My goal for The Arc is to have some sort of a spin on some element of the news, rather than just a Chat-GPT-sounding summary of whatever tabs I have open.
But today I want to highlight three research pieces with no judgment, snark, or meaningful commentary. That doesn’t mean the research efforts are without flaws, that the data can’t be read in a different way than is presented, or that the authors don’t have an ideological POV.
Rather, I want to promote the idea that a close read of each analysis probably sheds some light on how the machinery of the health system works, and we’re all better off with a more nuanced understanding of things.
So, in the interest of edification:
This JAMA piece looks at how often “ancillary product patents” are used to delay biosimilar competition for biologics. It’s a helpful quantification of what ancillary patents look like, and where they have — and have not — been deployed.
A similar cast of characters also has a second legally focused JAMA analysis that examines the even-more-esoteric topic of patents invalidated for “inequitable conduct.” Again, we’re talking about a small and nuanced corner of IP here, but one worth tracking nonetheless.
And this JAMA Network Open effort examines how accelerated approvals intersect with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. NCCN guidelines shape big chunks of how oncology treatments are selected and reimbursed, making them an interesting and standardized lens by which to analyze accelerated approvals.
This KFF exploration about how an effort to end PBM clawbacks of revenue from pharmacies is boomeranging to bring even more misery to pharmacists is dense and important. If you can’t read it today, it’s worth waking up early on Saturday, brewing some coffee, and taking your time with it. Because it’s not the last you’ll hear on this issue by a longshot.
This ProPublica piece about a patient denied CAR-T for legalist/semantic reasons is a heartbreaking portrait of why Americans hate insurance companies. Because everyone has a story like this.
I’m biased against process stories about lawmaking, simply because it’s so easy for nothing to happen, and writing about things that won’t happen is kind of a waste of everyone’s time. That said, Sen. Raphael Warnock is telling Politico that he thinks his $35 insulin bill is going to happen this year (though he doesn’t seem to be explaining how it’ll happen). And, to Warnock’s credit, he’s also pushing out research on where some of the insulin access challenges remain.
If this email was forwarded to you, and you’d like to become a reader, click here to see back issues of Cost Curve and subscribe to the newsletter.
