Not to be Outdone, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Will Also Hold a Health Care Reform Hearing September 18, 2008

United States House of Representatives

America’s Need for Health Reform

Subcommittee on Health Hearing

9:30 a.m. in Room 2123
Rayburn House Office Building

[Witness List to Come.]

I’ll have live video, and live-blog it, if time permits.

Senate Finance Committee Health Care Reform Hearing — No. 2 of 3 — September 16, 2008

This next Senate hearing — in the series of three, immediately before election day 2008 — will be held on September 16 –- Delivery system reform –- creating a patient-centered model of care, understanding the importance of primary care and developing new approaches to shore up its role in the health system. This is the one to which Big Pharma ought listen most-intently.

The fianl hearing in the series will be held on September 23 –- Insurance market reform -– exploring ways to improve access to coverage through pooling arrangements, or through the creation of a health insurance exchange or “connector” -– connecting individuals, small businesses and those eligible for premium subsidies to available health insurance plans.

The Full Witness Line-up — for the first Senate hearing:

[LIVE REALMEDIA VIDEO LINK, here, on Hearing-day morning.]

UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE

“Aligning Incentives:
The Case for Delivery System Reform“

September 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.,
in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Member Statements:

Senator Max Baucus, MT

Senator Charles Grassley, IA
[Click on each name, above, and below,for full-text, easy-view versions of the statements, on Hearing day.]

Witness Statements:

Mark E. Miller, Ph.D., Executive Director, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Washington, DC

Glenn Steele Jr., M.D., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA

Robert Berenson, M.D., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, Washington, DC

Eric G. Campbell, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, MA

By Order of the Chairman:

Max Baucus (D, MT),
United States Senator,
and Chairman, Senate
Committee on Finance

And By:

Charles S. Grassley (R, IA)
United States Senator
and Ranking Member,
Committee on Finance

We’ll have LIVE video, and when the below-light is “ON” — live-blogging as welll — so do join us!

Not to be Outdone, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Will Also Hold a Health Care Reform Hearing September 18, 2008

United States House of Representatives

America’s Need for Health Reform

Subcommittee on Health Hearing

9:30 a.m. in Room 2123
Rayburn House Office Building

Chairman Dingell’s Opening Statement

I’ll have live video, and live-blog it, if time permits.

Musings on the Reinstated Merck Vioxx Securities litigation. . . .

A very insightful e-mailer has pointed out that this latest Merck Vioxx reinstatement decision (as ably-covered by Ed Silverman, two days ago — he, lately of Pharmalot fame) related to securities fraud class action claims, may have unforeseen ripple effects in Schering-Plough’s (and Merck’s) current litigation firestorms — those related to Vytorin/Zetia.

How so? Well, consider this possibility:

To the extent that Schering and Merck continue to soft-pedal the “possibility” that the SEAS trial cancer incidence data were indicative of an actually elevated risk of cancer while patients were taking Vytorin, this decision can be read (with its adoption of a “possibility” standard for notice of securities claims, for purposes of beginning the statute of limitations clock) to suggest that the clock has not yet started to run on the statute of limitations — at least as to claims related to cancers that develop, or ultimately prove to be fatal, while the patient is taking Vytorin.

Said more simply, Schering and Merck may unwittingly be increasing the number of ultimately non-time-barred putative SEAS-cancer claimants (and injured securities investors) — by taking this aggressive “positive spin” public relations posture on the SEAS cancer data. It would be fair to say that, as of this moment, the companies have not put the world on notice that there is a “substantial possibility” of a cancer event related (in some ill-defined manner) to being on Vyotrin.

Thus, as has long been believed by practitioners of the oldest Zen traditions of philosophy — when one pushes entirely too hard for a particular outcome — the opposite of that desired outcome (almost) always appears.

“Things that make you go ‘hmmmmmmm’. . . .”

Musings on the Reinstated Merck Vioxx Securities litigation. . . .

A very insightful e-mailer has pointed out that this latest Merck Vioxx reinstatement decision (as ably-covered by Ed Silverman, two days ago — he, lately of Pharmalot fame) related to securities fraud class action claims, may have unforeseen ripple effects in Schering-Plough’s (and Merck’s) current litigation firestorms — those related to Vytorin/Zetia.

How so? Well, consider this possibility:

To the extent that Schering and Merck continue to soft-pedal the “possibility” that the SEAS trial cancer incidence data were indicative of an actually elevated risk of cancer while patients were taking Vytorin, this decision can be read (with its adoption of a “possibility” standard for notice of securities claims, for purposes of beginning the statute of limitations clock) to suggest that the clock has not yet started to run on the statute of limitations — at least as to claims related to cancers that develop, or ultimately prove to be fatal, while the patient is taking Vytorin.

Said more simply, Schering and Merck may unwittingly be increasing the number of ultimately non-time-barred putative SEAS-cancer claimants (and injured securities investors) — by taking this aggressive “positive spin” public relations posture on the SEAS cancer data. It would be fair to say that, as of this moment, the companies have not put the world on notice that there is a “substantial possibility” of a cancer event related (in some ill-defined manner) to being on Vyotrin.

Thus, as has long been believed by practitioners of the oldest Zen traditions of philosophy — when one pushes entirely too hard for a particular outcome — the opposite of that desired outcome (almost) always appears.

“Things that make you go ‘hmmmmmmm’. . . .”