Every product and every service has been designed to add more. More value. More convenience. And more in terms of overall experience.



Welcome To

Simply beautiful

We believe that our commitment to our customers is the key to developing unique personal care solutions
All products sold at RX Observer Choices are bought directly from the manufacturers and/or their distributors. We always have the most recent freshest products available.
We had developed the assortment of Beauty Care which will not only make you shine with outer cosmetics, but also help your skin & beauty rejuvenate and makes it beautiful forever.

Body Care

Hand Polishing
Leg Polishing
Full Body Massage
Full Body Polishing
Bride Body Care
Neck Polishing

Book An Appointment

Time to treat yourself!

Click Me!

Hand Care

Classic Manicure
Deluxe Manicure
Spa Manicure
French Manicure
Nail Shaping with Filling
Nail Polishing

Book An Appointment

Feel natural, be natural.

Click Me!

Hair Cut

straight cut
U-cut
Deep “U” Cut
V-Cut
Blunt cut
Split eands

BookK An Appointment

When you look good, you feel good.

Click Me!

Latest News

Is Lip-Augmentation Is Suitable for You?

If you think that lip-augmentation is all about enhancing lip-volume only, then you are wrong. Sometimes, the lip-size reduction is included under the same cosmetic process. Both lip size and shape can be easily maintained with lip cosmetic surgery. Choosing the best surgeon will be the wisest decision in this respect.

If you are not happy with your lip structure, then you can choose this option as the best solution. You can now flaunt your lips naturally without any artificial appeal. Both artificial and natural elements are being injected into your lips, and you have to make the best selection out of these two options.

nice lips

Primary Goals:

  • One of the main goals of lip-augmentation is an enhancement of lip value and beauty.
  • You can now receive a great smile with this procedure.
  • Lip defects, especially lack pulpiness, unevenness and others can be effectively repaired by this process.
  • Youthful and natural pout can be enjoyed for a long time.
  • Ageing-lines around the lips can be easily eliminated, and thus your smile looks much more attractive.

Ideal Candidates:

Lipstick lines can be reduced along with the enhancement of lip-volume with the lip-augmentation process. If you think that your desire for getting beautiful lips will make you eligible for this cosmetic procedure, then you are wrong.

This is because innumerable factors need to be determined in this respect ad some of the most prominent ones are lip condition, medical considerations, benefits and complications associated with the concerned process and other related ones. Breastfeeding condition or pregnancy needs to be avoided.

If you are already undergoing any treatment for any serious or chronic diseases especially skin diseases, then you will lose your eligibility for having this procedure. Only healthy lips can be treated well with this cosmetic surgery. This surgery is suitable for only adults who have crossed 18-years. You should not have any existing issue of allergies or infections.

Medical Considerations:

  • Preexisting allergies need to be disclosed so that the doctor can take the right decision accordingly.
  • Before applying anesthesia, you should disclose to your surgeon that whether you have got breathing issues or not otherwise you might experience chronic allergic reactions.
  • Since lip-augmentation is of varied types, therefore you should ask your doctor which type is suitable for satisfying your requirement. Make sure that the option your surgeon has finalized is safe for your lips.
  • Only those lip-augmentation products need to be used that have been approved by FDA. This is because FDA-approved products are considered as safe.
  • Both cosmetic and medical requirements should be considered before making a section of the most suitable option.
  • The volume of filler components or elements can be decided by the treatment timing.

The lip-augmentation process is not complicated at all rater it hardly takes few minutes to get completed. But the patients should take necessary precautions before and after the treatment to realize optimum effectiveness without inviting any side-effects.

How To Make Your Skin Look Younger

Everyone loves looking younger. We believe that the younger we look the prettier, we will look. Stereotypes of beauty are different in different parts of the world. We can never feel bad for the process of ageing because that is how it is designed. The process of our life is made in such a way that all of us will get old, and your body will wither away. But that’s days people look a lot older for their age. Due to the various patterns of our life, we don’t take care of our body, and our health deteriorates on a large scale. Our skin loses its glow, and we tend to look a lot older for our age.

The following are some tips you can use to make your skin healthier:
Drink plenty of water.
Eat lots of fruits and vegetables.
Exercise daily.
Do not use too many cosmetic products.
Get enough sleep every day.

Drink plenty of water:
Our body has a moisture content of about 60%. Without water, our body can not process many things that happen inside our body. We need to drink at least 3 litres of water every day as our body constantly loses water. When we drink plenty of water, our skin stays healthy, and the water gives it a nice glow. When our skin is healthy, it gives us a younger look. If we do not drink plenty of water, our skin tends of shrink, and we look a lot older than what we are.

Eat lots of fruits and vegetables:
Fruits and vegetables are one of the best food you can eat. The fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients and vitamins; our skin requires many vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamin D and vitamin K are very good for your skin, and it makes your skin look a lot better.

Exercise daily:
Exercise is one of best things to do to keep your body healthy. You feel a lot more active and healthy, your body feels a lot less fatigued, and your heart pumps out more blood thus, keeping your skin healthy.

Do not use too many cosmetic products:
Cosmetic and makeup products may make you look good temporarily, but in the long run, the chemicals used in the product can harm your skin. You can use little amounts of cosmetic products, but huge amounts can cause skin allergies and rashes. You may get used a particular product that you have to use every day, and it will be very difficult for you if you do not use that product.

Get enough sleep every day :
Adequate sleep is required for your body to take rest and work the following day. Without enough sleep, you will become more tired and will not be active. You may end up getting black marks on your face, and that may make you look a lot older than your normal age. Thus, getting enough sleep is required for healthy skin.

To Know More Click Here

Simple Yoga Postures for Glowing Skin

Yoga is an art form that is practised globally focusing on the long list of health benefits that it can cater to. In a world that is running crazy behind artificial remedies, if there is one thing that people practice patiently then it is yoga. Yoga not only improves the internal health but also improves the external look and makes your skin glowing.

So if there are natural ways to keep your skin glowing without having to visit the parlour, then you must give it a try. These yoga postures involve a lot of facial muscles, which most of the times go unnoticed, that gives the skin a glowing look.

There are a lot of traditional yoga postures that have an impact on your skin and face. Some of them are as follows:

  • Surya Namaskar as it is traditionally called, or simply Sun Salutation is the most renowned form of exercise that is globally practised, despite being an Asian form of devotion.
  • Padmasana: The person takes the form of a lotus and performs this yoga. Lotus is believed to be a flower with a lot of cosmic power in it. This will induce energy and restores power.
  • Dhanurasana: It is one among the three main back stretching exercises. This yoga involves a lot of stretching that it brightens you up if it is done during the early hours of the day.
  • There are also other yoga postures like Sarvangasana and Halasana that quickens up your blood flow. So if these exercises are carried out on a regular basis, they help in improving the glow of your skin

These facial exercises not only improve the look of the face but also have a lot more benefits, which are listed as under:

  • Facial exercises instantly wake up your face and help you to stay fresh all throughout the day.
  • Most of these facial muscles are connected to other parts of the body and thereby they have an impact there too.
  • Facial Massaging also involves other techniques like touch therapy. The moment you touch the facial muscles, the organs that are related to these muscles work better. Touch therapy is simply an act of stimulation. This stimulation helps the organs function better than before.
  • Facial exercises give your face a better shape. It improves the blood flow. This is the reason why the face glows when facial exercises are done on a regular basis.
  • Most of these exercises are flexible and are user-friendly. While one version of the exercise makes your face look chubby, the reverse version will narrow down your face.
  • The best part is that even simple exercises like breath in and breath out can have an impact on your health.

Contact Us

State Pharmacy Board Regulation of PBMs: Potential Legal Liabilities of Board Members

Mississippi has recently moved regulation of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from the state insurance commissioner to the state pharmacy board.  Pharmacy representatives have sought similar regulatory changes in other states.  Giving state pharmacy boards (which are typically comprised of practicing pharmacists) regulatory power over PBMs creates a significantconflict of interest for board members because PBMs are market adversaries of pharmacists.[1] In a new article accepted for publication in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Emory University Law School Associate Professor Alexander Volokh reviews the potential legal exposures of state pharmacy boards and their members resulting from anti-competitive regulation of PBMs.

State pharmacy boards comprised of practicing pharmacists are an example of “private regulation,” where governments have turned over some or all of the role of regulating an industry to private parties, including participants in the regulated industry.  In his article, “The New Private Regulation Skepticism: Nondelegation, Due Process, and Antitrust Challenges,”[2] Professor Volokh uses the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy and several other real-world examples of private regulation (e.g., North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, Amtrak) to expound on the recent trend of state and federal courts ruling against private regulatory organizations.

As Professor Volokh explains, the “new regulation skepticism” provides several useful tools for aggrieved parties to challenge instances of private regulation.  The first such tool is the “non-delegation doctrine,” a federal and state principle that looks at whether the legislative branch has impermissibly given away its legislative powers.  In particular, Professor Volokh notes that there are state court non-delegation doctrines (e.g., in Texas) that could render illegal some types of delegations of power to private parties – particularly where the private delegate has a pecuniary or personal interest that could create a conflict with his public function.

The second and more powerful tool for challenging private delegations is the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause.  Professor Volokh reviews several U.S. Supreme Court cases and notes that delegating “coercive power to a private parties has long been held to be a potential violation of due process.”  He states that “delegation of power plus pecuniary bias is a due process no-no.”  He specifically notes that the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy’s regulatory proposal (since withdrawn) to impose a fiduciary duty on PBMs could have been problematic under the Due Process Clause because of Board bias.  Also questionable would be Board exercise of discretion to require submission of sensitive financial information.  As Professor Volokh explains, “biased rulemakers can often be challenged, unless their role is limited to enforcing commands they didn’t create by suing violators in courts they don’t operate.”  A PBM or other party adversely affected by such regulation could “obtain money damages … against the board members” for a due process violation.

The third tool for challenging private regulation is federal antitrust law which Professor Volokh states “is available to guard against the anticompetitive dangers of ‘industry regulating itself.’”  While states are immune from antitrust liability under the “state action” doctrine, that immunity might not extend to agencies “depending on their degree of privateness.”  Once an antitrust violation is established, the “standard remedy is treble damages.”  In looking at the antitrust laws as they might apply to Mississippi Board of Pharmacy example, Professor Volokh raises concerns about the Board’s discretionary authority to require additional financial information and its attempt to impose a fiduciary duty.  The fact that all of the Board members must be licensed Mississippi pharmacists that the Governor chooses from a list submitted by the Mississippi Pharmacy Association would be enough to make the Board “private” for purposes of state action immunity in the view of the Federal Trade Commission (one of the federal antitrust regulators).

In determining whether there is a potential antitrust violation, Professor Volokh notes that “it becomes relevant whether the antitrust plaintiffs and defendant are competitors (and, more generally, whether the defendant has a financial interest in the outcome)….”  He says the “Mississippi Board of Pharmacy thus seems vulnerable.  Once state action immunity is overcome, the competitive relation between pharmacists and pharmacy benefit managers … can at least create a strong presumption of a substantive antitrust violation.”  In discussing remedies, Professor Volokh notes the “result could be treble damages and attorney’s fees for those who are found to have conspired to restrain trade.”  Even a purely injunctive suit “would still require the defendants to pay both their own and the prevailing plaintiff’s litigation costs.”

Pending Circuit Court Case Could Accelerate Availability of Some Biosimilars

Pending in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in northern California is a case involving an effort to bring a biosimilar drug to market without making use of the “biosimilars pathway” included in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Depending on the outcome, patients could soon be able to obtain less-expensive versions of an important drug for treating arthritis and psoriasis.

Sandoz would like to make a biosimilar version of Amgen’s drug Enbrel, but it wants to be sure that doing so does not violate Amgen’s patents. Accordingly, it sought a declaratory judgment from the courts that its drug would not infringe two Enbrel patents and that those patents are invalid and unenforceable. Sandoz filed the declaratory judgment proceeding prior to seeking FDA approval for the biosimilar drug. Amgen countered that the declaratory judgment proceeding contravened the BPCIA biosimilars pathway adopted by Congress which requires, among other steps, that the proposed biosimilar first be submitted to the FDA.

The district court in November 2013 sided with Amgen. However, Sandoz has filed an appeal. The worthy FDA Law Blog recently summarized the back and forth debate between the parties. In its opening brief, Sandoz argued “among other things, that the district court’s decision undermines the BPCIA’s purpose of advancing competition for biologic products because that decision ‘completely deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over any declaratory judgment action implicating a biosimilar product until after the FDA had already approved the product.’” In a 95-page reply brief, Amgen (and its co-party Roche) argued that Sandoz’s interpretation of the law would “eviscerate the statutory biosimilars patent dance framework.” But in its reply brief, Sandoz reiterated the “company’s points that the BPCIA is not the exclusive mechanism for resolving patent disputes involving biological products, and that the BPCIA in no way bars the company’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.”

The oral argument occurred before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 10, 2014. For those with an intense interest in the case, a recording of the oral argument is available. For others, a summary of the oral argument in the National Law Journal may be sufficient. According to the reporter, the “judges did not seem entirely convinced” by the Amgen argument. Judge Richard Taranto asked, “What would be the harm done to what Congress had in mind in creating this regime by allowing this [declaratory judgment] suit to go forward?” Amgen’s lawyer responded that “The litigation has to unfold according to the scheme laid out in the statute.” But another judge, Timothy Dyk, said “It’s not clear Congress thought about this situation.” Sandoz “argued that when Congress wrote the statute, it was thinking of the future, where patent challenges would likely occur during the 12-year exclusivity period granted the original drugmaker under the law,” but “In this case, Enbrel, which won FDA approval 16 years ago, is well past that point. The drug’s original patents expired in 2012 and early this year, but Amgen in 2011 licensed the rights to two new patents from Roche…that it claims will shield Enbrel from competition until 2029.”

The Court of Appeals decision in this case could have significance well beyond Enbrel. According to the FDA Law Blog, two additional declaratory judgment cases have been filed involving other biosimilars. We have written previously about how delays in bringing biosimilars to market are causing billions of dollars in wasteful, unnecessary drug spending. We have also discussed some of the efforts by biotech companies to impede cost-saving biosimilars. For the sake of patients and payers, we can only hope that the court will decide in favor of Sandoz.

Drug companies re-patenting old drugs to extend price

Drug re-patenting is making waves in the pharmaceutical market. This practice allows drug manufacturers to continue enjoying a sales monopoly while dramatically reducing research and development costs. In the 1980s, the European Patent Office (EPO) passed patent laws to protect new uses of known drugs. Many other countries, including the United States, have followed suit and established similar laws. As more blockbuster drugs approach their expiration dates and fewer patentable new drugs funnel down the commercialization pipeline, pharmaceutical companies are facing critical financial challenges since losing patent protection means losing market exclusivity. Drug re-patenting, then, is an attractive alternative for extending much desired market protection and retaining exclusive shares. It is much easier and cheaper for a company to find new uses for an old drug than to develop a new drug from scratch. The cost of developing new uses for existing drugs or failed drugs is 40% cheaper than coming up with something completely novel. That is $400 million in savings considering the average $1 billion price tag for new drug development.

Re-patenting is becoming the new buzzword among pharma companies. Only one in 5,000 discoveries makes it to market, and of those, many do not recoup the cost of their research and development. A three-year patent extension for the popular allergy drug Claritin was estimated to be worth a billion dollars to its manufacturer, Schering-Plough. Under current patent laws, multiple strategies can be pursued in re-patenting old drugs. These include changes in dosage regimes, formulations, and routes of administration. Other avenues incorporate use of stereo selectivity / chiral switches (i.e. a chemical mirror image of the drug), the treatment of a new patient group by the current method of use, or utilizing a combination of two or more old drugs into one which is then marketed as a new product. The question is, however, whether the re-patent applications truly meet the goal of improved patient outcomes or are simply disguises for extending price monopolies and preventing generic competitors from entering the scene.

In practice, pharmaceutical companies are sometimes more interested in creating minor modifications to existing drugs than developing new breakthrough medications. Such modifications require significantly less investment while offering good returns. From 2000-2007, 667 new drugs were approved by the FDA and of those only 75 (11%) were novel products that offered a significant advancement. Over 80% of these were so called “me-too” drugs: ones developed based on something already known and structurally similar to the original. A 2007 ABC News analysis looked at two kidney-dialysis drugs from Abbott Labs, Calcijex and Zemplar. The former was about to lose patent protection when the much-trumpeted latter came onto the scene and received a 15-year patent even though Zemplar did not show clinical superiority to Calcijex.

Another example is the asthma treatment called Albuterol. After it was re-patented, Albuterol’s price jumped from $15 to between $50 and $100 per inhaler. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in the U.S. with 40 million people affected. Currently there are no generic asthma inhalers available in this country. Asthma care costs the U.S. healthcare system more than $56 billion each year when hospital visits are included. Similarly, re-patenting of other older drugs used for birth control, gout and insulin increased their costs dramatically.

Patents provide the necessary legal protection to encourage an innovative pharmaceutical market. The market needs these drugs to thrive. But in turn, the pharmaceutical industry must also provide affordable treatments to patients who need them to survive. A successful market has to achieve a fine balance between the two but oftentimes, that balance is missing. The challenge for regulators as more blockbuster drugs near their patent expiration dates is how to restore the desired market equilibrium so patient outcomes can continue to improve at an affordable price.