Another Fascinating (Completely Unverified) CafePharma Post — “Re-importation” of Schering-Plough Birth Control Drugs/Devices. . . .

With reimportation near the top of the screen, in many of the recent health-care reform discussions — I thought the readership might find this purely-rumored squib, purporting to be from a Schering-Plough Womens Health Care sales representative — rather interesting. [I am, candidly, uncertain whether the Implanton birth control system is considered a "device" by FDA, or a "drug" -- but it is a distinction of scant difference, as in either case, re-importation is presently proscribed by applicable U.S. Customs regulations.]

In any event, while Canada may not technically be “overseas” — this appeared on CafePharma, overnight:

. . . .Yesterday, 5:50 PM | Anonymous

W[omens] H[ealth] C[are] here — have mercy on me……learned today that one of my top offices has been ordering Implanon FROM CANADA!! Also have some ordering from South America…what a nightmare ….Office Mgr. told me “if your company wouldn’t charge $600-700 for one rod, I wouldn’t have to do this”…..OB said he didn’t know — he just puts them in…….anyone else have this issue? They should DUMP this crappy product and just let offices order on their own OR somehow give the rep credit for ALL orders including out-of-country ones — but that will NEVER happen. . . .

Click the image to enlarge it [I edited it slightly for typos, blue-language, etc., above -- but this is the original]:

It goes without saying, of course, that it would be unlawful to provide incentive compensation of any kind to Schering-Plough salespeople, for sales made in plain, and knowing, violation of the United States Customs provisions.

And so, I offer this more as an example of just how broken the health-care delivery system really is in the United States — and less as a specific indictment of Schering-Plough salespeople. I am fairly certain that this sort of stuff occurs (in a presumably very-small fraction of all implanted birth-control procedures), industry-wide. A small percentage of doctors’ offices occasionally source, buy, and reimport drugs and devices, from non-U.S. vendors — both thus apparently willing to take the risks of prosecution and/or injury, to a patient, should an adulterated good be implanted.

Truly unfortunate, even if it only hapens “once in a Blue Moon. . . .”

Fair pricing — worldwide — might be a better solution, no? It would remove the powerful financial incentive to reimport, right? I think so.

Financial Times Claims Animal Health Business Deal With Sanofi-Adventis is “Near”

The online version of London’s Financial Times had, back in late March of 2009, also run a “rumors” piece that very accurately presaged Johnson & Johnson’s filing for arbitration (re Remicade and Simponi non-US rights reversion) — so I’d tend to give this piece just a little more credence than it might otherwise be entitled, simply on its face.

What was most intriguing to me was the relative prominence that FT’s stringer Andrew Jack, in London, allocated to the divestiture of all the Animal Health businesses (as I have, before) — even in the face of still-operative comments to the contrary from Merck CEO Dick Clark. From Financial Times, then [UPDATED version of this story here]:

. . . .Merck. . . is close to restructuring its lucrative animal medicines assets in a wide-ranging deal likely to be finalised in the next few weeks with its partner Sanofi-Aventis that could earn it more than $4 $10 billion. . . .

Merck is considering whether to fold Schering-Plough’s animal health division into Merial in exchange for a fresh balancing cash injection from Sanofi-Aventis, to sell them to a third party, or to sell its own stake in Merial. . . .

Merial, established as a joint venture in 1997, generated sales last year of $2.8 billion.

Schering-Plough’s own animal health products and those of Intervet, which it acquired from Akzo Nobel in 2007, generated [revenues of] nearly $3 billion last year.

Chris Viehbacher, the head of Sanofi-Aventis appointed at the end of last year, has expressed his interest in diversifying the business away from core pharmaceutical products and stressed a large capacity to fund deals, suggesting an appetite to strengthen the French group’s position in animal health. . . .

That last bit might imply that Sanofi, alone, or with other backing, would buy the whole of all the Animal Health franchises, outright — then carve them up, in some fashion. If sold, the aggregated Animal Health franchises would greatly reduce New Merck’s (and to be clear — “New Merck” is a far more accurate descriptor for the Sch-Merck entity, than any name which would include the old “Schering-Plough” handle — so I’ll likely use “New Merck” to refer to the post-merged entity, from now on) debt load, post reverse-merger. They could be nearly completely-delevered, when compared to pre-merger levels.

In this market, that would allow New Merck to weather significant internal (i.e., FDA non-approvals and patent-cliffs), or external (i.e., reform-driven pricing pressures and/or any future overall-market calamaties and) challenges.

We’ll see.