Â鶹ŮÓÅ

Days before Pfizer Inc. was to set the price for a new breast-cancer drug called Ibrance, it got a surprise: A competitor raised the monthly cost of a rival treatment by nearly a thousand dollars. Three years of market research—a stretch that started almost as soon as the new treatment showed promise in the laboratory—was suddenly in doubt. After carefully calibrating the price to be close to rivals and to keep doctors and insurers happy, Pfizer was left wondering if its list price of $9,850 a month for the pills was too low. (Rockoff, 12/9)

Lawmakers may be easing toward a serious discussion about containing rising drug costs, starting Wednesday with an easy target for the first major Senate hearing this year on generic pharmaceutical prices. The Senate Special Committee on Aging will delve into how small firms, including Martin Shkreli’s Turing Pharmaceuticals, can raise prices dramatically for generics. Turing boosted the price from $13.50 to $750 per pill for an antifungal drug used by AIDS patients. To his critics, Shkreli’s unrepentant position has made him the poster boy for greed on the part of sellers of medicines. (Young, 12/8)

The ever-more public debate about the price of prescription drugs and healthcare overall is not the first such debate. But GlaxoSmithKline's Jamey Millar, senior vice president for managed markets and government affairs, said Thursday in Philadelphia that this discussion feels different from the early-to-mid 1990s when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton led an effort to reform how America's expensive, inefficient, gap-ridden, dysfunctional healthcare system operates. And the difference, Millar said, is only partially a function of Clinton running for president. (Sell, 12/5)