Paradigm shift

Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODYyMjJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODYyMjJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

ITEM 7—STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL ON PHARMACEUTICAL PRICE RESTRAINT

The proponents of this resolution are Trinity Health, 27870 Cabot Drive, Novi, Michigan 48377 as

lead-filer and 13 other religious investors who are members of The Interfaith Center for Corporate

Responsibility.

WHEREAS:

The cost of brand name drugs, some of them our Company’s, have skyrocketed in this country in

recent years;

The Government’s General Accountability Office (GAO) found that between 2000-2008, 416

brand-name drugs had “extraordinary price increases”; most of these increases ranged from 100% to

499%;

Medco’s 2010 Drug Trend Report found that, while generic drug prices increased 0.3%, “inflation

in branded drugs accelerated to an all-time high of 9.2%” and that the prices of specialty drugs

increased 14.7%;

The Office of Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that prescription drug

expenditures will increase in 2018 92.7% from 2008 expenditures, exceeding all major categories of

national health expenditures. It states: “Prescription drug spending is expected to be the fast growing

component of Medicare over the projection period”;

AARP’s Public Policy Institute reported that the price of brand name prescriptions most widely

used by Medicare beneficiaries increased by 9.7% in the 12 months ending with March 2010 and was

much higher than the rate of increase observed during any of the prior eight years (2002-2009). While

inflation rose 0.3% during his period, price increases for such drugs ranged from 5.3-9.3%;

AARP has also stated that the positive goals of the new health care reform law “could be eroded

over the years if escalating drug prices are not addressed”;

While passage of health reform legislation was a major achievement, there are ongoing concerns

as to its long-term affordability and accountability for controlling costs. Failure to control costs could

undermine the goals of health care reform, i.e. accessible and affordable health care for all;

This resolution’s sponsors are not satisfied that the Company has made a clear case offering fiscal

and moral justification for such exorbitant price increases. Neither has it given sufficient assurances

that the present pattern of increases that far exceed the Consumer Price Index will not continue.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors create and implement a policy of price

restraint on branded pharmaceuticals, utilizing a combination of approaches to keep drug prices at

reasonable levels, such as an increase that would not exceed the previous year’s Consumer Price

Index, and report to shareholders by September 2011 on changes in policies and pricing procedures

for pharmaceutical products (withholding any competitive information, and at reasonable cost).

Board of Directors’ Position

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” this proposal for the following

reasons:

Our Board of Directors firmly believes that prescription drugs are so important that everyone

should have access to them. We believe the best approach to ensure broad access to affordable

medicines for the uninsured and underinsured is through expanded coverage, not price restraints.

Accordingly, we recommend a vote AGAINST the proposal.

Source:http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODYyMjJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

ITEM 7—STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL ON PHARMACEUTICAL PRICE RESTRAINT

The proponents of this resolution are Trinity Health, 27870 Cabot Drive, Novi, Michigan 48377 as

lead-filer and 13 other religious investors who are members of The Interfaith Center for Corporate

Responsibility.

WHEREAS:

The cost of brand name drugs, some of them our Company’s, have skyrocketed in this country in

recent years;

The Government’s General Accountability Office (GAO) found that between 2000-2008, 416

brand-name drugs had “extraordinary price increases”; most of these increases ranged from 100% to

499%;

Medco’s 2010 Drug Trend Report found that, while generic drug prices increased 0.3%, “inflation

in branded drugs accelerated to an all-time high of 9.2%” and that the prices of specialty drugs

increased 14.7%;

The Office of Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that prescription drug

expenditures will increase in 2018 92.7% from 2008 expenditures, exceeding all major categories of

national health expenditures. It states: “Prescription drug spending is expected to be the fast growing

component of Medicare over the projection period”;

AARP’s Public Policy Institute reported that the price of brand name prescriptions most widely

used by Medicare beneficiaries increased by 9.7% in the 12 months ending with March 2010 and was

much higher than the rate of increase observed during any of the prior eight years (2002-2009). While

inflation rose 0.3% during his period, price increases for such drugs ranged from 5.3-9.3%;

AARP has also stated that the positive goals of the new health care reform law “could be eroded

over the years if escalating drug prices are not addressed”;

While passage of health reform legislation was a major achievement, there are ongoing concerns

as to its long-term affordability and accountability for controlling costs. Failure to control costs could

undermine the goals of health care reform, i.e. accessible and affordable health care for all;

This resolution’s sponsors are not satisfied that the Company has made a clear case offering fiscal

and moral justification for such exorbitant price increases. Neither has it given sufficient assurances

that the present pattern of increases that far exceed the Consumer Price Index will not continue.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors create and implement a policy of price

restraint on branded pharmaceuticals, utilizing a combination of approaches to keep drug prices at

reasonable levels, such as an increase that would not exceed the previous year’s Consumer Price

Index, and report to shareholders by September 2011 on changes in policies and pricing procedures

for pharmaceutical products (withholding any competitive information, and at reasonable cost).

Board of Directors’ Position

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” this proposal for the following

reasons:

Our Board of Directors firmly believes that prescription drugs are so important that everyone

should have access to them. We believe the best approach to ensure broad access to affordable

medicines for the uninsured and underinsured is through expanded coverage, not price restraints.

Accordingly, we recommend a vote AGAINST the proposal.

Source:http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODYyMjJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Hi ogler,

I had about 99 of the 100 questions you asked; so glad you did the work 🙂  I'm Stage IIIC, on wait and watch status for about a year.  My question centers around the treatment guidelines for this drug.  I've seen, for example, that with patients with breast cancer (of course), there exists a standing protocol depending on stage and type.  These guidelines seem to be followed on patients w/ or w/o active disease. I guess they are, what, meant to assist the body in targeting the growth of future cancer cells?  Or strengthening the immune system? 

So, does ipi fall under this classification of drugs?  Basically used as a POSSIBLE deterrent?  Or will it be just like existing   clinical trials for melanoma, where you must qualify or beg for it?

I remain, of course, profoundly grateful, for stalling out at Stage III for one whole year, but never stop looking for something that could possible actively battle the beast for me.

And finally, re CEO compensation – maybe the CEO, at 11 mill a year could chip in for your drugs!

Thanks for your questions.  I look for answers from many on this board who are so much more knowledgeable than me.

 Thanks!!

Hi ogler,

I had about 99 of the 100 questions you asked; so glad you did the work 🙂  I'm Stage IIIC, on wait and watch status for about a year.  My question centers around the treatment guidelines for this drug.  I've seen, for example, that with patients with breast cancer (of course), there exists a standing protocol depending on stage and type.  These guidelines seem to be followed on patients w/ or w/o active disease. I guess they are, what, meant to assist the body in targeting the growth of future cancer cells?  Or strengthening the immune system? 

So, does ipi fall under this classification of drugs?  Basically used as a POSSIBLE deterrent?  Or will it be just like existing   clinical trials for melanoma, where you must qualify or beg for it?

I remain, of course, profoundly grateful, for stalling out at Stage III for one whole year, but never stop looking for something that could possible actively battle the beast for me.

And finally, re CEO compensation – maybe the CEO, at 11 mill a year could chip in for your drugs!

Thanks for your questions.  I look for answers from many on this board who are so much more knowledgeable than me.

 Thanks!!

All I know about all those statements is that I am currently in a trial that uses MDX 1106—newly purchased by BMS and is now known as BMS 936558 – the Anti PD-1. I have taken it every other week as part of my vaccine trial that also included 72 peptide injections . I will continue to takethe Anti PD-1(BMS 936558 ) every 3 months for 2 years as a booster…after which time my onc ( Dr Jeff Weber) says I may want to consider taking it the rest of my life as long as I remain NED…he also stated eventually it will also be approved for melanoma. I worry that the cost will also be prohibitive and it too will be considered experimental and or unproven to benefit me and insurances won't touch me…scary how big drug companies prey on the people who are least likely to afford it.

BMS bought the drug  from Medderex and did not develop it.

Patients who have participated in the study trialss only to end up with the less effective and placbo drugs paid for this drug…with their lives….

All I know about all those statements is that I am currently in a trial that uses MDX 1106—newly purchased by BMS and is now known as BMS 936558 – the Anti PD-1. I have taken it every other week as part of my vaccine trial that also included 72 peptide injections . I will continue to takethe Anti PD-1(BMS 936558 ) every 3 months for 2 years as a booster…after which time my onc ( Dr Jeff Weber) says I may want to consider taking it the rest of my life as long as I remain NED…he also stated eventually it will also be approved for melanoma. I worry that the cost will also be prohibitive and it too will be considered experimental and or unproven to benefit me and insurances won't touch me…scary how big drug companies prey on the people who are least likely to afford it.

BMS bought the drug  from Medderex and did not develop it.

Patients who have participated in the study trialss only to end up with the less effective and placbo drugs paid for this drug…with their lives….