I. Assignment Overview: This assignment is based on an article pub- lished in The Economists\u2019 Voice titled \u2018Want More Value from Prescription Drugs? We Need to Let Prices Rise and Fall\u2019, by Dana P. Goldman, Adam Leive and Darius Lakdawalla, in 2013. The article is already attached to this assignment question. Please read the article carefully before attempt- ing this exercise. You will also need to draw on other resources available through the library as well as external resources. Please note that you need to provide clear references for your sources when citing research and data.<\/p>\n
II. Learning Objectives: This assignment is designed to encourage you to think about the application of concepts learned in this unit in a real world scenario. This assignment, indeed, is interesting as it explains how the existing economic theories become helpful to undersstand the pricing strategies of cancer drugs. We hope that this assignment will expand the horizon of your thoughts.
\n1<\/p>\n
III. Assessment: Your score on this assignment contributes towards 40% of your final score for this unit. Based on the attached Rubric, your assignment will be graded on your use of appropriate economic theory and concepts, clarity of exposition and overall quality of your answers. Although you can work in group, this is not a group assignment and you must submit answers individually.<\/p>\n
IV. Submission: This assignment must be submitted electronically on CloudDeakin (CD) Dropbox area by all students by 11:59pm on the due date. No hard copy is required. Print your name and student ID clearly on the first page of your answers. Please check the Academic Honesty and Misconduct section in the Unit Guide. Submitting your answers automati- cally implies that you have read and accepted the Plagiarism and Collusion Declaration, and that the submitted answers are entirely your own work.<\/p>\n
V. Questions: Answer all questions. Limit the total word count of your assignment to less than 3,000 words. You are encouraged to provide necessary graphs, figures and tables with data wherever possible, which are not subject to word limit. Please be careful in implementing referencing styles.
\n1. In your own words, summarise the article. What is the main message of this article? [8 marks]
\n2. According to Authors, \u201cDrug pricing is also a product of a hidebound reimbursement system that does a poor job in letting prices adjust to new information about value.\u201d- in light of the article and based on your own research, please explain why the authors suggest so. Can you provide a justification for the existence of a reimbursement system in<\/p>\n
2<\/p>\n
life saving drug market? Does the hidebound reimbursement system lead to market failure? [8 marks]
\n3. Suppose you are a CEO of a pharmaceutical company called \u2018XYZ\u2019. After investing millions of dollar, your company comes up with a drug that may cure all types of cancer. As a CEO, what pricing strategies will you adopt to maximise profit? Suppose government is planning to adopt price ceiling or price floor strategy. Do you think such strategy may a?ect your R&D (ie Research and Development) for developing a new drug? Explain. [ 8 marks]
\n4. We have Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) in Australia. Do you think our pharmaceutical industry is highly beneficial because of PBS? Explain. [8 marks]
\n5. Do you think that the global drug market is a competitive market? Explain. [8 marks]
\n3<\/p>\n
DOI 10.1515\/ev-2013-0027 The Economists\u2019 Voice 2013; 10(1): 39\u201343<\/p>\n
Dana P. Goldman*, Adam Leive and Darius Lakdawalla
\nWant More Value from Prescription Drugs? We Need to Let Prices Rise and Fall<\/p>\n
Abstract: The high price of some cancer drugs has recently come under attack by the medical profession. We examine the reasons behind the pricing strategies of cancer drugs. On the one hand, prices should reflect value and research demonstrates that the health benefits from novel cancer drugs have been enormous in terms of addi- tional years of life patients can now enjoy. This provides some justification for the high price tag of these drugs. On the other hand, drug pricing is also a product of a hidebound reimbursement system that does a poor job in letting prices adjust to new information about value. Regulators set thresholds for cost-effectiveness, which establishes not only a price ceiling but also a price floor. Manufacturers often price drugs high at launch in efforts to recoup their initial investment, but a more efficient system would allow prices to both rise and fall over time. Removing distortions in the reimbursement system is crucial to ensuring continued success in saving lives.
\nKeywords: health; prescription drugs; pricing; value.<\/p>\n
*Corresponding author: Dana P. Goldman, Director of the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California, 3335 S. Figueroa Street, Unit A, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA, e-mail: dana.goldman@usc.edu
\nAdam Leive: Doctoral Student in Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA, USA
\nDarius Lakdawalla: Quintiles Chair in Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Innovation at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
\nA group of distinguished international cancer physicians recently joined together to decry what they called the \u201castronomical, unsustainable, and perhaps even immoral\u201d prices of cancer drugs.1 In the name of saving patients, they appealed to drug manufacturers to lower their prices.
\nThe group\u2019s remarks made for important political theater in the policy debate over healthcare costs. But they skirted the question of why the drugs\u2019 prices are high to begin with. In large part, drug manufacturers are locked into an approval and reimbursement system that distorts the underlying value of their products and makes high initial prices the best option for recouping their investment. In fact, some regulators set thresholds for cost-effectiveness, which sets not only a price ceiling but also a price floor. Introducing pricing flexibility into these systems,<\/p>\n
1 Kantarjian et al. (2013).<\/p>\n
40 Dana P. Goldman et al.
\nwhich would enable drug prices to both rise and fall in response to new information about a drug\u2019s value, is crucial to ensuring that patients get the drugs they need.
\nThe cancer physicians focused on their specialty, a relatively rare form of cancer called chronic myelogenous leukemia, or CML. Before the development of imatinib \u2013 the novel cancer drug, popularly known as Gleevec, used to treat CML \u2013 80 percent of patients diagnosed with the disease died within 10 years. Imatinib lowered that rate to 20 percent \u2013 a reduction so dramatic that patients \u201cnow live close to normal life spans.\u201d2
\nThe physicians argued that a drug\u2019s price \u2013 Gleevec costs $76,000 per year \u2013 \u201cmust reflect worth.\u201d So what is the \u201cworth\u201d of those extensions in lifespan that CML patients enjoy? Our research shows that imatinib, manufactured by Novartis, created more than $88 billion in social value in terms of patients\u2019 survival gains and drug-company profits over the lifetime of CML patients.3 What is Novartis\u2019 cut? The answer is 10 percent, a fraction typical for a range of other cancer drugs: our research finds patients enjoy between 81 percent and 95 percent of the social value that drugs create, with manufacturers earning a minority of social welfare in terms of profits.4
\nThe oncologists readily acknowledged that drug manufacturers deserve some positive return on their investments in order to encourage them to spend billions more on new drug research. Recouping 10 percent of the total value of cancer-drug innovations doesn\u2019t seem unreasonable, given that these drugs will eventually lose patent protection and that, over their lifetimes, they are far more cost-effective than pricing at their launch would suggest.5
\nBut securing such a return on investment, short of high initial prices, is virtu- ally impossible in our current drug approval and reimbursement system. The key problem is that information on survival benefits and the range of diseases a drug can treat often trickles out slowly over time and after a drug is on the market, but prices \u2013 which are often dictated by regulators both here and abroad \u2013 do not adjust to reflect changes to the drug\u2019s value.
\nTraditionally, an experimental drug\u2019s approval was predicated on demon- strating that it improved patients\u2019 survival rates vis-\u00e0-vis those under standard care. But waiting for differences in overall survival rates to show up can delay approval up to 10 years or more, blocking patients\u2019 access to potentially helpful therapies and driving up the costs of developing drugs.
\n2 Kantarjian et al. (2013).
\n3 Yin et al. (2012).
\n4 Lakdawalla et al. (2010).
\n5 Lu et al. (2012).<\/p>\n
Want More Value from Prescription Drugs? 41
\nRecognizing these issues, regulators around the world, including the Food and Drug Administration, have started to consider \u201csurrogate endpoints\u201d when evaluating new drugs.6 One such biological endpoint is tumor size, which is predictive of clinical outcomes like survival. In 2006, the FDA approved Sutent for treatment of both gastrointestinal and kidney cancers based on the drug\u2019s ability to slow tumor growth.7 More conservative European regulators also allow surrogate endpoints, at least in conjunction with other outcome measures, when approving a drug.8
\nBut approval and reimbursement are very different decisions. Progress on the approval front has collided with a hidebound reimbursement system. Even if the FDA approves a drug based on surrogate endpoints, insurers may be reluctant to reimburse for a treatment that hasn\u2019t yet demonstrated a survival benefit. This problem is exacerbated in cases where the drug is very expensive.
\nConsider the case of the immunotherapy drug Provenge for prostate cancer, which costs $93,000 for a course of treatment. The FDA denied approval in 2007 despite a positive recommendation from its own advisory panel, only to approve the drug 3 years later. It took another year before Medicare would pay for it. The official reason given for Medicare\u2019s holdup was to evaluate the drug\u2019s off-label uses, but doctors, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, read the lack of immediate coverage as a consequence of the drug\u2019s high price tag.9
\nSo what can be done?
\nDetermining a drug\u2019s value at its launch is difficult. Over time, for example, we sometimes learn that a drug can help treat conditions not considered at the time of its debut, which should theoretically increase its value. In fact, the FDA approved imatinib to treat the most common form of pediatric cancer, acute lym- phoblastic leukemia, in January.10 This expanded use of imatinib may make that drug\u2019s value higher than our $88 billion estimate for CML alone.
\nBut the current reimbursement system is simply not designed to absorb this new information and, as a result, is horribly inefficient in fairly matching a drug\u2019s value to its price. Think of a stock market insensitive to new information: On what basis would you determine the value of a company?
\nIf regulators raised prices with evidence of added value, manufacturers would have less incentive to set high prices at a drug\u2019s launch. And regulators could argue for lower reimbursement until new clinical evidence arose to support<\/p>\n
6 Garrido and Mangiapane (2009).
\n7 Food and Drug Administration (2006).
\n8 Garrido and Mangiapane (2009).
\n9 Pharmalot (2010).
\n10 Wall Street Journal (2013).<\/p>\n
42 Dana P. Goldman et al.
\nhigher prices. Drug prices would thus reflect their underlying value, and products would get to market sooner.
\nBut right now, insurers and regulators such as Medicare are trapped on the wrong path, where no one has an incentive to adjust prices. A private insurer won\u2019t offer to pay more than its competitors if a drug becomes more valuable, so prices don\u2019t rise. And Medicare follows private insurers by reimbursing based on average sales prices. In economic parlance, we are stuck at a bad equilibrium. We might look to Medicare, as the largest payer, to break out of the mold since, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), cancer drugs comprise over 40 percent of the most expensive medications under Medicare Part B. With Medicare taking the lead, private insurers might be forced to follow.
\nIn many respects, we are winning the war on cancer, with patients living longer thanks largely to innovative treatments. Making cancer drug prices sensi- tive to new information, whether beneficial or disappointing, would help ensure continued success in saving lives.<\/p>\n
Previously published online July 26, 2013
\nReferences and further reading
\nFood and Drug Administration. 2006. \u201cFDA Approves New Treatment for Gastrointestinal and Kidney Cancer.\u201d FDA News Release P06-11. http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/NewsEvents\/Newsroom\/ PressAnnouncements\/2006\/ucm108583.htm.
\nGarrido, Marcial V., and Sandra Mangiapane. 2009. \u201cSurrogate Outcomes in Health Technology Assessment: An International Comparison.\u201d International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25 (3): 315\u2013322. http:\/\/journals.cambridge.org\/action\/display Abstract?fromPage=online&aid=5961384.
\nGovernment Accountability Office. 2012. \u201cMedicare: High-Expenditure Part B Drugs.\u201d GAO-13-46R. http:\/\/www.gao.gov\/assets\/650\/649459.pdf.
\nKantarjian, Hagop and experts in chronic myeloid leukemia. 2013. \u201cThe Price of Drugs for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML); A Reflection of the Unsustainable Prices of Cancer Drugs: From the Perspective of a Large Group of CML Experts.\u201d Blood 121 (22): 4439\u20134442. http:\/\/bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org\/content\/early\/2013\/04\/23\/blood-2013-03- 490003.full.pdf+html.
\nLakdawalla, Darius, Eric Sun, Anupam Jena, Carolina Reyes, Dana Goldman, and Tomas Philipson. 2010. \u201cAn Economic Evaluation of the War on Cancer.\u201d Journal of Health Economics 29 (3): 333\u2013346. http:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/ S0167629610000214.
\nLu, Yang, John Penrod, Neeraj Sood, Sarah Woodby, and Tomas Philipson. 2012. \u201cDynamic Cost-Effectiveness of Oncology Drugs.\u201d American Journal of Managed Care 18: S249\u2013S256. http:\/\/www.ajmc.com\/publications\/supplement\/2012\/a386_12nov_ oncology\/a386_12nov_onclogy_lu_s249.<\/p>\n
Want More Value from Prescription Drugs? 43
\nPharmalot. 2010. \u201cOncologists Criticize CMS for Provenge Review.\u201d http:\/\/www.pharmalive. com\/oncologists-criticizes-cms-provenge-review.
\nWall Street Journal. 2013. \u201cFDA Approves New Use for Cancer Drug.\u201d Accessed January 25. http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/article\/SB10001424127887323539804578264073478252766.html.
\nYin, Wesley, John Penrod, Ross Maclean, Darius Lakdawalla, and Tomas Philipson. 2012. \u201cValue of Survival Gains in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.\u201d American Journal of Managed Care 18: S257\u2013S264. http:\/\/www.ajmc.com\/publications\/supplement\/2012\/A386_12nov_ Oncology\/A386_12nov_Onclogy_Yin_S257to64.<\/p>\n
Copyright of Economists’ Voice is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
\nCriteria
\nPoor \/ unacceptable
\n\/ Not attempted Requires further development) \/ needs improvement
\nAcceptable \/ Satisfactory \/ Proficient
\nGood \/ Well done Very good \/ exceeds expectations Excellent \/ exemplary \/ exceeding high standard
\nQuestion 1 Accessing Criterion Discipline Specific Knowledge and Capabilities; Total Marks: 8
\nProvides an explanation that is not consistent with the existing economic theories or\/and fails to establish the link between the case study and the relevant economic theories.
\nFurthermore, summary of the of the given article is not coherent and provide incorrect interpretation.<\/p>\n
(0 – 2 marks)
\nProvides an explanation that demonstrates some ability in establishing the link between the case study and the existing economic theories.
\nFurthermore, summary of the of the given article may be coherent but provide incorrect interpretation<\/p>\n
(2.1 – 3.9 marks)
\nProviding an explanation that demonstrates a good ability in establishing the link between the case study and the existing economic
\ntheories. However, the explanation also demonstrates superficial knowledge of the existing economic
\ntheories. Furthermore, summary of the of the given article is coherent, and provide correct interpretation.<\/p>\n
(4 – 4.7 marks) Providing an explanation that demonstrates a competent knowledge in establishing the link between the case study and the existing economic theories. Also demonstrate the ability of accurate understanding of the theories.
\nFurthermore, summary of the of the given article is coherent, and provide correct interpretation. Providing an explanation that demonstrates a competent knowledge in establishing the link between the case study and the existing economic theories. Also demonstrate the ability of accurate understanding of the theories.
\nProficient with the interpretation of one perspective.
\nFurthermore, summary of the of the given article is coherent, and provide correct interpretation. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge in establishing the link between the case study and the existing economic theories. Also demonstrate the ability of accurate understanding of the theories.
\nProficient with the interpretation of different perspectives.
\nFurthermore, summary of the of the given article is coherent and provide correct interpretation
\n(4.8 – 5.5 marks) (5.6 – 6.3 marks) (6.4 – 8 marks)
\nQuestion 2 Accessing Criterion Critical Poor or missing analysis of theories; Inadequate demonstration of Mostly adequate demonstration of critical General demonstration of Accurate demonstration of Scholarly demonstration of<\/p>\n
Thinking (Evaluation Inconsistent critical analysis analysis of theories and critical analysis critical analysis of critical analysis of
\nof argument or of relevant models, yet some of theories and theories and theories and
\nInformation\/theories); argument with no theories and inconsistencies remain in models. models. models.
\nTotal Marks:8 supporting models; Poor the arguments. Discriminates Systematically Systematically and
\nevidence. Always reasoning and Discriminates between between discriminates methodically
\nconfuses facts and argument with no assertion or personal assertion or between assertion discriminates
\npersonal opinion supporting opinion and information personal opinion or personal between assertion
\nand\/or emotion. evidence. Often substantiated by and information opinion and or personal opinion
\nInformation is taken confuses facts evidence. substantiated by information and information
\nfrom source(s) with and personal robust evidence. substantiated by substantiated by
\nno or little opinion and\/or (4 – 4.7 marks) Information is robust evidence. robust evidence.
\ninterpretation. emotion. taken from Information is Information is
\nsource(s) with taken from taken from
\n(0 – 2 marks) (2.1 – 3.9 marks) appropriate source(s) with a source(s) with a
\ninterpretation. high level of very high level of
\nProvides relevant interpretation. interpretation.
\nsupporting Provides relevant Provides relevant
\ndiagrams (e.g. diagrams (e.g. diagrams (e.g.
\nillustrations, illustrations, illustrations,
\ncharts, graphs charts, graphs charts, graphs etc.).
\netc.). etc.).
\n(6.4 – 8 marks)
\n(4.8 – 5.5 marks) (5.6 – 6.3 marks)
\nDemonstrates no Demonstrates a Demonstrates Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates
\nability to limited ability to satisfactory ability to good ability to very good ability exceedingly high
\nQuestion 3 Accessing Criterion (Problem Solving); Total Marks:8 independently construct a clear statement about a complex problem or research hypothesis. independently construct a clear and statement about a complex problem or independently and expertly construct a clear statement about a complex problem or research hypothesis with independently and expertly construct a clear statement about a complex problem to independently and expertly construct a clear and insightful statement about a ability to independently and expertly construct a clear and insightful
\nProposes no research evidence. Creates an or research complex problem statement about a
\nsolutions or ideas to hypothesis. acceptable new object, hypothesis with or research complex problem<\/p>\n
address new and Proposes solution, or idea; evidence of hypothesis with or research
\ncomplex problems. inappropriate Proposes one or more reasonably evidence of hypothesis with
\nDemonstrates no solutions or ideas acceptable creative relevant relevant evidence of all
\nevidence of initiative to address new solutions to existing contextual contextual factors. relevant
\nin planning and and complex and\/or new situations in factors. Proposes Create a brilliant contextual factors.
\nidentifies no viable problems. professional practice; also reasonable innovative new Create a ground-
\napproaches for Demonstrates the solution reflects adaptations of object, solution or breaking
\nsolving complex limited evidence proficient judgement of existing objects, idea; Proposes innovative new
\nproblems. of initiative in the pros and cons of the solutions or ideas adaptations of object, solution or
\nplanning and various options. to address new existing objects, idea; Proposes
\n(0 – 2 marks) identifies few and complex solutions or ideas adaptations of
\nviable approaches (4 – 4.7 marks) problems to address new and existing objects,
\nfor solving Demonstrates a complex solutions or ideas
\ncomplex very high level problems, reflects to address new and
\nproblems. of initiative in on and evaluates complex problems,
\nplanning and the creative reflects on and
\n(2.1 – 3.9 marks) identifies process and evaluates the
\nmultiple product. Skilfully creative process
\napproaches for extends an and product.
\nresearching and existing idea. Outstandingly
\nsolving complex Demonstrates a extends an existing
\nproblems. high level of idea Demonstrates
\nProvide relevant initiative in a very high level
\ndiagrams. planning and of initiative in
\nidentifies multiple, planning and
\n(4.8 – 5.5 marks) innovative identifies multiple,
\napproaches. innovative
\nProvide relevant approaches.
\ndiagrams. Proposes one or
\nmore exemplary
\n(5.6 – 6.3 marks) creative, novel
\nsolutions to<\/p>\n
existing and\/or new situations in professional practice. Provide relevant diagrams.<\/p>\n
(6.4 – 8 marks)<\/p>\n
Question 4 Accessing Criterion Critical Thinking (Existing Knowledge, Research or\/and Views); Total Marks:8
\nPoor or missing analysis of theories. Always presents information from inappropriate sources representing very limited points of view or approaches.<\/p>\n
(0 – 2 marks)<\/p>\n
Inadequate demonstration of critical analysis of relevant theories and models; Poor reasoning and argument with no supporting evidence. Often presents information from inappropriate sources representing limited points of view or approaches.<\/p>\n
(2.1 – 3.9 marks)
\nMostly adequate demonstration of critical analysis of theories and models, yet some inconsistencies remain in the arguments. Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and demonstrating a mastery of theoretical knowledge.<\/p>\n
(4 – 4.7 marks) General demonstration of critical analysis of theories and models. Presents complex information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and demonstrating a mastery of theoretical knowledge.
\nProvides diagrams explaining one critical aspect of the theories. Accurate demonstration of critical analysis of theories and models.
\nSynthesises information and knowledge from a range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches and demonstrating a high level of mastery of theoretical knowledge.
\nProvides diagrams explaining different critical aspects of the Scholarly demonstration of critical analysis of theories and models.
\nSynthesises complex information and knowledge from a broad range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches and demonstrating a high level of mastery of theoretical knowledge and expert understanding of recent developments in
\n(4.8 – 5.5 marks) theories. the discipline and\/or area of<\/p>\n
(5.6 – 6.3 marks) professional practice. Provides diagrams explaining different critical aspects of the theories.<\/p>\n
(6.4 – 8 marks)<\/p>\n
Question 5 Accessing Criterion (Global Citizenship); Total Marks:8
\nDemonstrates no understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice.<\/p>\n
(0 – 2 marks)
\nDemonstrates limited understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice.<\/p>\n
(2.1 – 3.9 marks)
\nDemonstrates acceptable level of understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice.
\nProvide diagrams and relevant figures to make a consistent argument with good reasoning.<\/p>\n
(4 – 4.7 marks) Demonstrates a high level of understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice. Provide diagrams and relevant figures to make a consistent argument with good reasoning.
\nDemonstrates very good sophisticated understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice. Provide diagrams and relevant figures to make a consistent argument with good reasoning. Demonstrates extraordinarily sophisticated and deep understanding of the complexity of global\/ cultural \/ ethical perspectives or of professional practice. Provide diagrams and relevant figures to make a consistent argument with good reasoning.
\n(4.8 – 5.5 marks) (5.6 – 6.3 marks)
\n(6.4 – 8 marks)
\nOverall Score 0 or More 11 or more 20 or more 24 or more 28 or more 32 or more<\/p>\n
FAIL (N)
\nFAIL (N)
\nPASS (P)
\nCREDIT (C) DISTINCTION (D) HIGH DISTINCTION (HD)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I. Assignment Overview: This assignment is based on an article pub- lished in The Economists\u2019 Voice titled \u2018Want More Value from Prescription Drugs? We Need to Let Prices Rise and Fall\u2019, by Dana P. Goldman, Adam Leive and Darius Lakdawalla, Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}