Viewpoints: Pros And Cons Of Biogen’s Decision To Reevaluate Alzheimer’s Drug; Isn’t It Really Time To Criminally Prosecute Companies Behind Opioid Epidemic?

Stat: Aducanumab News Could 'Open The Floodgates' For Alzheimer's Drugs
One of the many things I’ve learned during four decades of doing research on Alzheimer’s disease is that the work always brings surprises. Biogen’s announcement on Tuesday about its experimental Alzheimer’s drug, aducanumab, was a big one. ...Not long after Biogen’s decision to stop the trials, I wrote in Nature Reviews Neurology that when Biogen had a chance to look more closely at the data, it would likely observe some participants who benefited from aducanumab. At the time, I didn’t think the later analyses would be as good as what I heard Tuesday morning, which is that one of the two trials fully achieved its primary and secondary endpoints. (Dennis J. Selko, 10/23)

The Washington Post: Beware Biogen’s Alzheimer’s Drug Resurrection
Biogen’s rescue mission is in part a different spin on the story; the company says its new data means that one of its trials should never have been labeled a failure in the first place. The attempt to put a positive spin on the second badly failed trial is the same sort of cherry-picking that gets drugmakers in trouble. The world badly needs an Alzheimer’s drug, and the company’s engagement with the FDA may mean the agency is inclined to be open-minded. Biogen still has an uphill battle to prove that it actually has one. (Max Nisen, 10/22)

The Wall Street Journal: An Alzheimer’s Drug Surprise
Despite many promising leads, more than 120 drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease have failed. But Cambridge-based biotech company Biogen revived hope on Tuesday with its announcement that it would seek Food and Drug Administration approval for a drug it abandoned earlier this year. Biogen’s experimental Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab targets beta-amyloid proteins that form plaque in the brain, which many scientists believe contributes to the debilitating disease. Investors and doctors considered Biogen’s drug the best hope in years for patients with early-stage Alzheimer’s, and the FDA in 2016 granted it fast-track designation for approval. But Biogen in March abruptly suspended its drug trials after a “futility analysis” based on data from December indicated patients were unlikely to show meaningful improvement. That judgment may have been premature. (10/23)

The New York Times: Making Drug Companies Pay For The Opioid Epidemic
Emily Walden’s son T.J. was 11 when he was first prescribed painkillers after breaking his arm. One prescription led to another, and by the time he was 18 he had become addicted to OxyContin. In an interview with The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Ky., Ms. Walden recalls him saying, “Mom, I don’t want to die from this.” In 2012, he did, at the age of 21. (Spencer Bokat-Lindell, 10/22)

The Hill: Our Nation's Deadly Disregard For Sexual Health
Our failure to prioritize sexual health in the United States is making people sick, and for some of us it will be deadly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new data showing that STDs have reached record highs, after five straight years of increases. Most STDs can be treated, and many are curable, but if they go undetected, they can have life-changing and life-threatening consequences, including cancer, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and increased risk for HIV. Thousands of Americans die every year as a result of STDs, even though every single one could be prevented.  (David C. Harvey, 10/22)

USA Today: 'Medicare For All' Would Make Health Care Cheaper, Simpler And Better
With costs rising painfully, insurance companies denying care and nearly 30 million people still uninsured, America desperately needs an honest health policy discussion. That’s why it has been so disappointing over the past several weeks to watch multiple candidates parrot right-wing attacks on "Medicare for All," like claiming that it will greatly increase spending on health care or ringing alarms about raising taxes on the middle class. The truth is the opposite: Medicare for All would sharply reduce overall spending on health care. (Donald M. Berwick, 10/22)

The Hill: Why Elizabeth Warren Won't Talk About The Cost Of 'Medicare For All' l
A great divide has appeared in the Democratic presidential primary between traditional candidates and populists who have latched onto proposals that sound great — at least to anyone who doesn’t do the math. The current frontrunner, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is among the candidates trading on the proposed policy of “Medicare for All” plan. Make no mistake: Medicare for All makes for a great soundbite but probably would never be approved even by a Democratic House, let alone a Republican Senate. (David Grazzo, 10/21)

The Hill: We Should Scrap Medicare Site Neutrality
This past week the U.S. District Court in D.C. refused to modify its September decision that found CMS’ 2019 expansion of its Medicare site neutral payment policy illegal. Instead of appealing the decision, CMS should rethink how the Medicare program can become a prudent purchaser of health-care services.  The Medicare site-neutral payments were based on a 2012 MedPAC recommendation that CMS made payments the same between higher paid hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and lesser-paid freestanding physician offices. (David Introcaso, 10/23)

The New York Times: My Day As An Abortion Care Provider
I became an obstetrician-gynecologist 20 years ago because I wanted to be a source of compassion and expertise for patients and their families as they navigate a wide range of reproductive experiences, including when they seek abortion care. I wanted to be someone my patients could turn to when others might abandon or judge them. (Lisa H. Harris, 10/22)

Los Angeles Times: California's Battle With Trump Over Contraception Isn't Just About Contraception
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra’s many lawsuits against the Trump administration are policy fights, at the simplest level — legal battles by a blue state to impede a Republican president’s deregulatory and socially conservative agenda.But a more interesting subtext is the work by California and its allies to limit the power of the federal government, and in particular the executive branch of the federal government. (John Healey, 10/22)