![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 4th, 2006
So far, so good
Feb. 4th, 2006 08:03 amOne of my favorite stories (I'm even thinking I've told it before) starts with two drunks in a bar. One says to the other, "I'll bet I can jump off that 30 story building and live."
"Oh, no you can't," replies the other.
"Yesh, yesh I can. I'll bet you a thousand dollars!"
"You're on!"
So the two wander over over to the building across the street and manage to get to the roof. The first drunk goes to the edge waves and jumps off.
And, as he passed the open windows on the way down, he could be heard to say, "So far, so good...so far, so good..."
I went to the pharmacy yesterday to pick up my monthly prescriptions and found my pharmacist fuming. She was upset that the new plan for State employees had some miserable changes in the prescription drug formulary. It seems, like most formularies, members have to pay higher rates for name brand drugs than generics. But this new plan makes them pay the higher rate regardless of whether there is a generic substitute available. State workers, who generally make much less than private industry workers in their field, are suddenly getting hit with higher drug prices.
On the heels of that encounter, I find this article in the Washington Post this morning. The FDA is backlogged on approving generics. They don't plan to do anything about it either. From the article:
"As the backlog of generic applications has soared, the number of applications for new or reformulated drugs and biologics submitted by brand-name companies has remained consistently smaller than predicted. But while the Office of Generic Drugs had about 200 employees to process almost 800 new applications last year, the offices that review new drugs had more than 2,500 employees for about 150 applications in 2004.
The generics office's budget was about $26 million last year, a fraction of the more than $400 million spent to evaluate and monitor new drugs and biologics, according to FDA documents. In response to questions from Congress, the agency said the generics program would have to make cuts in 2006 to offset pay raises."
Granted, it does take far more time and personnel to evaluate new drugs than generics. However, having a backlog and cutting personnel seems antithetical to me, especially when you consider that:
"Last year, the generics office approved more than 450 applications, 23 fewer than the year before. The office took an average of 20.5 months to review each application, compared with 19.9 months in 1999, although by statute the agency is obliged to do the job within six months."
Considering that increased generic drug use is part of the Bush prescription drug plan, you'd think they'd support the process. But Big Pharma's lobby is too powerful. They make more money keeping generics off the market.
What does the FDA have to say about this?
"In testimony before Congress last summer, then-FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford said the agency was approving on average one generic drug per day, calling that a sign that 'the system seems to be working' and that 'we are meeting our deadlines.' He said there was no need for additional staff in the generics office."
So far, so good...
"Oh, no you can't," replies the other.
"Yesh, yesh I can. I'll bet you a thousand dollars!"
"You're on!"
So the two wander over over to the building across the street and manage to get to the roof. The first drunk goes to the edge waves and jumps off.
And, as he passed the open windows on the way down, he could be heard to say, "So far, so good...so far, so good..."
I went to the pharmacy yesterday to pick up my monthly prescriptions and found my pharmacist fuming. She was upset that the new plan for State employees had some miserable changes in the prescription drug formulary. It seems, like most formularies, members have to pay higher rates for name brand drugs than generics. But this new plan makes them pay the higher rate regardless of whether there is a generic substitute available. State workers, who generally make much less than private industry workers in their field, are suddenly getting hit with higher drug prices.
On the heels of that encounter, I find this article in the Washington Post this morning. The FDA is backlogged on approving generics. They don't plan to do anything about it either. From the article:
"As the backlog of generic applications has soared, the number of applications for new or reformulated drugs and biologics submitted by brand-name companies has remained consistently smaller than predicted. But while the Office of Generic Drugs had about 200 employees to process almost 800 new applications last year, the offices that review new drugs had more than 2,500 employees for about 150 applications in 2004.
The generics office's budget was about $26 million last year, a fraction of the more than $400 million spent to evaluate and monitor new drugs and biologics, according to FDA documents. In response to questions from Congress, the agency said the generics program would have to make cuts in 2006 to offset pay raises."
Granted, it does take far more time and personnel to evaluate new drugs than generics. However, having a backlog and cutting personnel seems antithetical to me, especially when you consider that:
"Last year, the generics office approved more than 450 applications, 23 fewer than the year before. The office took an average of 20.5 months to review each application, compared with 19.9 months in 1999, although by statute the agency is obliged to do the job within six months."
Considering that increased generic drug use is part of the Bush prescription drug plan, you'd think they'd support the process. But Big Pharma's lobby is too powerful. They make more money keeping generics off the market.
What does the FDA have to say about this?
"In testimony before Congress last summer, then-FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford said the agency was approving on average one generic drug per day, calling that a sign that 'the system seems to be working' and that 'we are meeting our deadlines.' He said there was no need for additional staff in the generics office."
So far, so good...
Procrastinating
Feb. 4th, 2006 06:32 pmI was very much in the mood this morning to attack the piles of mail I have been neglecting. I have a great deal of shredding and filing to do. Instead, I had to go to a meeting. I am secretary for our Eastern Star chapter, and this was the monthly meeting. I enjoy these get-togethers, don't misunderstand me. I just was into the organization zone, not the social zone. So I went out and was social nonetheless.
Tonight I can go to a Groundhog's Day party or to my friend's house for dinner. I am still not feeling social. So here is a discourse on one thing that irks me: the use of the word "antisocial".
Most people who use the word "antisocial" actually mean "asocial". Having been a counselor, antisocial means having Antisocial Personality Disorder, or being a sociopath. These are not nice people. They tend to be very charismatic, that is true, but they either put you on a pedestal or they hate you intensely. They have a set of rules they live by that is outside the social norm. They are especially adept at lying and manipulating the emotions of other people. They are often adrenalin junkies, if not drug addicts as well. They have a great deal of deep seated anger about them. But the one thing that really distinguishes them is their total lack of guilt and remorse. I always knew when I met these types. The hair on the back of my neck would stand up. Their demeanor tends to give them away. I anticipated never being able to trust anything they said.
An asocial person, on the other hand, is one who avoids social contact or just doesn't get along very well socially. This is what people usually mean when they say antisocial.
I am feeling asocial tonight. I have had my interaction with groups for the day. I wouldn't mind sitting around with one or two folks, but a party is too much. So I will try to get back into the cleaning mood.
Tonight I can go to a Groundhog's Day party or to my friend's house for dinner. I am still not feeling social. So here is a discourse on one thing that irks me: the use of the word "antisocial".
Most people who use the word "antisocial" actually mean "asocial". Having been a counselor, antisocial means having Antisocial Personality Disorder, or being a sociopath. These are not nice people. They tend to be very charismatic, that is true, but they either put you on a pedestal or they hate you intensely. They have a set of rules they live by that is outside the social norm. They are especially adept at lying and manipulating the emotions of other people. They are often adrenalin junkies, if not drug addicts as well. They have a great deal of deep seated anger about them. But the one thing that really distinguishes them is their total lack of guilt and remorse. I always knew when I met these types. The hair on the back of my neck would stand up. Their demeanor tends to give them away. I anticipated never being able to trust anything they said.
An asocial person, on the other hand, is one who avoids social contact or just doesn't get along very well socially. This is what people usually mean when they say antisocial.
I am feeling asocial tonight. I have had my interaction with groups for the day. I wouldn't mind sitting around with one or two folks, but a party is too much. So I will try to get back into the cleaning mood.
