Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)最新文献

This Article argues that in response to the United States Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., state legislators should refrain from enacting prescription confidentiality laws and instead implement policies supporting academic detailing, a form of continuing medical education in which trained health professionals such as physicians, registered nurses, advanced practice nurses, and pharmacists provide evidence-based information about prescription drugs to prescribers. According to Sorrell, pharmaceutical companies may freely use physicians' prescribing data to better promote, or "detail," products to physicians without government interference. While pharmaceutical companies may profit from detailing drugs to physicians, detailing increases health care costs for patients and negatively affects patient health outcomes. These problems motivated Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to enact prescription confidentiality laws that banned the use of information about the prescribing habits of physicians to help market drugs to physicians. Recent state attempts to stop drug detailing to physicians have been found to violate the First Amendment. This Article provides a history and background on the pharmaceutical-detailing process and analyzes recent legal decisions relating to prescription confidentiality. It concludes that academic detailing is a viable solution to the negative effects of pharmaceutical detailing and is consistent with the First Amendment.

Access to affordable drugs for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases is increasingly challenging in many developing countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and India. These challenges are in part the result of strengthened patent laws mandated by the 1994 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) treaty. However, there are underutilized instruments within TRIPS that governments can use to limit the adverse effects of patent protection and thereby ensure a supply of affordable generic drugs to their people. One such instrument is compulsory licensing, which allows generic manufacturers to produce pharmaceutical products that are currently subject to patent protection. Compulsory licensing has been used by a number of countries in the last few years, including the United States, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Thailand, and is particularly significant for countries such as India, where large numbers of people are infected with HIV. This Article explores the feasibility of compulsory licensing as a tool to facilitate access to essential medicines within the current patent regime in India, drawing on the experiences of other countries.

This Article examines the convergence of three corporations that have attempted to capitalize on translating emerging research into clinical procedures by manufacturing and facilitating the process for patients to obtain mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asserted its authority to regulate somatic cell therapy products like MSCs under the Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, some manufacturers have attempted to circumvent FDA regulation through various mechanisms and argue that their products do not fall within the definition of a biological product or drug. However, scientific knowledge of using MSCs for clinical therapy remains in its infancy, and MSCs pose a number of serious risks to patients. This Article focuses on the development of Celltex, a company based in Sugar Land, Texas that manufactures and facilitates the injection of autologous MSCs; RNL Bio, a company that licenses its operations technology to Celltex; and Regenerative Sciences, a company based in Broomfield, Colorado that was recently involved in litigation with the FDA. Corporate circumvention of intended regulatory oversight exposes patients to potentially inefficacious products that could contribute to serious medical injuries such as viruses, myocardial infarction, cancer, or death.