�鶹Ů��

In his harsh comments about the drug industry at a press conference earlier this month, President Trump declared that “pharma has a lot of lobbies and a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power.” But how much, exactly? STAT analyzed lobbying disclosure filings updated this week to build an in-depth portrait of how the drug industry wielded its influence on the federal government in 2016. (Robbins, 1/25)

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry lobbying giants ramped up their advocacy spending in the final three months of 2016, just as Congress was finalizing a new law aimed at speeding drug development and research. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America dropped $4.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, up from $3.8 in the same quarter in 2015, a CQ analysis of new lobbying filings shows. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization spent $2.3 million to influence policymakers over the same three months, up from $2.1 million the year before. (Mershon, 1/25)

President Trump has made it clear that he thinks drug prices are too high and that the pharmaceutical industry, as he put it at a news conference this month, is “getting away with murder.” He joins a host of lawmakers and others who have excoriated drug makers in recent years for high-priced drugs that are out of the reach of many Americans. On Monday, Sean Spicer, Mr. Trump’s press secretary, reaffirmed that the issue would be a priority. (Thomas, 1/23)

The pharmaceutical and medical-device industries are deeply unsettled about their future under Republican control in Washington, which presents threats as well as opportunities, according to industry officials and advisers. The companies and their trade groups want to develop ties with key players in the Trump administration on health care to push their agendas and protect their interests, according to people familiar with company efforts. Yet who those key players will be remains largely a mystery, the people said. (Rockoff, 1/24)

When Biogen received regulatory approval last month to sell the Spinraza rare disease drug, the company surprised Wall Street by setting a price that few expected — $750,000 for the first year of treatment and $375,000 each year thereafter. At the time, at least one analyst suggested the price tag amounted to “sticker shock” that may cheer investors, but also invite criticism at a time of growing outrage over drug pricing. Already, the scrutiny has begun. (Silverman, 1/24)

Four separate bills have been filed in the state Legislature that are aimed at controlling the price of prescription medicines by requiring drug makers to disclose the cost of their research, marketing, and manufacturing. Similar accountability legislation — strongly opposed by the drug industry — failed last year on Beacon Hill. But the new proposals, which would expand the state’s role in monitoring drug pricing, come amid stepped-up efforts to rein in medical costs, and President Donald Trump’s call for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. (Weisman, 1/24)

As promised, President Trump has promptly abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What might this mean for biopharma? Nixing the so-called TPP could spell trouble for the biopharmaceutical industry moving forward when it comes to market exclusivity, according to Kevin Noonan, a partner at Chicago-based intellectual property law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. (Keshavan, 1/24)

A new study conducted by the Berkeley Research Group provides some fresh insight into how the pharmaceutical supply chain works, who pays what, and where the profits go. There is one major caveat to note upfront: The study was funded by PhRMA, an industry lobbying group for biopharmaceutical companies. Taking that into account, the data and discussion still add valuable context and another perspective to the drug price debates. (Preston, 1/19)

In a move that may hearten the pharmaceutical industry, the US Supreme Court will review a case that decided people from anywhere in the United States can file product-liability lawsuits against drug makers in California, where the courts are seen as more hospitable to consumers. (Silverman, 1/20)

In a bid to widen access to medicines, a pair of US senators introduced a bill to speed approvals for treatments when little competition exists – at least under certain circumstances — and temporarily permit prescriptions drugs to be imported in order to mitigate shortages. Specifically, the bill would allow the Health and Human Services Department to grant faster reviews and inspections, and temporarily permit imports when there are fewer than five competitive drugs that have been on the market for at least 10 years. (Silverman, 1/23)

State Comptroller Kevin P. Lembo unveiled a five-point plan Tuesday to develop new legislation to reduce “skyrocketing” pharmaceutical drug costs in Connecticut... Lembo said the legislation still is being developed, adding that he also would consult with Attorney General George Jepsen’s office regarding what types of sanctions Connecticut might impose against drug companies that can’t justify sharp price increases. (Levin Becker and Phaneuf, 1/24)

Andrew Witty, chief executive officer at GlaxoSmithKline, discusses the debate on U.S. drug pricing, focusing on innovation and access to medicines. (1/19)

Celgene Executive Chairman Bob Hugin discusses drug pricing and the future for affordable health care. He speaks on "Bloomberg Markets." (1/23)