Pay To Say: Pharma And Political Conventions
12 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 24th, 2008 // 6:58 am
Who will be throwing the big parties at the upcoming national political conventions? Maybe the Republican and Democratic governors associations. And for lobbyists, this means schmoozing time. For industries finding themselves in hot water in Washington, outside-the-Beltway convention party time is particularly precious. And pharma, in particular, is trying to keep a low profile, even while injecting money into parties, Politico writes.
“The pharmaceutical guys are throwing their money around to every hot event,” a veteran Democratic fundraiser who spoke on condition of anonymity tells Politico. “They want to be there and participate, but they don’t want to be the headliner. They are too radioactive. They don’t want to draw attention to themselves.”
Two of those drugmakers, according to those familiar with the planning, are Merck and AstraZeneca, which are expected to give to both governors associations their top tier of $250,000.
“The conventions are the one time where policymakers, media, the public and other stakeholders in the health care debate are in one place talking about the future of the country and the policies that will impact it,” AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell tells Politico. “It is no secret it’s a challenging time for various industries, including the pharmaceutical industry, and that’s why it is more important than ever to be involved in a conversation about the future of health care in the United States.”
Conversation? Just call it Pay to Say.
Sam
IT SEEMS THAT MOST OF US WHO RESPOND TO PHARMALOT ARTICLES AND
DISCUSS OUR DIFFERENT OPINIONS AS TO HOW MUCH MONEY PHARMA SPENDS
ON DRUG MARKETING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, I HAVE NEVER
HEARD OF WHAT PHARMA AND HEALTH CARE INSURANCE COMPANIES
LOBBYIST’S SPEND (TOTALLY) IN ORDER FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO VOTE FOR WHAT THEY WANT.
JUST LIKE THIS ARTICLE THAT QUOTES $250,000, I HEAVE HEARD OF
PROMISED MILLION DOLLAR LOBBYIST JOBS WHEN THE CONGRESS PERSON IS
NO LONGER IN AN ELECTED OFFICE.
ONE WONDERS IF ALL THESE EXPENDITURES ARE REALLY NEEDED IF THE COST
OF DRUGS IS SO EXPENSIVE THAT THE AVERAGE MIDDLE-CLASS PATIENT CANNOT AFFORD THE DRUGS BECAUSE NOW EVEN THE CO-PAY IS TOO EXPENSIVE.
Ed Silverman
Hi Sam,
A couple of months ago, I posted a tally of lobbying spending by many drugmakers, citing data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Here is the link…
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/02/the-big-spenders-tracking-the-lobbying-dollars/
Thanks for stopping by and I hope this helps,
ed
Sam
Thanks Ed,
Your report surprised me, it even worst than I expected. I just wonder if this
report includes expensive dinners, vacation trips, golf outings, etc.
Sam
Nathan
Sam,
It’s even worse than you expected? What’s that supposed to mean? Are you saying that companies should not be allowed to talk to members of congress? Telling members of congress about your point of view is called lobbying. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about lobbying. You are implying that pharma is “paying for votes”. If you have evidence of this, please cough it up. That’s very, very illegal.
If you go to the link below, you’ll find a list of lobbying money organized by industry sector that was spent in 2007. Health care accounts for approximately 16% of the GDP of the US. Approximately $2.7 billion was spent on lobbying in 2007. Therefore, 16% of this lobbying money (~$448 million) would likely be spent by health-care related industries. Look at the link below (from Ed’s previous article) and add up the lobbying money spent by health-care related industries. I came up with $440 billion. That’s almost exactly 16% of the total lobbying money spent. That’s pretty clear evidence to me that the pharma industry is not disporportionally lobbying as compared to other industries.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/overview.asp?showyear=2007&txtindextype=i
Atlex
Sam (and Ed),
I hope you realize that the ethics requirements of members of congress (and their staffs) forbid expensive dinner, vacation trips, golf outings and the like. The Member faces significant consequences for violating these rules. The vast majority of the expense is associated with human resources–salary, expenses, etc. of personnel within a pharma company dedicated to lobbying or consultants hired to extend the reach of lobbying.
Atlex
Sam
Alex, we all know it is unethical for member of congress to accept the aforementioned gifts, but there have been too many media reports that many
members of congress are accepting these gifts.
Nathan, I know it legal for lobbyists to talk to members of congress, but the
results of how and what they say to them can be unethical, illegal and immoral.
The TV program “60 Minutes” exposed this type of activity in the passing of
President Bush’s Plan D when congress met at midnight and their were two
lobbyists for every congress person, pressuring them to do their bidding.
The results prevented seniors from going to Canada to get cheaper drugs and
prevented lower cost of drugs by not allowing contract bidding.
About 800 healthcare insurance companies wrote the policies for Plan D that
are so confusing most seniors are confused as to what choices they have.
Thee are so many variations as to monthly premiums, deductibles, co-pays,
formularies and drugs in different tiers, seniors are confused and frustrated.
What really angered them was when they hit the “donut gap” and they had to
pay full price.
Now we learn that 80% of the raw drugs comes from other countries, mostly
from China. It is so overwhelming that the FDA cannot inspect enough of these companies to ensure safety standards.
You admit to $2.7 billion being spent on lobbying efforts-what does PHARMA
expect for these efforts, if not for increasing the bottom line?
I look at it this way - if there are 10 to 20 million people working for PHAMRA
and the healthcare insurance companies, what they do affects over 300 million people in just the USA. From an infant who may occasionally use a
drug, adults who may use 3 or 4 drugs, to seniors who may use 8 or 9 drugs,
it is now getting to a point that drugs are so expensive, that even with
insurance co-pays, patients are now starting to refuse the prescription that was just filled.
I am not totally against PHARMA, it just for the most part you are not doing
your job-new drugs that are much more effective than what we have now.
We get combinations of old drugs, delayed action forms of old drugs, new
strengths of old drugs, new delivery systems of old drugs and drugs that
required daily dosing to once a week, to once a month and finally once a year. Even a new chemical entity for a medical condition does not show it is
more therapeutically effective than the old drugs.
M Helm, MD
Sam, you said:
“I am not totally against PHARMA, it just for the most part you are not doing your job-new drugs that are much more effective than what we have now. We get combinations of old drugs, delayed action forms of old drugs, new strengths of old drugs, new delivery systems of old drugs and drugs that required daily dosing to once a week, to once a month and finally once a year. Even a new chemical entity for a medical condition does not show it is more therapeutically effective than the old drugs.”
You left off the raison d’etre of Sepracor - single chemical isomers of old drugs which are a racemic mixture of two (’dextro’ and ‘levo’/'r’ and ’s’) isomers. Additionally there are some wholly new ‘diseases’ which have been postulated (and promoted to consumers) to justify the wonderous treatments now avaialable (and create demand).
I like to call the new product offerings you describe “non-novations.” They are an even lower class of new drug offerings than the “me-too” drugs of the 80s and 90s.
I’m hoping ‘non-novation’ will catch on - at least to describe PhRMA offerings which fit the criteria. Feel free to use it.
I think to be fair, there are still needs toward which PhRMA is working, but there appear to be limited opportunities with new ’small molecule’ medicines. The low-hanging fruit is now a little farther away. One problem I perceive is that in the drive to come up with the next variation with sustained patent life, the basic research which makes medical advances possible may be neglected. Another is that so much energy and money is devoted to maintaining a favorable regulatory environment to continue the status quo.
Atlex
Sam,
Your posting is so full of errors, that I’m not going to bother but to point out a few. 1) Seniors are still allowed to go to Canada and bring back drugs for personal consumption. They are not allowed to import via mail or other avenues. 2) Please show me a media report in the last year showing PhRMA lobbyists providing large gifts to Members of Congress; it just doesn’t happen anymore–no gifts, no meals, no golf outings, no sky boxes. 3) Seniors don’t hate Part D; every poll shows an approval rating >80%. Yes, aspects may be confusing, but so are many things–car insurance, household insurance, etc. Could it be better, sure, but there are limits to any government benefit.
Atlex
Lisa Van S
Atlex,
Maybe,.. not gifts,. but lots of chats. You and I should chat sometime,.. hopefully, you will take me up on my offer.
a PFE rep
Sam,
Evidently, besides being anti-pharma, you dislike the 1st Amendment. Money is speech. Every industry and every interest group in the country lobbies, from the teachers to the auto-workers to the environmentalist whackos. You yourself are welcome to give money and attend fund-raisers where you can provide your point of view to the candidates and the legislators. Is it only pharma that should be silenced?
Sam
Atlex - traveling to Canada at $3.50 a gallon of gas, wear and tear on the car and
risk that seniors driving on the highway maybe an extra price that may make
the trip too costly and eliminate any savings.
If you check the second letter fro Ed, you will see a list of money spent by
various PHARMA lobbyists.
Again, If you saw the “60 minute” it clearly outlines the efforts of PHARMA
and insurance companies to control members of congress.
Sam
M Helm, MD
Thanks for your addition, I just remember another reason PHARMA uses their chemistry sets. Effexor’s patent is ending and Weyth came out with the
active metabolite of Effexor and calls it it Pristiq.