WeWorkForHealth Pennsylvania

WeWorkforHealth Pennsylvania promotes the significant social and economic impacts of the biopharmaceutical and lifescience sectors in our state.

[weworkforhealthpa]

Here's how to keep Pa's medical innovation ecosystem healthy: Mel Billingsley

By PennLive Op-Ed

on May 11, 2016

By Mel Billingsley

Researchers at Penn State's Hershey Medical Center's Division of Artificial Organs are at work testing heart-assist devices for adults and children.

This long-standing, successful program aims at improving these heart devices, making them attractive to companies that will take them to market, and ultimately improving quality of life for heart patients. That's an incredibly exciting mission for patients who suffer from very serious heart conditions.

We shouldn't take this lifesaving research for granted. It's the result of pro-innovation policies supported by leaders like retiring U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-16th District, who continue to advocate for reforms that improve our country's research environment.

Pitts, along with U.S. Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, has championed the 21st Century Cures Act, a bill that streamlines clinical trials, incorporates patient perspectives into the regulatory process to better meet their medical needs, and modernizes medical product regulation.

A hearing set to begin Monday will likely settle the matter.

As a former science teacher himself, Pitts understands the challenging, incremental nature of scientific discovery.

That's why he's held roundtables on the subject in places like Lancaster Farm and Home Center in Lancaster, to gain insights from local medical and research professionals about what Washington can do to support research advances.

In Pennsylvania alone, the pharmaceutical industry directly and indirectly supports more than 210,000 jobs.

These local experts are the driving force behind Pennsylvania's emergence as a national leader.

In Pennsylvania alone, the pharmaceutical industry directly and indirectly supports more than 210,000 jobs.

According to Pennsylvania Bio, the entire life sciences sector in the commonwealth is even more robust -- including not only drugs and pharmaceuticals, but also agricultural materials, research/laboratory testing and medical devices.

Therefore, in total, the entire sector supports more than 410,000 direct and indirect jobs, resulting in $7 billion in wages to the state's employment base.

But researchers can't develop treatments and cures for our toughest diseases without a helping hand from policymakers. It can take more than a decade and $1 billion to create a new medicine.

To undertake such risky research, firms need assurances that lawmakers won't prevent them from earning a return on their investments.

Some members of Congress are seeking to impose price controls on medicines, which would deprive researchers of such assurances and discourage them from trying to cure tough diseases.

Considering that, of 10,000 known diseases, only 500 have a cure, it'd be a shame to hamstring researchers with such shortsighted and self-defeating regulations.

The current system is risky, but it's working -- and that is especially true in the development of new rare disease treatments.

Here in the U.S., a disease is considered rare when it affects fewer than 200,000 Americans.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates that there are currently about 6,800 such diseases. When considered together, rare diseases affect nearly 30 million Americans -- that's almost 1 in 10.

In the decade before 1983, only 10 new treatments were brought to market for rare diseases. However, with the FDA's implementation of the Orphan Drug Act in 1983, that number has dramatically changed.

In the past decade alone, the FDA set a record -- approving more than 230 new treatments for rare diseases. And there are more on the way, with more than 450 new drugs in the pipeline.

This sound policy has produced remarkable advancement for many rare diseases, for example Cystic Fibrosis.

Recently, we have seen a transformation in the lives of CF patients with new treatments and delivery options coming to market.

These treatments have increased quality of life dramatically for patients and may ultimately increase life expectancy by decades.

Looking back at these successes, policymakers looking to cut drug costs could instead take a page out of Pitts' book and adopt pro-innovation policies that improve health care without discouraging research.

Standardizing health records, making clinical study data more accessible, and ensuring the FDA continues to have the resources to modernize its drug approval process would benefit researchers, the economy and especially patients.

Mel Billingsley is president and CEO of the Life Sciences Greenhouse, professor of pharmacology at Penn State Milton S. Hershey College of Medicine. He is also a professor of biotechnology and entrepreneurship at Penn State-Harrisburg.

[weworkforhealthpa]

Elizabeth Downey: Congress should not change Medicare Part D pricing decisions

February 9, 2016

More than 1 million Pennsylvania residents rely on Medicare's drug benefit to access the medicines they need. Created with bipartisan support in 2003, the Part D drug benefit is tremendously successful, with a competitive structure that keeps prices affordable and customer satisfaction high.

Some politicians, though, want to change the program. They're pushing to allow the federal government to interfere in pricing decisions reached in the private sector between insurers and drug manufacturers.

This would be a disaster. If successful, the effort would deny seniors access to important drugs and reduce medical innovation.

Unlike most government programs, Part D is costing far less than lawmakers anticipated. In its first 10 years, the program came in 45 percent under budget, costing taxpayers $349 billion less than projected.

Seniors' premiums costs have also remained low and relatively steady. In Pennsylvania, seniors can choose from 29 different plans, starting as low as $18.40 per month.

It's no wonder why surveys have repeatedly shown that seniors love the program. About 90 percent say they're satisfied with their drug coverage and more than 90 percent say their plans are convenient to use.

Put simply, Part D is costing less than anticipated and is astoundingly popular. And yet, even though it accounts for just 11 percent of all Medicare spending, this is the benefit that some lawmakers are targeting.

There's no evidence that government interference would drive prices down, improve health outcomes or boost patient satisfaction.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has explored whether the government interference could drive spending down and concluded, on several occasions, that the impact would be negligible since "substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree."

The simple fact is that insurers are powerful negotiators that leverage substantial discounts from drug companies.

The government would only be able to drive costs down if it deployed extreme measures like restricting access to — and coverage of — certain cutting-edge drugs.

This would be bad news for seniors, obviously. It would also drive up costs in other parts of the health care system. The independent CBO has found that increased use of prescription drugs reduces Medicare's spending on other medical services. Accordingly, if seniors don't have access to the prescription medications they need, then other medical costs will inevitably rise.

Moreover, government interference would reduce the incentives to research and develop news medicines, negatively affecting innovation.

Pennsylvanians need the medical innovations that result from such research. The state has an above-average rate of cancer, with nearly 80,000 new diagnoses every year. Similarly, Pennsylvania has elevated rates of diabetes and AIDS.

There are more than 400 medicines in the pipeline that are targeted toward seniors. That number will be much lower in the future if drug companies think the federal government will dictate arbitrary prices or restrict seniors' access to medicines.

No one denies that health care is too expensive — or that government programs need reform. But by harnessing private competition to keep costs down and patients satisfied, Part D actually works. Politicians should keep their hands off Part D.

Elizabeth Downey is president of Pennsylvania State Grange.

Copyright © 2016,

The Morning Call

[weworkforhealthpa]

This PhRMA video shows importance of continued drug innovation: http://onphr.ma/1KctZcY

[weworkforhealthpa]

[weworkforhealthpa]

Reject medicare cuts

Bucks County Courrier Times

Posted: Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Pennsylvania is aging. By 2020, 19 percent of the Keystone State's population will be over 65 -- up from 17 percent today. And, as our state's population grows older, Medicare will play an increasingly vital role in keeping Pennsylvania's 2.6 million enrollees healthy.

But even as demand for Medicare services increases, federal lawmakers are considering making substantial cuts to "Part B," which provides coverage for crucial services like x-rays, dialysis and treatment for hemophilia.

These proposed cuts are specifically aimed at reducing reimbursement rates for medical drug treatments that must be administered under physician supervision. Unfortunately, physician reimbursement formulas for Part B medications are already quite low, often failing to fully cover doctors' expenses.

Some legislators in Washington, D.C. want to further reduce Part B drug reimbursement. Earlier this year, Congress passed the so-called "doc fix" that sets Part B rates for the coming decade. The bill freezes reimbursement levels from 2020 through 2025 -- effectively handing doctors a pay cut due to inflation.

In addition, the Obama administration's 2016 budget proposal would cut doctors' reimbursement rates for Part B medicines in an effort to save $7 billion.

Dropping the already low-level reimbursement rates even further will drive more medical practices out of business and more physicians away from participating in the program. With fewer doctors, Pennsylvania's seniors will struggle with local access to needed treatments.

At the national and local level, we are working to protect the integrity of the Medicare program to ensure its existence for future beneficiaries.

Fortunately, Pennsylvania's own Sen. Bob Casey has led the opposition to cut reimbursement rates for Part B drugs and championed policies that would improve enrollee services. His leadership has helped all patients in Medicare to have access to quality care in their communities.

As the health needs of Pennsylvania's aging populations grow, we must preserve access to care. We urge all our legislators to reject the proposed cuts to Medicare Part B.

Curt Krouse, executive director Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Hemophilia Foundation

[weworkforhealthpa]

Here's why the insurance industry needs to do its part to keep healthcare costs down: Christopher P. Molineaux

PennLive Op-Ed on November 02, 2015

By Christopher P. Molineaux

How do we value the tremendous promise of future therapies -- especially with the advent of personalized medicine, gene-based cures and the costs associated with developing these advances in patient care?

Consider these facts: Since 2000, the biopharmaceutical industry has brought more than 500 new treatments and cures to patients and there are currently more than 7,000 medicines in development around the world.

Unfortunately, the public discourse on prescription drug costs has not reflected these advancements as the debate between the producers of innovation and the payer community has found new energy and new voices.

Last week, the managed care giant Highmark sponsored a forum in Harrisburg titled, "The Specialty Drug War: Cost vs. Cure." The event focused on the price of advanced treatments, rather than the value these treatments provide to the overall healthcare system.

Yes, drug development is expensive.

It costs the industry approximately $2.6 billion to gain one new prescription drug approval, and in some cases, the development and approval process can take more than a decade.

But even with all of that investment, medicines are not a key driver of overall healthcare spending.

The biopharmaceutical industry is investing billions of dollars to find new and innovative cures every day.

Retail spending on prescription drugs (including specialty medicines) has remained steady since 1960 -- and is projected to remain steady -- at 10 percent of overall healthcare costs.

To give this some context, the U.S. will spend three times as much on hospital care ($13.5 trillion) over the next decade.

Unfortunately, health insurers have been touting "utilization management procedures" to help "manage" drug costs.

They also tout teams of "clinical professionals" that conduct reviews of specialty drugs usage, making sure that patients get the "right medication, in the right amount, at the right time.

Isn't that the prescribing physician's job?

Regardless, health insurance companies are using cost-sharing mechanisms that distort the cost of prescription drugs.

Specifically, privately insured patients pay more than 20 percent of their total prescription drug spending on out-of-pocket costs, compared to just 5 percent for hospital care.

It's a vicious cycle: The insurance system reinforces acute care -- costly hospitalizations, emergency room visits and expensive medical procedures -- because of its cost sharing structure.

This scheme coupled with restricted access to treatments often leads to adherence issues, which, in turn, adds to a reliance on acute care.

Obviously, the current model is not sustainable.

Express Scripts has reported that non-adherence -- patients not taking their prescription drugs properly -- is the nation's costliest health care problem.

The U.S. wastes more than $300 billion each year treating unnecessary medical complications that could have been avoided if patients had taken their medications as prescribed.

The biopharmaceutical industry is holding up its end of the bargain, investing billions of dollars to find new and innovative cures every day.

And according the National Bureau of Economic Research, every dollar spent on newer medicines actually reduces healthcare costs by $7.20

Health insurance companies need to do their part, as well. Coverage and cost-sharing policies should keep pace with innovative treatment advances and recognize the long-term value of adherence to medicines.

Ultimately, the patients we all serve deserve nothing less.

Christopher P. Molineaux is the president and CEO of Pennsylvania Bio, an industry trade group.

[weworkforhealthpa]

Free market makes Medicare Part D work

By Rep. Joe Pitts | Special to LNP

October 22, 2015

In 1965, nearly half of our seniors had no health insurance at all. Even those who had coverage only had coverage for inpatient hospital costs. So President Lyndon Johnson, working with Congress on a bipartisan basis, shepherded Medicare into law, which today covers 46 million seniors.

The new program did not cover prescription drugs, except in very rare circumstances.  Many seniors live on a fixed income or are unable to work, while facing the greatest need for highly expensive prescription drugs. Seniors were being squeezed in both directions, and, as our medical technology improved, drugs were only getting more expensive and prescribed for more purposes every year.

It was a situation utterly at odds with the spirit and purpose of Medicare: If we wanted to make health care more affordable for seniors, then how could we leave out such a central benefit?

I voted to update Medicare, and to establish a prescription drug benefit for seniors, known as Medicare Part D. Our new law also created the popular Medicare Advantage program and raised payments to plans to help seniors afford them. We expanded coverage for preventative services, and, for the first time, required the wealthy to pay more in Medicare premiums to focus on helping the seniors who need it.

Today, 38.6 million seniors receive a benefit they simply would never have received in previous decades.

We took a free-market approach to providing for our seniors: Beneficiaries receive their prescription drug benefit through private organizations, typically insurers or similar risk-bearing organizations, that sponsor prescription drug plans or Medicare Advantage managed care plans that offer the prescription drug benefit.

Medicare drug plans negotiate prices with the drug manufacturers, rather than having government set prices. This arrangement creates a competitive environment for these plans: The Medicare drug plans have incentive to provide the drug benefit to beneficiaries as efficiently as possible to attract enrollees. Medicare beneficiaries choose the plan with the formulary that best meets their needs and preferences, and are free to switch plans each year during open enrollment.

Some, such as self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, have argued that one provision of law, the “noninterference” clause, increases costs. That clause expressly forbids the secretary of health and human services from interfering with drug price negotiation between manufacturers and Medicare drug plan sponsors, and from instituting a formulary or price structure for prescription drugs.

This same question was raised in Congress before the bill was passed. But the Congressional Budget Office told us plainly that “[s]triking this provision would have a negligible effect on federal spending. …Because they will be at substantial financial risk, private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts.”

Because prices are driven down by free market pressures, the secretary probably could not negotiate a much better deal. The secretary would not have leverage with the manufacturers, because the manufacturers would already have millions of customers via the drug plans. The voices of 36 million seniors are a lot louder than the voice of one health and human services secretary. Price-fixing would disrupt supply and demand, which would lead to fewer discoveries of new drugs. That’s not helping seniors; that’s hurting them.

Nearly nine out of 10 seniors with Part D coverage are satisfied with it, and over 40 percent are “very satisfied.” Some 86 percent say that their plan is affordable; 67 percent say that they would not be able to fill all their prescriptions without it, and 71 percent say that Part D has given them greater peace of mind. It is nearly impossible to find anything — never mind a federal government program —with that level of popularity.

Seniors have at least 23 plans to choose from in every region of the country. Before Part D went into effect, the Congressional Budget Office projected that average premiums in 2006 would be $35 a month. In reality, the premium was $23 a month. The 2016 premium will still only be $34.10.  Premiums have even dropped from one year to another twice. CBO even cut its projection of Part D’s costs by 48 percent after just five years of data.

Other federal programs are able to directly negotiate drug prices, such as the Veterans Affairs health care system, and yet it has a notoriously limited formulary that often does not cover the most popular drugs in the country. D.C. bureaucrats might set prices low, but manufacturers simply won’t participate, leaving veterans without the drugs they need. That doesn’t help our veterans; it hurts them.

Part D’s success should be a model for the rest of government: When prices are determined by people, not government, they tend to more accurately reflect the value of the service. We shouldn’t give bureaucrats negotiating power — that should remain with our seniors.

Joe Pitts, whose U.S. House district includes most of Lancaster County, is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee.

[weworkforhealthpa]

Capitolwire: CMS data undermines intent of drug transparency bills, industry says

By Christen Smith Staff Reporter Capitolwire HARRISBURG (Aug. 10) - Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) show growth in prescription drug spending has plummeted 83 percent over the last decade - from 14.8 percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2013. It's why pharmaceutical companies say two bills - currently floating around the state Capitol - designed to keep prescriptions affordable won't do much to lower healthcare costs for patients. "For an industry that supports every manner of job in the state, it's an interesting approach to take by elected officials, to look at one part of healthcare and decide they are the enemy," said Priscilla VanderVeer, senior communications director for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade union representing biopharmaceutical research companies throughout the country. "And when frankly all of us have to come to the table and look at ways to address costs and inefficiencies instead of just pointing a finger at one of us." Indeed, House Bill 1042 and Senate Bill 893 aim to increase transparency in the pharmaceutical industry by requiring drug manufacturers to report money spent on research, development, advertising, marketing to the state each year. The idea, HB 1042's prime sponsor Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Allegheny, said in April, is to make the industry more transparent to consumers, who regularly identify prescription drugs as the most expensive aspect of healthcare. "It would be beneficial to know their profit margins," he said. "We want to understand the root of problem and why healthcare costs are so high." The Senate bill takes the idea a step further with the creation of a seven-member Pharmaceutical Transparency Commission that would, among other duties, assess an annual fee on drug companies to "provide for the commission's activities" and review drug retail pricing to determine how "reasonable" a prescription's cost is relative to the money spent creating it. An insurer, under the law, would not be required to pay for medications "exceeding 20 percent" of the reported total manufacturing cost. "I think it will send a message to the industry that they may not be as welcome here as in the past," VanderVeer said. "It's sort of like our industry has made a commitment to the state of Pennsylvania to build manufacturing facilities here, to build research facilities here, to have corporate headquarters here and to have something like this being pushed forward is saying maybe some of that doesn't matter." She isn't the only one sounding the alarm either on the bills' economic repercussions. Fritz Bittenbender, executive vice president of public affairs for the D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization, told Capitolwire in April the intent behind HB 1042 is admirable, but misguided. "If you passed that bill, that would be like putting a sign out at our border saying we don't want good family sustaining jobs in Pennsylvania," he said. "When you have an industry that is so critical to the state's economic development, to over-regulate it with legislation like that would kill the industry. You'd have the governor of New Jersey standing at the border pulling companies over if we passed legislation like that." "This is the most vibrant industry that Pennsylvania probably has right now so we want to make sure we keep it," he added. The state's life sciences industry, according to data from Pennsylvania BIO, directly employs 85,151 residents with wages totaling $7 billion. Bittenbender said eight of the world's largest biopharmaceutical companies have a "strong presence" in Pennsylvania. Coupled with its industry-friendly tax programs - the research and development tax credit and the Ben Franklin partnership, for example - Pennsylvania's "entire continuum of life sciences" is unparalleled worldwide, he said. Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, sponsored SB 893 in June and says his bill is about lowering health insurance premiums for everyone, not attacking an industry. "Prescription drug pricing is complex issue and deserves attention," he saidFriday. "Pharmaceutical companies have expressed concern over the legislation and I recognize they are a large employer in the Commonwealth.  However, their drugs are part of the reason health insurance premiums are skyrocketing for all employers and individuals across this state. "Yes, prescription drugs offer a tremendous benefit to patients and are just one facet of health insurance premium pricing, but one I believe must be explored." "Prescription drugs are a sizable portion of the healthcare dollar," said Sam Marshall, president of the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania. "I think it's a significant component and it is an increasing component. The fact that there are other components doesn't mean that this should go untouched." A PhRMA chart based on CMS data shows retail spending on prescription drugs in 2013 represents about nine cents of every dollar spent on healthcare - a rate unchanged since 1960. Prescriptions are the fourth largest share of healthcare spending, according to CMS, outranked only by hospital care, physicians and clinical services and miscellaneous spending on dental procedures, home health care, medical equipment costs and "other professional services." "I recognize drug companies are not a fan [of these bills]," Marshall said. "But yes, we think this will keep costs down. I think that's a pretty good argument." He said allowing insurance consumers - whether they be employers or individuals - access to detailed prescription medication costs will ultimately improve competition. "This isn't price control," he said. "What this calls for is, hey give the following information to the insurance department so that consumers . can have some idea of what these medications cost. Do I think, or at least hope, that these disclosures will at least lead to a more educated marketplace? Yes. I think this will make for more knowledgeable consumers." For now, the bills sit idle in the House Insurance Committee and the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. White, who chairs the Senate panel, says he hopes to vet his bill in the fall. "As my committee has reviewed efforts to mandate insurance coverage for certain prescription drugs, it has become clear to me that the root issue to be addressed is the cost of the drug," he said. "I expect my committee will review this legislation ... potentially through hearings." -30- ------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 2006 GovNetPA, Inc. Capitolwire.com, a service of GovNetPA, Inc., provides a comprehensive news and information service to subscribers with a need to monitor or influence the actions of state government and to track key issues such as Healthcare, Transportation, Education and the Environment.  Our customization platform allows relevant news and information to automatically flow directly to subscribers creating an awareness and speed-of-response advantage. If you liked this story, sign up for a trial subscription. http://www.capitolwire.com For more information on capitolwire.com, write to [email protected] or call us at [phone].

[weworkforhealthpa]

NLGA “Be the Cure” Program

A clinical trial is a careful process to test a new procedure, drug, or device to prevent, screen for, treat, or improve quality of life surrounding a disease.  The testing is done with people who volunteer for issues from food allergies, asthma, or arthritis to cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, or many others.A clinical trial may not only benefit the patient volunteer, but may also benefit future patients by helping further medical innovations positively impacting all people – possibly your family, friends, and future generations.Too many studies end early because there aren’t enough volunteers.  This delays medical discovery and contributes to the increasing cost of health care.  Minorities, including women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, are underrepresented now in clinical trials.  Learn about the National Lieutenant Governor's Association's new program "Be the Cure" that raises awareness for clinical trials across the country: http://bit.ly/1SONc8k

[weworkforhealthpa]

We Work For Health Summit 2015

On July 15-16, life sciences companies, along with business and community partners, gathered in Washington, D.C., for the annual We Work for Health Summit. This two-day event was held to share best practices and discuss life science priorities with members of Congress and staff.

As We Work for Health representatives, our mission is to make sure our communities and legislators understand the important economic and social contributions the life sciences industry makes in Pennsylvania. This year along with our partners Pennsylvania Bio and Community Liver Alliance, we met with seven offices from our Congressional delegation: Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey and Congressmen Charlie Dent, Pat Meehan, Mike Kelly, Keith Rothfus and Ryan Costello.

Pennsylvania is home to 2,309 establishments in the life sciences industry, 727 of which are research and development companies formed since 2008. As of 2013, the state has 11,543 total vendor relationships and over $8.7 million in total vendor spending. It is clear that Pennsylvania is a hub for innovation.

While the debate about healthcare is constantly forming, a handful of issues are taking center stage in the legislative conversation this year:

Patent Reform: Patents support high-value, high-wage jobs in IP intensive industries like the biopharmaceutical sector, and strong patent rights help recoup an average investment of $2.6 billion over 10-15 years for research and development. The "Innovation Act" which  seeks to thwart "patent trolls" is a good idea in concept; however, the bill contains loopholes that make it difficult for legitimate patent holders to defend their inventions in court against abusers of the inter partes review (IPR) process. This is bad for future medical innovation.

Simply put, bioscience investors need stability in their return on investment (ROI), otherwise we’ll see a reduction in people willing to invest and, thus, fewer life-saving cures (such as the pipelined treatment for Hepatitis C with a 95% cure rate).

Cost vs. Value: Prescription drugs account for only 10% of overall health costs and have saved the U.S. healthcare system $1.5 trillion in 10 years.  Any discussion of prescription drugs needs to take into account the value that new, innovative medicines provide to patients, society, and the U.S. healthcare system as a whole.

Trans Pacific Partnership: The TPP deal could be finalized in the next couple of months, and it’s vital that any deal secures strong intellectual property rights, specifically 12 years of data protection for biologics. This cultivates innovation that ensures American economic and medical leadership globally.

Each and every one of us plays an important role in helping Americans gain and maintain access to life-saving medicines, in order to fight chronic disease and live longer, healthier lives.  

“Being able to advocate for our patients is an important part of the Community Liver Alliance mission and the WWFH Summit provides that opportunity in a meaningful way,” explained Suzanna Masartis, the alliance’s executive director. “Working with collaborators such as Pennsylvania Bio, PHRMA and other diverse industry leaders allows us to be a united voice for Pennsylvania and our liver community as a whole.”

[weworkforhealthpa]

The biopharmaceutical sector directly supported 11,543 vendor relationships in Pennsylvania in 2013: http://ow.ly/PHexe #WWFH15 

[weworkforhealthpa]

There are over 211,000 jobs in #Pennsylvania connected to clinical trials - Charles Clapton, PhRMA #CTAW 

[weworkforhealthpa]

Did you know, at any time there are 79 million people in the United States with HPV and every year there are 14 million new HPV infections in the United States.  Learn more at NCCC-online.org.

[weworkforhealthpa]

The biopharmaceutical sector directly supported 11,543 vendor relationships in Pennsylvania in 2013 http://ow.ly/PHexe #WWFH15 

[weworkforhealthpa]

Progression of Hepatitis C

[weworkforhealthpa]

May is Hepatitis Awareness Month, learn about the differences from our infographic 

[weworkforhealthpa]

On August 19, PhRMA and WWFH PA hosted a Governor’s Innovation Forum in Philadelphia, PA. Governors Tom Corbett, Mike Pence, and Pat McCrory, in addition to esteemed industry leaders, discussed their commitments to and benefits of a flourishing life-sciences industry.  View the complete event here: https://storify.com/bravogroup/governor-s-innovation-forum