Biologics
Tuesday, June 9 2009
This is Senator Dodd (D-CT), from a Politico story on pending health care legislation:
“There are some gaps. But there are no gaps in our determination, my determination and that of my colleagues to have a public option, pay-or-play, or biologics,” Dodd said.
The public option I get; that’s the proposal to a have a government-based insurance program. Pay-or-play I understand to mean a mandate for businesses to provide insurance, or pay the government to provide it.
But biologics? How is that a health reform issue?
Biologics are drugs generated by biological processes. Remicade is probably the best example of a biologic drug: it’s made by genetically engineering microbes to pump out proteins derived from mouse cells. Biologic drugs have been promising for many patients, but also tremendously expensive and profitable for their manufacturers. But just knowing that doesn’t explain why it’s a health reform issue.
I called Sen. Dodd’s office; they weren’t sure what he meant – possibly funding for research into new biologics. My guess is that he’s talking about generic biologics; see, for example, this Boston Globe article. Proponents of bio-generics argue that proprietary biological drugs are too expensive, so making them available more cheaply would reduce the costs of health care. This is an issue that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in particular has been pushing – witness his letter to President Obama yesterday.
In general, patients are better served by having more generic options. But in this case, I am a little skeptical about bio-generics – so I am not convinced it’s an essential part of health care reform. Of course, the biologic drugs I’ve taken haven’t really helped me, so I may be biased.
