US White House contenders: Who's best for science, health investment?
This article was originally published in Clinica
With the 6 November US presidential election fast approaching, some of the nation's top scientists and health economists and experts last week weighed in on who should govern policy and control federal spending over the next four years for the National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services and the other health care and scientific agencies, along with deciding the future of the 2010 health care reform law – pointing out the contrasts between the two White House contenders.
You may also be interested in...
With new funding in hand, Moderna and its infectious disease venture Valera are going full-speed ahead with a Zika vaccine, taking an mRNA approach, which they said could be a more rapid strategy to try to stop the disease.
Allergan CEO Brent Saunders vows not to engage in price gouging and says his firm will limit cost increases to single-digit percentages, occurring only once per year. But it's unclear whether Saunders will stand as a lone wolf in the industry or if others will make similar pledges.
Hillary Clinton's plan to rein in high prices of older medicines, which includes creating a federal panel that has authority to impose fines, may grab headlines, but some analysts think it's unlikely to get very far in a divided Washington.