DOWNLOADS: (111)

PLAYS: (1093)

Embed

Editor's Note: WSJ Editorial Board Member Kimberley Strassel dismisses the idea that the contraceptive debate and the Blunt Amendment is about denying women critical reproductive health care on the Fox News Sunday panel. After all, women can go ahead and buy insurance, right? Perhaps if the Republicans had allowed Sandra Fluke to testify before them, they'd realize that birth control pills (which have therapeutic medical uses as well as contraceptive care) can cost an uninsured woman as much as $3,000 a year, making it unaffordable to a large percentage of American women.

There is an enormous point that has been entirely overlooked in the recent brouhaha over who should pay for contraceptives amid the health care debate: Why are Americans being forced to pay such exorbitant prices for our pharmaceuticals—especially birth control where R&D costs have been long reimbursed to the manufacturers—in the first place?

It isn't that we haven't ever had this conversation before. The subject comes up from time to time, but it is rarely even broached by our politicians, and there has yet to be any kind of comprehensive bill to tackle the problem head on and prevent the mass ripping-off of American consumers.

Senator Herbert Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, introduced Senate Bill S. 1699: Prescription Drug Cost Reduction Act last October, but two things stand out: It would only cover those receiving medications through Medicare Part B, and as of this date there is not a single co-sponsor. Not one.

Why don't our representatives in Congress want to fight against unfair pricing practices that severely harm our economy, subject consumers to price gouging, and in many cases prevent access to life-saving drugs? And why, while we're arguing about who should cover the cost of contraception coverage for women, are we not talking at all about what we're being forced to pay?

It has been a number of years since I took oral contraceptives for birth control, but when I did, these were the facts:

• Oral contraceptives for women were not covered under any insurance plan and had to be paid for out-of-pocket.
• The cost averaged between $20 and $30 per month if you were buying your contraceptives in the United States.

I was fortunate. I had an Ob-Gyn who gave me the free samples the pharmaceutical reps gave to him, so I rarely had to pay for them. Only occasionally was his office out of stock when my supply ran out, necessitating a month or two prescription to be filled at my local pharmacy until they replenished their inventory.

Continue reading »

via There is No Crisis-(excerpt)

It appears that USA Next, the front group for Social Security privatization, was really just a junk mail and spam operation in disguise to benefit Richard Viguerie in the 1990s. It appears that it engaged mostly in scaring up donations from conservative activists before becoming a corporate shell for pharmaceutical industry and energy industry money and lobbying.

(Watch the video here)

Honestly, at this point, I don't even care whether or not this crappy healthcare bill passes. I see so many serious problems with it, and I simply do not have any trust in the integrity of the Obama administration and the commercially-sponsored Congress to fix them.

The only reason I can see for supporting the bill is political - and no, I don't think that's an insignificant reason. (I'd guess it's the only reason Wendell Potter still supports it.) However, as Dr. Marcia Angell points out, the bill is such a confusing mess, what are the odds that its passage will work in the Democrats' favor? It's a complete and utter crap shoot, and for that, I blame the consistent lack of leadership from the top. I have never been so disgusted with the political process in my entire life:

From Bill Moyers Journal:

BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?

MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he's fighting, but he's fighting for something that shouldn't pass. Won't pass and shouldn't pass.

What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they're regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they'll do that.

Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies' products for whatever they charge. Now that's a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.

BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven't fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven't fought it very hard. What they're fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they're going to be extremely happy with it.

BILL MOYERS: But this is all about politics now. It's not about pure health care reform. So given that reality, what would you have the President do?

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think you really do have to separate the policy analysis from the political analysis and I'm looking at it as policy. And it fails as policy. Moreover, a lot of people say, "Let's hold our nose and pass it, because it's a step in the right direction." And I say it's a step in the wrong direction.

You're right. Politics is different and there are a lot of people who say, "Look, it's a terrible bill. Even a step in the wrong direction as policy goes. But we need to get Obama elected again and we need to continue with the Democratic majority in Congress. And so we need to give Obama and the Democrats a win. If we don't, the Republicans will come in and take over Congress in the fall, and then the White House in 2012. But the problem with a political analysis is sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. And Democrats and particularly liberals have a history of outsmarting themselves.

Continue reading »

I wish I could say I was surprised, but pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturing is very big business in New Jersey and when those companies say jump, elected officials say "How high?" Wouldn't it be nice if they put as much thought into the health and safety of their constituents?

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that four New Jersey congressmen and its own former commissioner unduly influenced the process that led to its decision last year to approve a patch for injured knees, an approval it is now revisiting.

The agency’s scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously over many years decided that the device, known as Menaflex and manufactured by ReGen Biologics Inc., was unsafe because the device often failed, forcing patients to get another operation.

But after receiving what an F.D.A. report described as “extreme,” “unusual” and persistent pressure from four Democrats from New Jersey — Senators Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg and Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Steven R. Rothman — agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device for sale in December.

All four legislators made their inquiries within a few months of receiving significant campaign contributions from ReGen, which is based in New Jersey, but all said they had acted appropriately and were not influenced by the money. Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, the former drug agency’s commissioner, said he had acted properly.

The agency has never before publicly questioned the process behind one of its approvals, never admitted that a regulatory decision was influenced by politics, and never accused a former commissioner of questionable conduct.

“The message here is that there were problems with the integrity of F.D.A.’s decision-making process that have solutions,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the agency’s principal deputy commissioner, said in a conference call with reporters.

So Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee offered an amendment that would enable the federal government to bargain for lower drug prices for their bulk purchasing, a direct assault on the White House/Big Pharma deal from a few months back. Basically it would shift poor seniors back onto Medicaid for their drug purchasing, where the government can negotiate discounts. This would save the government over $80 billion dollars.

And Tom Carper of Delaware defended the secret deal in the most amazing of ways:

I was not involved in negotiations with PhRMA but I believe that the administration was, obviously PhRMA was, and I presume this committee was involved in some way in those negotiations.

And what PhRMA agreed to do through those negotiations is to pay about

80 billion dollars over 10 years to help fill up half the donut hole. That's my understanding. And they are prepared to go forward and to honor that commitment. As I understand it, the commitment from our colleague Senator Nelson would basically double what was negotiated with PhRMA.

And whether you like PhRMA or not -- remember I talked earlier today in our opening statements, I talked about four core values, and one of those is the golden rule, treat other people the way I want to be treated?

I'll tell you -- if someone negotiated a deal with me and I agreed to put up say, 80 dollars or 80 million dollars or 80 billion dollars and then you came back and said to me a couple of weeks later -- no no, I know you agreed to do 80 billion and I know you were willing to help support through an advertising campaign this particular -- not even this particular bill, just the idea of generic health care reform? No, we're going to double -- we're going to double what you agreed in those negotiations to do. That's not the way -- that's not what I consider treating people the way I'd want to be treated.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

This is incredible. The deal is transparently one to protect drug industry profits. There's just no doubt about this. Carper is saying that it's more important to get a few generic ads in support of health care reform than to save the US taxpayers $80 billion dollars. Backroom deals must be honored even if they hurt people. That's the "golden rule" in Washington.

Did Carper not know that cameras were rolling when he said this?

Since the Senate is the group turning the health care debate into "either-or" - as in, "either" regular citizens get screwed "or" the health-for-profit industry gets screwed, I thought I'd point this out as a perfect example of how they think:

The Finance Committee seemed to come very close to passing an amendment Tuesday that would have violated the White House deal with the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) proposed ending what some Democrats have called a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry – and he picked up strong support from his party.

But two sources familiar with the process say it is still likely to fall short when the committee votes Wednesday.

As part of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, more than 6 million low-income seniors were shifted from Medicaid, which allowed the government to negotiate a deep discount for drugs, to the Medicare program, which did not. This has resulted in the government paying about 30 percent more for drugs, according to an analysis by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Fla.).

Nelson’s amendment would shift these beneficiaries back to the Medicaid program, resulting in $86 billion in savings that could be used to close the donut hole for senior citizens.

Senators were drawn into a tense discussion over the merits of the White House’s $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical industry, and the failings, as some Democrats see it, of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the Finance Committee should honor the deal with the drug industry. To suddenly double their obligation from $80 billion to more than $160 billion would not be “fair,” he said.

Now, think about that. Senior citizens are not getting needed medication because it's too expensive, but it's more important to continue giving pharmaceutical companies this windfall because they're counting on it and it wouldn't be "fair" to take it away from them.

Just so we're clear.

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday hailed a deal with U.S. drug co through mpanies to cut prescription costs for the elderly, a move that could help him drive his ambitious healthcare reforms Congress.

"This is a significant breakthrough on the road to healthcare reform, one that will make the difference in the lives of many older Americans," Obama said at the White House of the agreement struck with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America industry association.

Reviving one of his best known slogans from the campaign trail, Obama took aim at naysayers on healthcare reform: "Yes, we can. We are going to get this done."

[...] Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress hope to bring down the long-term costs of healthcare that recent data show are soaring out of control.

Part of that long-term picture is improving the health of Americans and toward that end, Obama on Monday signed into law a landmark bill that gives the U.S. government broad regulatory power for the first time over cigarettes and other tobacco products.

The drug deal, which offers $80 billion in prescription discounts over 10 years to help elderly Americans afford drugs, comes ahead of a week of discussions in Congress on how to pay for Obama's reforms and ensure coverage for the 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance.

HeraldNet:

In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.

On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the Food and Drug Administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.

"Well, once again the big drug companies have proved that they are the most powerful and best financed lobby in Washington," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

Continue reading »

This ties in tangentially with much of what Barbara's been blogging about re: universal health care.

TIME :

Whenever critics complain about the high cost of prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical industry's standard defense is that companies have to plow so much money into researching innovative new medicines. But a recently released report from the Government Accountability Office casts doubt on that rationale. Yes the industry is spending heavily on R&D, the GAO found, but it turns out big pharma isn't actually generating such a good return on their investments.

The congressional watchdog agency's 48-page study came up with disturbing numbers. From 1993-2004, spending by U.S. drug companies on research and development jumped 147%, from $16 billion to nearly $40 billion annually. But the number of applications the pharmaceutical firms submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for potentially groundbreaking new drugs during that 10-year period increased only a meager 7%. And since 1995, the applications for these innovative drugs have been dropping each year. "The productivity of research and development investments has declined," the GAO concluded.

Read on...