Connect with us

Published

on

For people with cystic fibrosis, like Sabrina Walker, Trikafta has been a life-changer.

This story also ran on CBS News. It can be republished for free.

Before she started taking the drug, she would wind up in the hospital for weeks at a time until antibiotics could eliminate the infections in her lungs. Every day, she would wear a vest that shook her body to loosen the mucus buildup.

One particularly bad flare-up, known as a pulmonary exacerbation, had her coughing up blood in 2019, so she was put on the newly approved breakthrough medication.

Within a month, her lung function increased by 20%, she said, and her health improved. Before she started taking Trakafta, she could count on three to four hospitalizations a year. Over the four years on the medication, she has been hospitalized only once.

I was spending hours a day doing airway clearance and breathing treatments, and that has been significantly reduced, said the 37-year-old Erie, Colorado, mother. Ive gained hours back in my day.

Now she runs and hikes in the thin Colorado air and works a full-time job. Other patients have seen similar gains with the drug therapy, allowing many to resume regular lives and even take themselves off waiting lists for a lung transplant. Yet Walker and scores of other Colorado patients with cystic fibrosis are worried they could lose access to that transformative medication.

A state board charged with addressing the affordability of the most expensive prescription drugs has chosen Trikafta among its first five drugs to review, and it could move to cut the medications average in-state annual price of approximately $200,000, accounting for both insurers contributions and patients out-of-pocket costs. Drugmakers, including Trikafta’s maker, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, have said payment limits could hurt innovation and limit access, stoking panic among patients that the drug might no longer be sold in Colorado.

Two of the drugs chosen by the state board, the rheumatoid arthritis treatment Enbrel and the psoriasis medication Stelara, also appear on the initial list of 10 drugs for which Medicare will negotiate prices. Any federally negotiated price reductions wont go into effect until 2026, and its unclear how that effort will affect the Colorado boards work in the interim. Sabrina Walker, who has cystic fibrosis, has seen her lung health improve since taking Trikafta. Patients worry potential payment limits on the medication set by Colorados drug affordability board could cause the drugmaker to stop selling Trikafta in the state.(Adam Walker)

The Colorado boards choice of drugs to review elucidates one of the thorniest questions the board must wrangle with: Would lowering the price tag for rare-disease medications lead manufacturers to pull out of the state or limit their availability? State officials contend that the high cost of prescription drugs puts them out of reach for some patients, while patients worry that theyll lose access to a life-changing therapy and that fewer dollars will be available to develop breakthrough medications. And with affordability boards in other states poised to undergo similar exercises, what happens in Colorado could have implications nationwide.

It just puts Trikafta as a whole at risk, Walker said. It would start here, but it could create a ripple effect.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition that causes the body to produce thick, sticky mucus that clogs the lungs and digestive system, leading to lung damage, infections, and malnutrition. It is a progressive disease that results in irreversible lung damage and a median age of death of 34 years. There is no cure.

The rare disease affects fewer than 40,000 people in the U.S., including about 700 in Colorado. That means research and development costs are spread across a smaller number of patients than for more common conditions, such as the millions of people with heart disease or cancer.

Officials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals declined a request for an interview. But company spokesperson Sarah DSouza emailed a statement saying that the price of this medicine reflects its value to patients, the small number of people living with CF, the billions of dollars Vertex has invested to date to develop the first medicines to treat the underlying cause of CF, and the billions more we are investing in CF and other serious diseases.

Setting an upper payment limit, the company said, could hinder access to drugs like Trikafta and curtail investment in scientific innovation and drug discovery.

State officials counter that Vertex and other drugmakers are resorting to fear-mongering to protect their profits.

Colorado Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway said that whenever the state talks about saving people money on health care, the affected entity be it a hospital, insurance company, or drug manufacturer cries foul and claims there will be an access problem.

This is just, from my vantage point, the pharmaceutical industry trying to scare people, he said.

Colorados Prescription Drug Affordability Board has been working for more than a year to sort through 604 drugs eligible for review, with 17 data points for each, to create a prioritized list. In the end, they decided to focus this year only on drugs that had no brand-name competition or generic alternatives that could lower costs. Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing. Your Email Address Sign Up

Besides Trikafta, Enbrel, and Stelara, the board will review the affordability of the antiretroviral medication Genvoya, used to treat HIV, and another psoriasis treatment, Cosentyx.

Of those five, Trikafta had the highest average annual costs but the lowest five-year increase in price and the fewest patients taking it.

The boards review of the five drugs will happen over its next three to four meetings this year and early next year, allowing all stakeholders including patients, pharmacies, suppliers, and manufacturers to provide feedback on whether the drugs are indeed unaffordable and what a reasonable price should be. Any cost limits wouldnt take effect until next year at the earliest.

The board looked at what patients were paying out-of-pocket for their medicines, using a database that captures all the insurance claims in the state. But that data did not account for patient assistance programs, through which manufacturers reimburse patients for out-of-pocket costs. Such programs boost manufacturer sales of drugs because insurance covers most of the cost, and patients otherwise might not be able to afford them.

Through the first half of the year, Vertex reported profits of $1.6 billion, with 89% of its revenue coming from Trikafta (marketed as Kaftrio in Europe). At the beginning of the year, Vertex decreased copay assistance for people with cystic fibrosis, in what the company said was a response to insurers’ limiting patients’ ability to apply copay assistance to their deductibles.

Lila Cummings, director of the Colorado board, said its staff could not find any entity that collects data on patient assistance programs, so those figures were not available to the board. Once they begin reviewing the individual medications, board members will dig into what extra financial help patients are getting. Cummings also said the board is hoping manufacturers will convey in good faith what might prompt them to leave the Colorado market.

When Trikafta came up second on the Colorado boards prioritized list of drugs eligible for review, patients and advocacy groups flooded the board with pleas to leave pricing for the medication and other drugs for rare diseases untouched.

People are scared, Walker said. If you look at all the drugs out there, it’s one that has been so transformational that I think it will go down in history for how positively its impacted our population as a whole.

According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, lung exacerbations dropped 65% and lung transplants dropped 80% after the drugs approval. More patients have been able to work, attendschool, or start a family. Clinicians have reported a baby boom among patients who take Trikafta.

A study published this year showed that two-thirds of people with cystic fibrosis struggled with finances, experiencing debt, food insecurity, or trouble paying for household or health expenses. The survey was conducted in 2019, before the FDA approval of Trikafta.

Years ago, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation invested in Aurora Biosciences, later acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, to promote development of cystic fibrosis therapies. The foundation completed the sale of its royalty rights in 2020.

Mary Dwight, chief policy and advocacy officer for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, said the board should ensure its review of Trikafta accounts for the overall value this drug has for someone with CF, including the impact on an individuals long-term health and well-being.

There is no guarantee that the Colorado board will take action on Trikafta. State officials have stressed that board members are solely focused on improving access and wouldnt jeopardize the availability of the medication.

We have a history of being able to save people money on health care that doesnt lead to access problems, Conway said. Were not talking about these companies losing money at all; were talking about making it more affordable so that more Coloradans can get access to the pharmaceutical needs that they have.

But Walker remains unconvinced.

They had so much testimony on their call and they still selected Trikafta, she said. Everyone was just saying how important this drug is, and it didnt matter. It still got pushed through.

Markian Hawryluk: MarkianH@kff.org, @MarkianHawryluk Related Topics Health Care Costs States Colorado Drug Costs Prescription Drugs Contact Us Submit a Story Tip

Continue Reading

Technology

Apple scores big victory with ‘F1,’ but AI is still a major problem in Cupertino

Published

on

By

Apple scores big victory with 'F1,' but AI is still a major problem in Cupertino

Formula One F1 – United States Grand Prix – Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas, U.S. – October 23, 2022 Tim Cook waves the chequered flag to the race winner Red Bull’s Max Verstappen 

Mike Segar | Reuters

Apple had two major launches last month. They couldn’t have been more different.

First, Apple revealed some of the artificial intelligence advancements it had been working on in the past year when it released developer versions of its operating systems to muted applause at its annual developer’s conference, WWDC. Then, at the end of the month, Apple hit the red carpet as its first true blockbuster movie, “F1,” debuted to over $155 million — and glowing reviews — in its first weekend.

While “F1” was a victory lap for Apple, highlighting the strength of its long-term outlook, the growth of its services business and its ability to tap into culture, Wall Street’s reaction to the company’s AI announcements at WWDC suggest there’s some trouble underneath the hood.

“F1” showed Apple at its best — in particular, its ability to invest in new, long-term projects. When Apple TV+ launched in 2019, it had only a handful of original shows and one movie, a film festival darling called “Hala” that didn’t even share its box office revenue.

Despite Apple TV+ being written off as a costly side-project, Apple stuck with its plan over the years, expanding its staff and operation in Culver City, California. That allowed the company to build up Hollywood connections, especially for TV shows, and build an entertainment track record. Now, an Apple Original can lead the box office on a summer weekend, the prime season for blockbuster films.

The success of “F1” also highlights Apple’s significant marketing machine and ability to get big-name talent to appear with its leadership. Apple pulled out all the stops to market the movie, including using its Wallet app to send a push notification with a discount for tickets to the film. To promote “F1,” Cook appeared with movie star Brad Pitt at an Apple store in New York and posted a video with actual F1 racer Lewis Hamilton, who was one of the film’s producers.

(L-R) Brad Pitt, Lewis Hamilton, Tim Cook, and Damson Idris attend the World Premiere of “F1: The Movie” in Times Square on June 16, 2025 in New York City.

Jamie Mccarthy | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Although Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in a recent interview that Apple needs the its film business to be profitable to “continue to do great things,” “F1” isn’t just about the bottom line for the company.

Apple’s Hollywood productions are perhaps the most prominent face of the company’s services business, a profit engine that has been an investor favorite since the iPhone maker started highlighting the division in 2016.

Films will only ever be a small fraction of the services unit, which also includes payments, iCloud subscriptions, magazine bundles, Apple Music, game bundles, warranties, fees related to digital payments and ad sales. Plus, even the biggest box office smashes would be small on Apple’s scale — the company does over $1 billion in sales on average every day.

But movies are the only services component that can get celebrities like Pitt or George Clooney to appear next to an Apple logo — and the success of “F1” means that Apple could do more big popcorn films in the future.

“Nothing breeds success or inspires future investment like a current success,” said Comscore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian.

But if “F1” is a sign that Apple’s services business is in full throttle, the company’s AI struggles are a “check engine” light that won’t turn off.

Replacing Siri’s engine

At WWDC last month, Wall Street was eager to hear about the company’s plans for Apple Intelligence, its suite of AI features that it first revealed in 2024. Apple Intelligence, which is a key tenet of the company’s hardware products, had a rollout marred by delays and underwhelming features.

Apple spent most of WWDC going over smaller machine learning features, but did not reveal what investors and consumers increasingly want: A sophisticated Siri that can converse fluidly and get stuff done, like making a restaurant reservation. In the age of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini, the expectation of AI assistants among consumers is growing beyond “Siri, how’s the weather?”

The company had previewed a significantly improved Siri in the summer of 2024, but earlier this year, those features were delayed to sometime in 2026. At WWDC, Apple didn’t offer any updates about the improved Siri beyond that the company was “continuing its work to deliver” the features in the “coming year.” Some observers reduced their expectations for Apple’s AI after the conference.

“Current expectations for Apple Intelligence to kickstart a super upgrade cycle are too high, in our view,” wrote Jefferies analysts this week.

Siri should be an example of how Apple’s ability to improve products and projects over the long-term makes it tough to compete with.

It beat nearly every other voice assistant to market when it first debuted on iPhones in 2011. Fourteen years later, Siri remains essentially the same one-off, rigid, question-and-answer system that struggles with open-ended questions and dates, even after the invention in recent years of sophisticated voice bots based on generative AI technology that can hold a conversation.

Apple’s strongest rivals, including Android parent Google, have done way more to integrate sophisticated AI assistants into their devices than Apple has. And Google doesn’t have the same reflex against collecting data and cloud processing as privacy-obsessed Apple.

Some analysts have said they believe Apple has a few years before the company’s lack of competitive AI features will start to show up in device sales, given the company’s large installed base and high customer loyalty. But Apple can’t get lapped before it re-enters the race, and its former design guru Jony Ive is now working on new hardware with OpenAI, ramping up the pressure in Cupertino.

“The three-year problem, which is within an investment time frame, is that Android is racing ahead,” Needham senior internet analyst Laura Martin said on CNBC this week.

Apple’s services success with projects like “F1” is an example of what the company can do when it sets clear goals in public and then executes them over extended time-frames.

Its AI strategy could use a similar long-term plan, as customers and investors wonder when Apple will fully embrace the technology that has captivated Silicon Valley.

Wall Street’s anxiety over Apple’s AI struggles was evident this week after Bloomberg reported that Apple was considering replacing Siri’s engine with Anthropic or OpenAI’s technology, as opposed to its own foundation models.

The move, if it were to happen, would contradict one of Apple’s most important strategies in the Cook era: Apple wants to own its core technologies, like the touchscreen, processor, modem and maps software, not buy them from suppliers.

Using external technology would be an admission that Apple Foundation Models aren’t good enough yet for what the company wants to do with Siri.

“They’ve fallen farther and farther behind, and they need to supercharge their generative AI efforts” Martin said. “They can’t do that internally.”

Apple might even pay billions for the use of Anthropic’s AI software, according to the Bloomberg report. If Apple were to pay for AI, it would be a reversal from current services deals, like the search deal with Alphabet where the Cupertino company gets paid $20 billion per year to push iPhone traffic to Google Search.

The company didn’t confirm the report and declined comment, but Wall Street welcomed the report and Apple shares rose.

In the world of AI in Silicon Valley, signing bonuses for the kinds of engineers that can develop new models can range up to $100 million, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

“I can’t see Apple doing that,” Martin said.

Earlier this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo bragging about hiring 11 AI experts from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google’s DeepMind. That came after Zuckerberg hired Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang to lead a new AI division as part of a $14.3 billion deal.

Meta’s not the only company to spend hundreds of millions on AI celebrities to get them in the building. Google spent big to hire away the founders of Character.AI, Microsoft got its AI leader by striking a deal with Inflection and Amazon hired the executive team of Adept to bulk up its AI roster.

Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t announced any big AI hires in recent years. While Cook rubs shoulders with Pitt, the actual race may be passing Apple by.

WATCH: Jefferies upgrades Apple to ‘Hold’

Jefferies upgrades Apple to 'Hold'

Continue Reading

Technology

Musk backs Sen. Paul’s criticism of Trump’s megabill in first comment since it passed

Published

on

By

Musk backs Sen. Paul's criticism of Trump's megabill in first comment since it passed

Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who bombarded President Donald Trump‘s signature spending bill for weeks, on Friday made his first comments since the legislation passed.

Musk backed a post on X by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said the bill’s budget “explodes the deficit” and continues a pattern of “short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”

The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Thursday, sending it to Trump to sign into law.

Paul and Musk have been vocal opponents of Trump’s tax and spending bill, and repeatedly called out the potential for the spending package to increase the national debt.

On Monday, Musk called it the “DEBT SLAVERY bill.”

The independent Congressional Budget Office has said the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion of U.S. debt over the next decade. The White House has labeled the agency as “partisan” and continuously refuted the CBO’s estimates.

Read more CNBC tech news

The bill includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts, increased spending for immigration enforcement and large cuts to funding for Medicaid and other programs.

It also cuts tax credits and support for solar and wind energy and electric vehicles, a particularly sore spot for Musk, who has several companies that benefit from the programs.

“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post in early June as the pair traded insults and threats.

Shares of Tesla plummeted as the feud intensified, with the company losing $152 billion in market cap on June 5 and putting the company below $1 trillion in value. The stock has largely rebounded since, but is still below where it was trading before the ruckus with Trump.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Tesla one-month stock chart.

— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger and Erin Doherty contributed to this article.

Continue Reading

Politics

FTX estate asks court to freeze payouts in ‘restricted’ countries

Published

on

By

FTX estate asks court to freeze payouts in ‘restricted’ countries

FTX estate asks court to freeze payouts in ‘restricted’ countries

FTX’s bankruptcy estate is uncertain whether it is legally entitled to distribute payouts to creditors in countries such as China amid local crypto restrictions.

Continue Reading

Trending