�Թϲ�����

A day after President Trump lashed out at the black CEO of drug maker Merck on Twitter, his new Food and Drug Administration commissioner said brand name drug companies are "gaming the system" to block generic competition and vowed to do something about it. Physician and FDA chief Scott Gottlieb declined to comment on Trump's tweet urging Merck's Kenneth Frazier to lower drug prices after Trump's response to the violent Charlottesville, Va., protests prompted Frazier to resign from the White House manufacturing council. However, in a meeting Tuesday with USA TODAY's Editorial Board, Gottlieb didn't mince words when it came to his plans to stop what he said are anti-competitive actions by brand-name pharmaceutical companies that keep prices high. (O'Donnell, 8/15)

Back in January, Trump had signaled his intention to go after powerful drugmakers at his very first news conference, accusing the industry of “getting away with murder.” The issue is top of mind for voters — a bigger health priority than repealing Obamacare. But the White House has invested little political capital in the issue, appointing industry insiders to key posts while abandoning key campaign pledges to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and import cheaper medicines from overseas. (Karlin-Smith, 8/15)

As the winds shift in Washington, here’s something to depend on: Big pharma and health products companies will be the top spenders on lobbying, and the competition isn’t close. Since 1998, they have doled out $3.7 billion to convince, cajole, entice, or strong-arm Congress and federal agencies — more than $1 billion more than any other industry. That doesn’t count campaign contributions, donations to independent pressure groups, and outlays for politicking at the state level. Since January 2016, the industry has spent about $144 million on federal lobbying, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. It can claim a big victory from last year’s passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which is expected to speed up Food and Drug Administration drug approvals. (Piller, 8/16)

Big-name drugmakers want to profit from selling lower-priced copies of rivals’ expensive biotechnology drugs. Patients and doctors want to pay less for medicine. Getting those two sides together is harder than it looks. Part of the problem: a web of relationships between drug companies and insurers that shields incumbent drugs and often sidelines upstarts until the market becomes crowded. (Hopkins, 8/15)

Federal health officials say a controversial program that allows hospitals to purchase drugs at deep discounts needs some fixing. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, worry hospitals are playing fast and loose with what’s known as the 340B program by buying more expensive drugs than they have to, putting the squeeze on Medicare recipients. (Gorenstein, 8/9)

A representative of the Trump administration on Tuesday made a familiar promise to a crowd of state legislators here: We know high drug prices are a problem. And we’re working to solve it. Lowering drug costs is a “priority,” and the Department of Health and Human Services is “committed to doing all we can to increase affordability and accessibility,” said Jane Norton, HHS’s point person in dealing with state governments. (Robbins, 8/8)

Skyrocketing price tags for new drugs to treat rare diseases have stoked outrage nationwide. But hundreds of old, commonly used drugs cost the Medicaid program billions of extra dollars in 2016 vs. 2015, a Kaiser Health News data analysis shows. ... Rising costs for 313 brand-name drugs lifted Medicaid’s spending by as much as $3.2 billion in 2016, the analysis shows. Nine of these brand-name drugs have been on the market since before 1970. In addition, the data reveal that Medicaid outlays for 67 generics and other non-branded drugs cost taxpayers an extra $258 million last year. (Lupkin, 8/14)

The FDA, in an effort to bring promising new therapies to patients as quickly as possible, has introduced a spate of shortcuts to speed up the approval process. Those programs are working as intended, new research finds, but drug companies are often loath to fulfill their obligations. The big idea behind the FDA’s accelerated drug approval program is that regulators will OK a promising drug based on clues that it will improve patient lives, so long as pharma companies later carry out larger trials to confirm those hints of efficacy. But looking at four years of data, a team of researchers found that only 50 percent of those trials actually took place within three years of approval. (Damian Garde, 8/15)

The forces for and against Issue 2 are spending so much money that they could set new records in Ohio in election spending. But six out of 10 registered Ohio voters told Survey USA they don't know much, if anything about Issue 2, according to WOIO Cleveland 19 News, which commissioned the poll with WXIX 19 Cincinnati and WTOL 11 Toledo. (Hancock, 8/8)

A branded HIV drug that has been shown to reduce the risk of infection with the virus by 86% is proving too expensive for some at-risk European patients. England’s National Health Service thinks it has a solution. The high price of Gilead Sciences Inc .’s HIV drug Truvada has deterred many countries from providing the pill as a preventive treatment for people at high risk of contracting the AIDS-causing virus, doctors, activists and patients say. (Mancini, 8/11)