PhRMA Ad Targets Lieberman Over Health Reform
12 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 24th, 2009 // 12:43 pm
As the debate over health care reform turns to competing House and Senate bills, the industry trade group is running this ad in which seniors are asked to call Joe Lieberman, the independent US Senator from Connecticut, and urge him to support health reform.
More specifically, the ad says that, if Lieberman supports reform, he could bolster Medicare without raising premiums by 20 percent. As Politico points out, this is actually a swipe at a part of the House bill requiring drugmakers to give discounts to the federal government, which PhRMA argues would raise senior premiums by 20 percent.
The bottomline message: PhRMA is watching moderates who don’t back reform.
Hat tip to Politico
JaT
I wonder how confident pharma is that they will get what they want in the combining the two bills. Didn’t they just threaten to pull their support based on the House version?
Like HCR or not- lobbying is worrisome.
My memory may be failing but it seems the drug companies were opposed to HCR initially.
What a great position to be in.
If HCR doesn’t pass they will be happy because they didn’t want it to begin with.
If HCR passes they will still be happy because of whatever deals they have made.
That is the ultimate power.
Jaynesday
JaT,
You hit the nail on the head!
When you’re rich enough to purchase our Congress you gain free access to our billfolds. Does yours feel as thin as mine these days?
PharmaCongress will take as much as they can without arousing the suspicions of us marks. Also known as the skill of the pick pocket.
Someday we’ll feel the pinch though and get wise and break the ties that bind the pharmaceutical industry and our elected (gosh that’s sad to say) representatives.
This will ultimately be achieved by the elimination of lobbying of all kinds and/or term limits.
Jaynesday
Sorry for the misplaced bolding.
Should have read like this…
When you’re rich enough to purchase our Congress you gain free access to our billfolds. Does yours feel as thin as mine these days?
PharmaCongress will take as much as they can without arousing the suspicions of us marks. Otherwise known as the art of the pick pocket.
Someday we’ll feel the pinch though and get wise and break the ties that bind the pharmaceutical industry and our elected (gosh that’s sad to say) representatives.
This will ultimately be achieved by the elimination of lobbying of all kinds and/or term limits.
Ex-FDAer
A rep to watch is Chris Van Hollen of Maryland’s 8th District which includes many FDA employees.
Van Hollen was on the board of directors of the local NAMI chapter and while in the Maryland house sponsored legislation to forcibly medicate patients. His primary stock holdings are in JNJ and Pfizer the 2 companies involved with slush funds and kickbacks on antipsychotics in PA. Prior to entering Congress he worked for Arent-Fox a firm that has an extensive lobbying practice for Pharma.
Contributions to his reelection campaigns come largely from medical societies that promote use of certain medical/surgical devices and from attorney’s from the Chevy Chase area (lobbyists?).
Even though he sponsored the house version of the whistleblower protection act this may very well die in committee or be so watered down that it’s ineffective. In contrast the week before he sponsored this bill he was asked by a group of FDA employees to publicly bring attention to FDA policies that prohibit FDA employees from saying ANYTHING that might reflect poorly on the agency (i.e. he refused to help his constituents protect their first amendment rights).
He is currently building a war chest to run for the Senate when Sen. Mikulski retires and will likely replace her on the Senate Health Education Labor and Pension Committee. (Another pro-pharma rep.)
So can his constituents (FDA employees) trust him to represent their interests or his own stock holdings and the interests of his out of state contributors.
atlex
JaT,
If you go to the PhRMA website you will see that it has been in favor of healthcare reform from the start of the most recent presidential election cycle through today. However, it has clearly come out against the House bill. It did come out in support of the Senate Finance bill, but I don’t believe that it has made a public statement about the final Senate bill, which will soon (maybe) be debated. I suspect that it is waiting to see what the final Senate bill looks like before committing.
The targeting of Lieberman is likely designed to get him to be more open to voting with the Democrats rather than help kill off the Senate bill.
Atlex
JaT
Atlex,
Seriously, would you expect that site to say anything else? They can’t say anything against it now.
a) they would appear heartless.
b) they made deals.
So let’s look elsewhere.
“Drug and insurance companies support many changes Congress is considering but generally oppose government-run insurance”
and
“Ken Johnson, senior vice president with the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said public insurance would stifle competition and force Americans to lose private coverage. He said his group is pushing for other changes instead.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-06-11-lobby_N.htm
The article is definately worth reading. It speaks to the insane amount of money involved.
atlex
JaT,
It is pointless to debate with you since you have no ability to open your mind to the possibility that the pharma industry has good reason to support health reform, including health insurance reform. It also has good reason to oppose “reforms” that would create an environment that places less value on innovation. The pharma industry and many others aren’t in favor of a public option. That doesn’t make them against health reform.
Clearly the industry recognized that change was in the air and made the strategic decision to support health reform and work with the administration and the Senate finance committee. This may or may not be a successful approach for the industry. But implying that they are only supporting health reform as a facade can only be based on wild speculation with no supporting evidence.
Atlex
harry
I don’t really understand the details of the health care debate, but it seems that obama made a decision to go after the insurance companies and leave pharma alone so they would support him in his efforts. this deal works for him if they pass both bills. The pricing of drugs is always an issue and if the government can negotiate with the drug companies. I don’t know if Obama, House, caved in on this one. with 30, million additional insured, pharma will do well especially if they can hike drug prices. I read somewhere that congress have asked the GAO to investigate price increases for generic and brand drugs.
Jaynesday
alex,
Here’s what I suspect.
PhRMA won’t support the Senate bill until the $80,150,000,000 dollars worth of bribes to back off of price controls are firmly recommitted to. You recall the administration quickly backing off the idea after Billy Tauzin loudly announced the “deal”.
And as an act of good faith this Lieberman ad is presented as a down payment.
Haven’t heard from Billy lately, maybe he showed PhRMA’s cards too visibly. Come on Billy, you certainly can’t do these kinds of things in the light of day! Back room is much better. It’s really bad form to let the public see you guys fighting over our money like this. How distasteful!
Justice in Michigan
Atlex,
I’d be interested in this: The public option would clearly threaten insurance industry profits most directly. Why is PhRMA against it? Is there the assumption that it will lead to a government plan in which drug price negotiation ends up being part of the deal? Because generics will be favored even more than by private insurance companies? Because EBM standards is likely to reduce the use of drugs in general?
Sincere thanks for your thoughts.
JaT
I hear you Atlex. I posted the article because you said they have been in favor. I’m not sure people understand exactly what they are in favor of. It doesn’t appear to be universal health care. That is what most people belive health care reform will be.
It has to be difficult for the big companies to be in favor of a program that pushes generic drugs.
Maybe they support the “Best Practices” policy and therefore will have their drugs recommended by the government to incentivise doctors? Extended patents? Did they buy their place on insurers formulary lists? Maybe they bought help in growing their generic sectors?
What did they buy?
I can’t help that lobbying leads to suspicion. No one should be able to purchase a place at the legislative table.
atlex
JaT and JiM,
I’ll do my best to address your questions.
1. PhRMA is definitely in favor of universal coverage. After all, why wouldn’t the industry want more people covered rather than less. That being said, the uninsured represent a very minor “opportunity” for the industry. All said and done, the vast majority of the uninsured are relatively young and take few drugs. An average Medicare Part D patient is probably worth 10x what a currently uninsured patient is worth.
2. The “deal” has been scored by the CBO as $80B over 10 years. The industry itself might internally believe that the cost is much more than that, particularly since the more favorable Senate bill has a strong MedPac, which will be charged with bending the Medicare curve, but with hospitals and doctors exempt until sometime around 2010. The cost of the House bill to pharma is probably double that of the Senate. The industry leaders expected that the House would likely punish the industry more, so they predetermined that being the first to the table with the administration and the Senate would lead to a painful, but manageable deal. The administration recognized cutting a deal with pharma would set the stage for other deals and, more importantly, put a very effective lobbying force on its side rather than in opposition.
3. As for the public option…I don’t think that the industry is necessarily concerned about a relatively weak public option; it is far more concerned that a weak and unsuccessful public option will quickly evolve into a public option where prices for all services will be pegged to Medicare reimbursement and drug prices, rather than “negotiated” will be set by government administrators. Given special advantages, such a public option could undercut private insurance and eventually dominate the market. You may agree or disagree with the industry’s position, but it a legitimate position that is also help by most business organizations and many every day Americans.
As for myself, as a liberal who is very much in favor of universal coverage, I have similar concerns and am against the public option. I prefer a much more aggressive effort at regulating insurers; I believe that this can be equally effective. As for arguments that there needs to be more competition among insurers, I would have no problem with a “trigger” or “fallback” that would require a public option if health plans don’t meet certain competitive requirements. Having seen a similar situation in Medicare Part D, I think there would be plenty of competition.
I could go on for quite awhile. But I think I addressed your key questions. If I have missed any, let me know.
Atlex