Health and science roundup: Amgen, generic biologics, the origins of white people and more

Amgen’s anemia rollercoaster — Biotechnology titan Amgen may have dodged a bullet when a study released Thursday showed that its anemia drug Aranesp didn’t shorten the lives of patients, after several other studies had suggested the opposite. But its anemia franchise isn’t out of the woods yet. A Wednesday report in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that for-profit dialysis clinics prescribe far higher doses of anemia drugs to their patients than do their non-profit counterparts, suggesting a profit motive behind the overuse of drugs that have been linked to cardiovascular problems at high doses.

Now it appears that Congress may weigh in: The WSJ quotes Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark, a California Democrat, calling for changes in Medicare reimbursement to eliminate any incentive to overuse the drugs, which stimulate production of the red blood cells that carry oxygen.

[aditude-amp id="flyingcarpet" targeting='{"env":"staging","page_type":"article","post_id":6974,"post_type":"story","post_chan":"none","tags":null,"ai":false,"category":"none","all_categories":"business,","session":"D"}']

More on “generic” biologics — Here are two takes on the move to allow copycat versions of biotech drugs that I neglected to mention in yesterday’s post on the subject. Writing at Forbes.com, Scott Gottlieb — former FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, now a pundit at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute — makes the counterintuitive argument that copycat biotech drugs will speed the development of new drugs, even if they’re just simply improved versions of older ones.

Meanwhile, pharma/biotech consultant David E. Williams dismisses the biogenerics push as “a bad bill that deserves to die” on his Health Business Blog, but suggests that Congress could adopt a more straightforward solution: Simply mandate price cuts on biotech drugs once their patents expire. It’s such a wacky but weirdly intriguing idea that I can’t even tell if it makes sense, but I certainly doubt that Congress could muster the political will for such a naked exercise of government power — it simply violates too many current assumptions about the usefulness and necessity of markets.

Stem cell divisions — The president of California’s $3 billion stem-cell research program resigned abruptly on Tuesday, citing both health concerns (a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer) and tensions between patient advocates and biomedical academics over plans to spend up to $300 million on new research facilities. Zach Hall’s departure will now come earlier than expected — he’ll depart at the end of April instead of the end of June — but plans to name a successor are already underway. Despite his title, Hall wasn’t the head honcho of the California institute; that honor is reserved for Robert Klein II, chairman of the inaptly named Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, who is also rumored to have clashed with Hall more than once. David Jensen of the estimable California Stem Cell Report has all the details.

Dollars for doctors (and everyone else) — Why does U.S. healthcare cost so much? The economics blog Marginal Revolution hosted a fascinating debate on the subject earlier this week, prompted by Tyler Cowen’s capsule review of a new book by Maggie Mahar titled Money Driven Medicine. The argument is too complex to do it much justice here; the best summary I can make without writing an essay myself is that the entrepreneurial instincts of doctors and medical-technology suppliers (including drug companies), combined with weak resistance from desperate patients, leads to market failure, including drastic overuse — and misuse — of medical services. Don’t miss Mahar’s contribution to the Marginal Revolution debate in comments. Two other takes on the book are here and here.

In a similar vein, this post from the group blog Health Care Renewal aims to explain why so many academic researchers seek out funding from pharmaceutical and biotech companies these days. Turns out it’s not just the greed of companies eager to co-opt paragons of the ivory tower; instead, blogger Roy Poses suggests that university incentives similar to the ones that motivate car salesmen are at fault. Definitely worth a read if the question has ever crossed your mind.

Research odds and ends from the week that was:
• Scientists discovered a gene that appears to be key to “self-renewal” in both embryonic and adult stem cells.

• Surgeons are exploring ways of conducting minimally invasive procedures using “natural openings” in the body such as the mouth, the rectum or the vagina.

• Take that, white supremacists: Physical anthropologists now believe that European skin only lightened up 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, suggesting that “our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years” prior to that. The link is subscription-only, so here’s a brief snippet of the Science news article:

[aditude-amp id="medium1" targeting='{"env":"staging","page_type":"article","post_id":6974,"post_type":"story","post_chan":"none","tags":null,"ai":false,"category":"none","all_categories":"business,","session":"D"}']

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.