Popular Articles

Sen. Graham Announces Support For Sotomayor As Republicans Continue To Weigh Votes
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday said he intends to vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, making him the fifth Republican senator to endorse the nominee, USA Today reports. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) became the 10th Republican to say that he will vote against her confirmation. During Sotomayor"s confirmation hearings last week, both Graham and Kyl "grilled her extensively," USA Today reports (Kiely/Brettschneider, USA Today, 7/23). According to Politico, Republicans privately estimate that Sotomayor could receive upward of 70 votes (Kady, Politico, 7/23). The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination Tuesday, followed by a full Senate vote late next week or the first week of August (Stanton, Roll Call, 7/22).According to CQ Today, Graham"s support could encourage other conservatives to back Sotomayor (Perine, CQ Today, 7/22). Graham said that Sotomayor "is definitely more liberal" than any Supreme Court nominee a Republican president would have chosen but that she also is "one of the most qualified" nominees in decades. He added, "I do believe that elections have consequences, and it"s not like we hid from the American people during the campaign that the Supreme Court nomination was at stake. The American people spoke" (USA Today, 7/23). Graham also said that he believes that Sotomayor "follows precedent" and "would not be an activist judge" (CQ Today, 7/22). He continued, "On balance, I do believe that the court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology with her selection," adding, "On some issues, quite frankly, (she) may be more balanced in her approach" (Hirschfeld Davis, AP/Boston Globe, 7/22).Kyl said, "Unfortunately, I have not been persuaded that Judge Sotomayor is absolutely committed to setting aside her biases and impartially deciding cases based upon the rule of law," adding, "And I cannot ignore her unwillingness to answer senators" questions straightforwardly" (Politico, 7/23).Broadcast Coverage NPR"s "All Things Considered" on Wednesday reported on Graham"s support of Sotomayor (Shapiro, "All Things Considered," NPR, 7/22).
drugs without prescription
NHS Finances In Better Shape But Action Needed Now To Prepare For Leaner Years From 2011, UK
Commenting in response to the Public Accounts Select Committee report into financial management in the NHS, which highlighted the service had a ÷£1.7 billion surplus at the end of 2007/8, The King"s Fund"s Chief Executive Niall Dickson said:
News of the day
H1N1 Confirmed In Three More African Countries; Cambodia, Indonesia Confirm First Cases
The H1N1 (swine flu) virus has reached the sub-Saharan African countries of Cape Verde, Ethiopia and Ivory Coast, according to the WHO, the AP/Boston Herald reports. Last week, South Africa became the first country in the region to confirm a 12-year-old, who had returned from the U.S., tested positive for the H1N1 virus.
Diagnostics

Costly Drugs Known As Biologics Prompt Exclusivity Debate

"A bitter Congressional fight over the cost of superexpensive biotechnology drugs has come down to a single, hotly debated number: How many years should makers of those drugs be exempt from generic competition?" The New York Times reports. "At issue are such drugs as Biogen Idec"s Avonex, for multiple sclerosis, which can cost more than $20,000 a year; Genentech"s Avastin for cancer, which can cost more than $50,000; and several Genzyme drugs for rare diseases that can cost $200,000 a year or more. ̣€¦ Because they are hard to copy exactly, they have not been subject to the generic competition that eventually knocks down the price of drugs like Lipitor and Prozac." "But now Congress, as a cost-cutting piece of the overall health care effort, is preparing legislation to enable the Food and Drug Administration to approve copycat versions of biologic drugs. That could save consumers, insurers and the government billions of dollars in the coming years. The trick is to allow competition without undermining the financial incentives the pharmaceutical industry needs to undertake the risky job of developing the next drugs for cancer and other diseases." Pharmaceutical trade groups say they require a 12-14 year exclusivity period in order to recoup their investments, "but consumer groups, insurers, employers and generic drug companies say anything more than five yearṣ€¦ would eviscerate any potential savings from the new competition. So far, the biotechnology industry appears to be winning. The Senate"s health committee, for example, has agreed to 12 years of exclusivity. In the House, a bill that provides at least 12 years of exclusivity has many more co-sponsors than one that would provide five years. The Obama administration has said that seven years would be a "generous compromise."" But The Times reports that "in reality, neither the threats to innovation nor the potential savings from generic competition are as great as claimed" because of patent rules that often last longer than an exclusivity period. But an exclusivity period could affect biologics that have already been on the market for over a decade. "As for cost savings, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that generic biologics might save the government only about $10 billion in the next 10 years," but "the real savings might come more than 10 years out, as new biologic drugs appeared and as biologics represented an increasingly greater part of overall spending on drugs" (Pollack, 7/21). This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org. © Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):