Group Releases Big Pharma Campaign Contributions To California Legislators Before Drug Vote
Members of the California Senate Health Committee -- who will vote on unnecessary and potentially harmful prescription drug legislation today -- have received $116,563 in campaign contributions from drug manufacturers since 2003, according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
FTCR said the bill is not necessary because it provides a voluntary drug discount program that drug manufacturers could participate in if they choose, without legislation. FTCR said that the bill is being used as a roadblock to future reforms.
"The drug industry is pushing a poison pill to give the perception that the problem of overpriced prescription drugs has been solved. This sham proposal relies on voluntary discounts from an industry that will stop at nothing to make a profit," said Jerry Flanagan of FTCR.
The drug proposal to be voted on today, SB 19, is backed by Gov. Schwarzenegger who has received $373,200 from drug manufacturers since announcing his candidacy. Senate pro Tem Don Perata, who will play a key role in shepparding bill through the Senate if it is approved by the health committee today, has received $26,600 from drug manufacturers since 2003. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has received $17,209 from drug manufacturers since 2003.
"The state legislature and the governor's office is suffering from a bipartisan addiction to drug company money," said Flanagan.
The California Senate Health Committee includes 11 members, 7 Democrats, and 4 Republicans:
Liz Figueroa (D-Sunol) -- $25,313
Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) -- $20,200
David Cox (R-Fair Oaks) -- $17,200
Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) -- $15,900
George Runner, (R-Antelope Valley) -- $8,000
Deborah Ortiz, (D-Sacramento) -- $7,500
Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) -- $5,250
Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara) -- $5,000
Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) -- $4,700
Edward Vincent (D-Inglewood) -- $4,000
Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) -- $3,500
Drug companies, whose profit are 4-5 times greater than the Fortune 500 average, have pledged to contribute $10 million to pay for a website and call center promoting the program.
In the summer and fall of 2004, the FTCR sponsored two chartered train trips, dubbed the "Rx Express," that took seniors and other patients to Canada to purchase prescription drugs at 60 percent discounts. The Rx Express raised public awareness about the potential cost savings of a U.S. prescription drug bulk discount program open to all patients. A U.S.-wide prescription drug purchasing pool would be 10 times larger than the entire Canadian program and could negotiate deeper discounts. For more information visit http://www.RxExpressCanada.org.
The state of Wisconsin has implemented a new bulk purchasing program based on a model policy developed by FTCR which would allow any patient to have access to the same discounts available to legislators and state employees.
Drug prices are lower in Canada, Ireland, England, France, and Germany because those countries negotiate bulk discounts on behalf of all patients. The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (USDVA) operates a similar bulk purchasing program on behalf of the nation's 39 million veterans and saves 50 percent and more off the list price of prescription drugs.
Subscribe in a reader
1 Comments:-
My personal interest is in finding a cure for Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes. My now 15 year old daughter was diagnosed almost 5 years ago. So far, she has pricked her fingers approximately 11,000 times, and has taken about 7,500 insulin injections. If she had cancer, she could hope to be cured – or at least to go into remission so she wouldn’t need 4 or 5 or 6 insulin shots every day just to stay alive. Right now, all we can hope for is that she doesn’t have a heart attack or a stroke, that she doesn’t go blind, that her kidneys keep working and that her feet and legs don’t have to be amputated.
Now, let me tell you about the economics of diabetes. Diabetics test their blood sugar levels at least four times a day – children with type 1 juvenile diabetes test more like 6 to 8 times a day. These little test strips that are used to measure blood glucose levels cost, conservatively and on average, 70 cents per strip. Diabetics who test their blood glucose level just 4 times per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime) are spending Two Dollars and Eighty Cents per day, or a little over a thousand dollars a year, minimum, on these strips. That’s over a billion dollars per year for every 1 million diabetics, and there are an estimated 17 million people suffering from diabetes in the US alone.
Next, I am going to review the financials from the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports of Eli Lilly & Company, one of the major producers of insulin. Before I do, I want to remind you that insulin will never cure diabetes. It is what my 15-year-old refers to as her ‘lifeline’. It keeps a diabetic alive, but does not prevent the catastrophic side effects. And it will never cure anyone!
2003: “Our worldwide sales…increased 14%, to 12.58 billion dollars.” Sources of revenue: “Diabetes care products, composed primarily of Humulin…Humalog…and Actos…had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.57 billion dollars.” Ladies and gentlemen, 20% of the worldwide sales were from 3 products, 2 of which (Humulin and Humalog) are for ‘maintenance’ of type 1 diabetics. In 2003, Humulin sales in the US were 507.5 million dollars, and were 658.6 million dollars for Humalog.
The 2004 numbers are equally staggering. The same three products had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.61 billion dollars. Humulin sales in the US were only 422.7 million, but Humalog sales in the US were up to 685.4 million dollars. An explanation offered by Eli Lilly is (and this is a direct quote!) “Humalog sales in the US increased 3 percent as increased prices offset slight volume declines.”
That’s 5.18 billion dollars in a two-year period – to treat patients who will not get better. That’s a whole lot of insurance and medicare dollars going to two drugs to maintain a condition for which there actually might be a cure.
Breakthroughs using stem cell therapies have been announced all over the world, and involving many conditions, such as reversing the side effects of diabetes, curing type 1 juvenile diabetes, restoration of immune systems in cancer patients, improvement of a Parkinson’s patient’s motor skills by 83%, reversal of heart tissue damage in a heart attack victim, the list goes on and on. Stem cells work, and more research is needed.
Now, some economics of stem cell research and therapies: The Analysis Group prepared an economic analysis of the costs and benefits associated with California’s Proposition 71, the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. Based on the most conservative scenarios, it is believed that Proposition 71 will provide total state revenues and health care cost savings of between 6.4 billion and 12.6 billion dollars, which equates to a 120-236% return on the investment made in the research. This includes direct income and sales tax revenues of at least 240 million dollars from spending on the research facilities and the research itself, and state royalty revenues ranging from 1/2 to 1.1 billion dollars! Direct health care cost savings of between 3.4 and 6.9 billion dollars are also expected. In addition, growth in the biotech industry may create between 5,000 and 22,000 new jobs each year.
This is not a religious issue. This is a health issue. This is a “where are my Medicare dollars going?” issue – a quality of life issue. Even though the dollars are huge, let’s not forget that the main benefits from stem cell research and therapies are to improve the health and to save the lives of millions who suffer, or who may in the future suffer from diseases that could be treated or cured with new stem cell therapies.
By
Anonymous, at 8:18 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home