May, 17 2018, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Clare Fauke, Physicians for a National Health Program, clare@pnhp.org or 312-782-6006
Doctors in U.S. and Canada Launch Sweeping Pharmaceutical Reform Proposal
Plan published today in the British Medical Journal outlines seven steps to slash costs, improve access, and increase safety of prescription medications in both nations.
WASHINGTON
The skyrocketing cost of prescription medications is one of the biggest concerns for American voters. However, in his proposal last Friday, President Donald Trump failed to offer any new policies that would expand access, reduce costs, or increase the safety and efficacy of prescriptions.
Today, a group of 21 prominent experts published a comprehensive proposal to ensure universal access to safe, innovative, and affordable medications. "Healing an ailing pharmaceutical system: prescription for reform for the U.S. and Canada," identifies seven critical areas for reform, along with both short- and long-term solutions to improve the development, approval process, affordability, and marketing of medications:
1. Access: Even insured patients face high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them unable to fill prescriptions. To achieve universal access, the proposal calls on the U.S. and Canada to establish national formularies of the safest, most effective, and least expensive medications, and provide all residents with full coverage of formulary drugs without copays or deductibles.
2. Affordability: The industry's pricing strategy is to charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of the actual cost of development. As a result, the U.S. spends about twice as much per-capita on prescriptions than any other nation. Under this proposal, public agencies would negotiate with manufacturers to make branded medications more affordable, and if negotiations fail, issue a "compulsory license" to allow generic manufacturing. The U.S. and Canadian governments also would create a publicly owned manufacturing capacity to produce needed products, along with an increase in public funding for the development of non-patented medications.
3. Preclinical development and patent protection: The current patent system encourages the development of "me-too" products that offer only trivial modifications and higher costs. Under this proposal, patents would be limited to medications that provide real innovation. While current law allows publicly funded researchers to patent and sell their discoveries to private firms, this proposal would keep publicly funded research in the public domain. The plan also calls for health agencies to fund a new public research program to develop and test new treatments outside of the patent system, prioritizing medications with high clinical value, and for conditions deemed unprofitable and ignored by the industry. Such treatments could be sold cheaply as generics as soon as they are brought to market.
4. Clinical testing: Most clinical trials are conducted by private firms, often using unsound methods and selective reporting, calling into question the objectivity of research and the usefulness and safety of new therapies. Corporate ownership of trial data can hide safety problems and obstruct further research. The proposal calls on approval agencies to increase standards for clinical trials and increase transparency by making all trial data publicly available. Experts believe that most clinical trials should be funded and supervised by public health agencies to maintain safety standards and to facilitate innovation for needed treatments.
5. Approval reform: Regulatory agencies are funded primarily by industry fees, creating conflicts of interest. Too many unsafe products are approved, and the increased use of "expedited reviews" and weaker standards of evidence threatens to bring more unsafe or ineffective products to market. This proposal would strengthen regulators' independence by funding them exclusively with public funds. Approval agencies would strictly limit expedited reviews and the use of surrogate endpoints only to treatments likely to offer genuine clinical advances.
6. Postmarketing surveillance: Due to weakening of the approval process, postmarket studies are critical to confirm the efficacy and safety of medications already in use. However, regulators fail to penalize firms that don't complete them. The proposal would require that companies promptly perform and submit safety studies after their products are on the market, increase regulators' funding for postmarketing surveillance, and give regulators the power to order safety warnings and remove unsafe therapies from the market.
7. Promotion: Pharmaceutical corporations spend more on marketing than on research and development, and promotional materials often include inaccurate or misleading claims. This proposal would improve monitoring and stiffen sanctions for misleading or off-label promotions. Companies would be prohibited from funding continuing medical education programs for providers.
"Our pharmaceutical system prioritizes industry profits over public health, but it doesn't have to be this way," said Dr. Adam Gaffney, a critical care physician and faculty member at Harvard Medical School, and co-chair of the Pharmaceutical Reform Working Group. "Through a series of commonsense reforms, we can increase the affordability, safety, and effectiveness of medicine for our patients."
Dr. Gaffney warned that combating the power of major pharmaceutical firms won't be easy, noting that the industry spent a combined $171 million on lobbying last year. "Every year we wait for reform means another spike in medication prices," he said.
"The pharmaceutical industry directly funds the regulating arm of the FDA, and paid more than $800 million in user fees in 2017," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "The FDA's independence is too important to expose to the influence and money of the industry."
Dr. Wolfe added that increasing affordability of lifesaving therapies should be a national priority. "Lack of access to medicines results in preventable deaths and serious illness to hundreds of thousands of patients a year," he said.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) encouraged his colleagues in Congress to take action. "The outrageous cost of prescription drugs in this country is a crisis that the American people feel every day," he said. "There are real solutions we can implement that we know will lower drug prices and save lives, but what we lack right now, and what we need, is the political will from those in Congress and other elected officials to do the right thing and stand up to the greed of Big Pharma."
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
LATEST NEWS
US Lawyers Coalition Says Elite Firms Have Only One Choice: Capitulate to Trump—Or Fight Back
"These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession," says an open letter from legal groups.
Apr 23, 2025
In an open letter published Wednesday, amid the Trump administration's unprecedented scrutiny on Big Law, multiple legal groups are calling on elite American law firms to convene and coordinate a unified response to U.S. President Donald Trump's "unconstitutional actions" and "threats to the rule of law and system of justice."
The legal groups include the coalition Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the coalition Lawyers Allied Under Rule of Law, and the Steady State—which, according to the executive director of LDAD, "formed in the first Trump term as a loose association that maintained a low internet profile because many members were in government," but has "become much more organized and active" in response to the president's Department of Government Efficiency.
The groups drew a distinction between the several elite law firms who in recent weeks have negotiated deals with the Trump administration either in response to punishments imposed via executive order or to avoid the prospect of an executive order, and law firms who have resisted the Trump administration's pressure.
The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have all filed suits challenging Trump's executive orders targeting them. All four have won initial relief in court.
According to the letter, more than 800 other firms, including 17 firms on the Am Law 200—a ranking of top law firms based on gross revenue—have joined amicus briefs in defense of the firms that have sued.
"Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared Am Law 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine," the letter states.
"If you are one of these firms, you understand that the threatened executive edicts are not legal or enforceable. Rather, they are a tactic designed to enlist you in undermining the rule of law. Any concession by your prestigious firms only helps the administration intimidate the legal profession from challenging its actions," according to the legal groups.
The letter states that negotiating with the administration is futile in part because "there exists no reasonable terms for resolving this dispute."
The letter also points to the fact that all four courts that have heard the cases from firms challenging Trump "have held that the likelihood of these law firms succeeding on the merits is so great that they have taken the extraordinary step of issuing temporary restraining orders against the government’s enforcement." This is evidence, according to the letter, that negotiation is unnecessary.
"If you band together and agree to support one another, the White House strategy will collapse," the letter states. "These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession."
"We must fight because if lawyers don't stand up for the rule of law, who will? If we don't fight for the principles that we have devoted our professional lives to—and that make us a free society—those principles will be forever compromised," the letter concludes.
According to a statement from LDAD, the legal groups behind the letter collectively represent over 1,000 lawyers who who have worked as senior partners, judges, state attorneys general, senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel for major companies, and state bar presidents.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawyers for Jailed Palestine Defender Mohsen Mahdawi Demand His Release
One attorney said that the former Columbia University organizer "sits in a jail cell because of his lawful speech," while another reminded supporters that Mahdawi "has not been charged with any crime."
Apr 23, 2025
Attorneys for Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student organizer at Columbia University and permanent U.S. resident caught up in the Trump administration's crusade against Palestine defenders, argued in federal court Wednesday that their client was illegally arrested and detained for his constitutionally protected speech and should be immediately freed.
In what Mahdawi's legal team hailed as a "victory," U.S. District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford extended a temporary restraining order issued last week by Judge William Sessions III to prevent federal officials from transferring Mahdawi from Vermont, where he is being held at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans. Crawford also scheduled a new hearing for Mahdawi on April 30.
Addressing the nearly 100 letters submitted in support of Mahdawi, Crawford said that "no one has ever provided anything like that before," adding, "These were quite striking in geographic and philosophical breadth, including many members of the Jewish community."
Mahdawi, who is 34 years old and has been a green-card holder for a decade, was arrested on April 14 by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during an appointment for his citizenship test in Colchester, Vermont. He was steps away from naturalization; instead, federal agents attempted to force Mahdawi onto a plane bound for Louisiana, where other Palestine defenders are being held pending deportation proceedings.
Mahdawi's lawyers are seeking his immediate release.
"We ask this court to suspend this unlawful retaliation and slow the grave threat to free speech posed by his continued detainment by releasing Mr. Mahdawi on bail," his legal team said in a filing.
Luna Droubi, an attorney on the team, said after the hearing that "Mohsen Mahdawi sits in a jail cell because of his lawful speech."
"What the government provided thus far only establishes that the only basis they have to currently detaining him in the manner they did is his lawful speech," Droubi added. "We intend on being back in one week's time to free Mohsen."
"What the government provided thus far only establishes that the only basis they have to currently detaining him in the manner they did is his lawful speech."
Like the numerous other pro-Palestine activists arrested—critics say kidnapped—and detained by the Trump administration, the government concedes that Mahdawi committed no crime. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the secretary of state can expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to foreign policy interests.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Mahdawi should be deported because letting him remain in the country "would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
Trump administration officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have cited President Donald Trump's executive order ostensibly aimed at combating antisemitism and his edict authorizing the deportation of noncitizen students and others who took part in protests against Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza as justification for Mahdawi's arrest and detention.
However, Mahdawi has repeatedly condemned anti-Jewish hatred, including during a 2023 interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" in which he asserted that "the fight for freedom of Palestine and the fight against antisemitism go hand in hand because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
VTDiggerreported that hundreds of people gathered outside the Burlington, Vermont courthouse Wednesday to show support for Mahdawi and demand his release. Nora Rubinstein of Middletown Springs, Vermont said she was rallying in defense of "democracy and freedom" and to help the U.S. "return to the democratic principles this country was founded on."
"It's time to end the shredding of our democracy, the shredding of our Constitution," Rubinstein added.
On Monday, Mahdawi told U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who visited him behind bars, that "I wanted to become a citizen of this country because I believe in the principles of this country."
"The most important rights [are in] the Bill of Rights, which includes free speech on the top of these rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of having religion or not having religion at all," he added.
As Welch visited Mahdawi, Columbia University students, faculty, and alumni once again chained themselves to a fence to protest his detention and demand the release of not only Mahdawi but also of fellow Columbia activists and permanent U.S. residents Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung, as well as other student Palestine defenders including Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and others.
On Tuesday, a delegation of Massachusetts Democrats—U.S. Sen. Ed Markey and Reps. Jim McGovern and Ayanna Pressley—visited Khalil and Öztürk at the Louisiana ICE detention facility where they are being held. Markey accused the Trump administration of jailing the activists in Louisiana in a bid to have "the single most conservative circuit court of appeals in the United States of America" hear the case.
Mahdawi's lawyers said they believe their client will soon be free.
"We are very hopeful that he will be released," attorney Cyrus Mehta told supporters and media gathered outside the Burlington courthouse on Wednesday. "The judge wants to move quickly, and he realizes that this is a case of great importance for this country."
"What we're seeing here is unprecedented where they are so hell-bent on detaining students," Mehta added. "These are not hardened criminals. These are people who have not been charged with any crime, they have also not been charged under any of the other deportation provisions of the immigration act."
One of the attorneys read the crowd a statement from Mahdawi in which he said that "this hearing is part of the system of democracy" that "prevents a tyrant from having unchecked power."
"I am in prison," he added, "but I am not imprisoned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty to Kristi Noem: 'Stop Revoking Visas of Foreign Students'
"These repressive tactics and the summary revocation of people's immigration status," said Amnesty, "demonstrate an utter lack of respect for their human rights."
Apr 23, 2025
The global human rights group Amnesty International on Tuesday called on supporters of the United States' core constitutional rights to write to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, demanding that the Trump administration stop its campaign to strip foreign students of their right to be in the country for exercising their First Amendment freedoms.
As Common Dreamsreported Tuesday, since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accosted former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil, forced him into an unmarked vehicle, and took him to a detention center in Louisiana thousands of miles from his pregnant wife in March, the administration's attacks on international students have only intensified.
Seven identified students have had their visas revoked, while the administration is pushing to revoke the residency status of at least two students who protested the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Gaza.
The White House is using a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to claim that certain students including Khalil pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy and should be deported.
"At least 1,300 additional students are known to have had their visas revoked," reads a letter template provided to supporters by Amnesty. "However, many of these students never received notice of the revocation, nor did they participate in any protest or expressive activity on campus. Some students may have been targeted due to having committed minor crimes such as traffic violations. According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of students, many were targeted because of their country of origin, particularly those from African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Asian backgrounds."
Supporters who send the letter can urge Noem to "restore the visas and immigration status of these students and visitors, release all students from immigration detention, refrain from deporting any of them, and end the targeting of students based on their immigration statuses and for exercising their human rights."
"According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of students, many were targeted because of their country of origin, particularly those from African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Asian backgrounds."
As Common Dreams reported, President Donald Trump's attacks on foreign students' First Amendment rights and his threats to universities' funding if they don't comply with his policies aimed at rooting out criticism of U.S. policy in Israel and Palestine, which both Republican and Democratic politicians have claimed is synonymous with antisemitism, have pushed schools to notify hundreds of students that their visas were revoked.
Trump's attacks on international students have shocked several federal judges, and one judge in Georgia on Friday ordered ICE to restore the legal status of students whose visas were revoked due to DHS' termination of their records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS).
DHS admitted in a court filing last week that it does not have the authority to change students' visa status via SEVIS.
"These repressive tactics and the summary revocation of people's immigration status," said Amnesty, "whether due to their speech and protest activities or their country of origin, demonstrate an utter lack of respect for their human rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, due process, and to be free from discrimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular