugs needed for IVF treatments, which likewise were not being covered by the NHS.

Also relevant to cancer treatment is a news item from the US:

Altamonte Springs stem cell company scheduled for sale at debtors auction

A judge has ordered Cryobanks International, an Altamonte Springs company that stores stem cells in super-cold freezers, to either repay a California businessman the $3.5 million he loaned it or be sold at a courthouse auction in two weeks.

Company President John R. Edwards, M.D., would not predict Wednesday what would happen to the company or who would wind up owning it.

Of the auction, he said, “I don’t know if anything can be done to stop it.”

But he stressed that the company’s stem cells would remain safe. From 5,000 to 10,000 units are currently housed in liquid-nitrogen freezers at the company’s Altamonte Springs office…………

The type of stem cells referred to are those from the umbilical cord blood of newborns, which now can be used  in the same way as bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cells, for transplantation  to replace the malfunctioning immune systems of patients with blood cancers and other diseases.  Most of the customers of Cryobanks International are private individuals who have paid to store the cord blood of their newborns as supposed “biological insurance” against many  future ills, often wooed by emotional marketing of an industry that is still unregulated in the US. Most medical groups worldwide, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend against private cord blood banking, and stress the tremendous unmet need for donation to public banking programs to serve today’s patients. Because of the small volume of blood from the umbilical cord, most such transplants are done for children.

And therein lies the public health concern about the future of Cryobanks International.   In addition to its private clients, since late 2005 the company has been a network member of  BeThe Match (formerly called the National Marrow Donor Program or NMDP) , the federal contractee which operates the US national public cord blood registry. Currently it’s possible to donate cord blood only in a handful of states, and Cryobanks International is listed as offering a unique “mail-in” option for interested expectant parents living everywhere else. Information does not seem to be readily available about the federal subcontract, nor on how many cord blood units have been collected by Cryobanks International for the NMDP. (It’s also not clear why an exact count of  stored CBUs held by Cryobanks did not seem to be available for the news story.)  CI states it has a division in India as well, with an India-specific website listing multiple sites nationwide.

This is not the first time that questions and controversy  have swirled around  Cryobanks International. In 2003, CI was identified as the supplier of cord blood to an Atlanta regenerative medicine clinic raided and shut down by the FDA. Run by an osteopath named Mitchell  Ghen, the clinic offered unapproved treatments  to desperate patients with diseases like ALS. Ghen offered expensive therapies using cord blood stem cells, but it is not clear if these were actual blood stem cell transplants.  CI cut off supplies of cord blood units (CBUs) to Ghen, who then relocated his clinic to Belize ,offering the same treatments– source of the CBUs unknown–and generating the same concerns.

Subsequently, media outlets including the New York Times reported on other business  activities involving CI.  In 2005, CI stated it was negotiating a merger with a new cord blood company named Biostem, which previously ran parking lots, provided Internet services, and operated a small mining company in Washington state. According to the Times, Biostem was being promoted to potential investors through dubious advertising pitches for so-called penny stocks. According to SEC records, the merger was abandoned in 2007.

I’ll be writing more soon about the complex field of blood and marrow transplantation and other key policy issues.  In the meantime, the public needs solid information about what’s going on with Cryobanks International and the Be the Match program.  Stay tuned as I endeavor to learn more.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »