PHARMA 2

PHARMA2 AGE OF TRUMP 2/18
PHARMA 3 619tauzin rev door poster boy 2003 mod actsee main for oldersee tag phrmapromoted to primary on 1st amendment, also size of industry, plus reliance on gaming fed gov't 8/16BIG GOP FUNDER?something like 101 of 103 drugs on mkt last 15 years were public r&d (NIH)corp tax cuts went to share buyback mostly=all cycles<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(33, 43, 74); font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-top="margin-top" clear="clear" both="both"><tbody><tr class="notint"><td>Party Split:</td><td style="padding-top: 20px;"><table style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr class="notint"><td nowrap="" valign="middle">Dems: 
Repubs: 
Others:</td><td align="left"><img border="0" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets2.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif" height="15" width="87.842350933396" alt="Dems: $101,541,879" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> $101,541,879
<img border="0" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets2.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif" height="15" width="111.33180177829" alt="Repubs: $128,694,647" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> $128,694,647
<img border="0" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets2.opensecrets.org/img/green.gif" height="15" width="0.82584728831057" alt="Other: $954,643" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> $954,643
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr class="notint"><td>All Candidates:</td><td align="left"><img border="0" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets2.opensecrets.org/img/black.gif" height="15" width="300" alt="Total to All Candidates: $231,191,169" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> $231,191,169</td></tr><tr class="notint"><td>Incumbents Only:</td><td align="left"><img border="0" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets2.opensecrets.org/img/black.gif" height="15" width="247.03305211455" alt="Total to Members: $190,372,867" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> $190,372,867</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="datadisplay" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background: rgb(224, 230, 236); width: 574px; border: 0px; min-width: 450px; color: rgb(33, 43, 74); font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><thead><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">House</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);"># of Members</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Average Contribution</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Total Contributions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Democrats</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">2,928</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$16,744</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$51,433,254</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Republicans</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">3,027</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$22,464</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$73,868,334</td></tr><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Independents</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">8</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$628</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$12,570</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">TOTAL</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">5,963</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$21,015</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$125,314,158</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="datadisplay" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background: rgb(224, 230, 236); width: 574px; border: 0px; min-width: 450px; color: rgb(33, 43, 74); font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><thead><tr><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Senate</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);"># of Members</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Average Contribution</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Total Contributions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Democrats</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">682</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$43,959</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$31,945,151</td></tr><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Republicans</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">718</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$43,493</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$32,103,606</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Independents</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">11</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$24,799</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$479,116</td></tr><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">TOTAL</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">1,411</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$45,732</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$64,527,873</td></tr></tbody></table>---<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04++">https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04++</a>2018<table class="datadisplay" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background: rgb(224, 230, 236); width: 574px; border: 0px; min-width: 450px; color: rgb(33, 43, 74); font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><thead><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">House</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);"># of Members</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Average Contribution</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Total Contributions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Democrats</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">193</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$36,139</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$6,974,834</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Republicans</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">223</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$44,606</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$9,947,340</td></tr><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Independents</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">0</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$0</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$0</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">TOTAL</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">416</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$40,678</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$16,922,174</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="4" style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;">The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates. 
Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.</td></tr></tfoot></table><table class="datadisplay" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background: rgb(224, 230, 236); width: 574px; border: 0px; min-width: 450px; color: rgb(33, 43, 74); font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><thead><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Senate</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);"># of Members</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Average Contribution</th><th style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Total Contributions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Democrats</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">48</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$90,600</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$4,348,833</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Republicans</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">48</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$54,581</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,619,916</td></tr><tr><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">Independents</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">2</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$21,763</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$43,526</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">TOTAL</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">98</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$71,554</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$7,012,275</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="4" style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;">The US Senate has 100 members. 
Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.</td></tr></tfoot></table>
<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">new</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://news.littlesis.org/2019/05/29/these-are-the-millionaire-ceos-whose-corporations-fund-politicians-banning-abortions" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://news.littlesis.org/2019/05/29/these-are-the-millionaire-ceos-whose-corporations-fund-politicians-banning-abortions</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://popular.info/p/these-six-corporations-are-financing" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Popular Information</a> recently published an important article naming six major corporations that made substantial donations to the political leadership in the states that recently passed extreme abortions bans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio.The six corporations are: AT&T, Coca-Cola, Aetna, Walmart, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly.</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/ocasio-cortez-bathes-in-republican-tears-gop-congressman-triggered-by-attack-on-big-pharma">https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/ocasio-cortez-bathes-in-republican-tears-gop-congressman-triggered-by-attack-on-big-pharma</a>
After taking back the House in the November midterms, in large part because of health care, Democrats held their first hearing in January on the rising and often exorbitant cost of prescription drugs. This week, the House majority followed up with a package of legislation aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs and reversing the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.<div class="p1_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Essentially, Democrats dared Republicans to vote against lower drug prices because of their longstanding opposition to Obamacare. The gambit worked, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/house-drug-pricing-vote-1440843" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">with the trio of bills passing on Thursday with the support of five Republicans</a>. Furthermore, this move made clear that some in the GOP are quicker to cry tears in defense of corporate profits than for the Americans dependent on lifesaving medicine that is many times more expensive in the U.S. than other developed nations.<div class="p2_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="alt_ad_block story-page-in-content-graph-2" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="teadsNative" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">At a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week, Republicans howled in bitter protest after Democrats dared to question the massive profits claimed by leading pharmaceutical companies while millions can’t afford lifesaving medications.<div class="p3_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Daniel O’Day, the chairman and CEO of Gilead, was grilled by Democratic lawmakers on Thursday. Although Gilead is the leading US manufacturer of HIV drugs, only about 18% of the 1.1 million people in the U.S. at risk for HIV infections are currently taking its prevention drug Truvada. Democrats contended that that means preventable infections are occurring every day because of Gilead’s business model.<div class="p4_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Gilead charged $800 a month for Truvada when it was introduced in 2004. It now costs nearly $2000 a month and has earned Gilead about $36 billion since it was approved in 2004.<div class="p5_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“How can Gilead do this?” Oversight Committee chair Elijah Cummings, D-Md., asked O’Day. “This treatment was developed as a result of investment made by the American taxpayers.” Cummings then answered his own question, saying that “the problem is that Gilead, the company that now sells the drug, charges astronomical prices.”The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) originally filed a patent application for Truvada in 2006, after it discovered the drug’s ability to prevent HIV infection in a federal primate lab in Atlanta.<div class="p7_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“How can our system allow a company to take a drug treatment that was developed with taxpayer funds and abuse its monopoly to charge such astronomical prices?” Cummings pressed O’Day.<div class="p8_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also piled on O’Day. “You’re the CEO of Gilead. Is it true that Gilead made $3 billion in profits from Truvada in 2018?” she asked.<div class="p9_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“The current list price is $2,000 a month in the United States, correct?” she continued. “Why is it $8 in Australia?”<div class="p10_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“There’s no reason this should be $2,000 a month,” Ocasio-Cortez insisted. “People are dying because of it and there’s no enforceable reason for it.”<div class="p11_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">O’Day argued that the astronomical price difference is due to government regulation, not corporate greed.<div class="p12_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Truvada still has patent protection in the United States and in the rest of the world it is generic,” he replied. “It will be generically available in the United States as of September 2020.”<div class="p13_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“We the people developed this drug!” Ocasio-Cortez shot back.<div class="p14_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">After another freshman Democrat, Rep. Katie Hill of California, questioned the CEO about the company’s revenue, which she quoted at $22 billion in 2018, and the compensation of its highest-ranking executives, including O’Day’s recent $30 million signing bonus, Republicans lost it.<div class="p15_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“I just cannot understand why we are spending time sitting here listening to people lecturing companies about making money. I hope you make a lot of money,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said in a two-minute outburst.<div class="p16_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“But to sit here and attack the capitalistic system that produces and distributes medicine that is saving lives around the world? I mean it is just offensive!”<div class="p17_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Roy, a freshman Republican who won election last November by just 3 percentage points, continued with his sour-faced, hand-waving tirade: “I hope you make a lot of money! … How much cash on hand does Apple have? $245 billion. How much has Apple done to go cure health?”<div class="p18_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">He was later joined in indignation by the committee’s ranking Republican member Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.<div class="p19_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Rather than applaud Gilead for manufacturing this miracle drug, they wish to demonize the company for making a profit,” said Jordan, who <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/437585-oversight-republicans-accuse-cummings-of-partisan-drug-pricing" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">complained</a> in April<a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/437585-oversight-republicans-accuse-cummings-of-partisan-drug-pricing" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;"> in letters</a> to the drug companies that he believed his committee’s investigation was a partisan attempt to influence stock prices. “I fear that my colleagues are using today’s hearing as a platform to strong-arm private companies making breakthrough discoveries, all because they are upset at how markets work. The reality is that while Gilead has made money on this drug there doesn’t seem to be genuine issues with access.”<div class="p20_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Medical experts, however, appear to disagree.<div class="p21_22" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“I believe that the root cause of low access is the high price of the medication,” testified Dr. Robert Grant, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco.<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/siding-with-big-pharma-republicans-warn-ceos-not-to-cooperate-with-democrats-drug-price-probe">https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/siding-with-big-pharma-republicans-warn-ceos-not-to-cooperate-with-democrats-drug-price-probe</a>As Democrats on the House Oversight Committee attempt to investigate soaring drug prices in the U.S., <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/republicans-warn-drug-companies-oversight-investigation" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Republicans are warning the CEOs</a> of some of America’s largest pharmaceutical companies against cooperating with the probe.<div class="p1_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), leaders of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, sent <a href="https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pharma-Letters.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">letters</a> (pdf) to a dozen drug company CEOs “warning that information they provide to the committee could be leaked to the public by Democratic chair Elijah Cummings in an effort to tank their stock prices,” Buzzfeed reported Monday.<div class="p2_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="alt_ad_block" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="teadsNative" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-committee-launches-sweeping-drug-price-investigation" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">launched his investigation in January</a> with a request for “information and communications on price increases, investments in research and development, and corporate strategies to preserve market share and pricing power” from pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and others.<div class="p3_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">In their letters to the same pharmaceutical companies, Jordan and Meadows suggested that Cummings is attempting to obtain information that “would likely harm the competitiveness of your company if disclosed publicly.”<div class="p4_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“While we cannot speculate about Chairman Cummings’s motives, we believe the committee should not pursue an investigation to ‘impact… stock prices with regard to drugs’—especially when there is bipartisan interest in real oversight of rising prescription drug prices,” the Republicans wrote in their letters, dated April 5.<div class="p5_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As Buzzfeed notes, Jordan and Meadows’ claims rest on an out-of-context quote from Cummings:<div class="p6_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="alt_ad_block" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 24px; position: relative; line-height: 1.7; overflow: hidden; background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: none !important;">The [Republicans’] letter quotes Cummings as saying of his drug team: “If you follow the headlines, we have already seen the impact they have had… on stock prices with regard to drugs. I mean, it has been astronomical.” The letter omits the rest of the sentence: “saving the taxpayers money.”<div class="p7_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">In the edited quote, Cummings seems to be bragging about an “astronomical” impact on drug company stocks. In the context of his statements before and after, he seems to be saying the “astronomical” impact is on taxpayer savings, which justify giving his committee more resources. A minute later he says: “Whatever you all give us, we will give it back in savings by rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse.”<div class="p8_11" style="font-style: italic; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></div></blockquote>In a statement to Buzzfeed, Cummings said Jordan—the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee—”is on the absolute wrong side here.”<div class="p9_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“He would rather protect drug company ‘stock prices’ than the interests of the American people,” Cummings added.<div class="p10_11" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Economist and University of California, Berkeley professor Robert Reich expressed agreement with Cummings, <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1115391706688417794" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">tweeting</a> of the two Republicans, “Once again, they’re siding with Big Pharma at the expense of the American people.”=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/made-in-america-how-big-pharma-and-our-health-care-industry-conspired-to-forge-a-national-epidemic/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/made-in-america-how-big-pharma-and-our-health-care-industry-conspired-to-forge-a-national-epidemic/</a>
 <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000504" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America</a> (PhRMA) gave millions in grants to pro-GOP “dark money” groups last year, according to the most recent annual tax filings reviewed by the Center for Responsive Politics Friday.Among the largest grants are $2.5 million to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2018&strID=C90017302" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">America First Policies</a> — a nonprofit dedicated to promoting President Donald Trump’s agenda — and $1.5 million to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000060058&cycle=2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Action Network</a>, which gave $22 million to the conservative <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00504530" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Congressional Leadership Fund</a> this election cycle. Both groups spent millions on <a href="https://americanactionnetwork.org/press/new-1-million-aan-ad-campaign-promotes-tax-cuts-middle-class-families/" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">ads</a> in support of Trump’s tax cuts.<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000023944" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Conservative Union</a> ($150,000) and Charles Koch’s <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000024046" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Americans for Prosperity</a> ($225,000) were also among conservative dark money nonprofits to receive significant funds from the largest pharmaceutical trade group.PhRMA’s $1.19 million grant to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00568444&cycle=2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Center Forward</a> stands out, as the dark money nonprofit spent nearly $1.3 million to aid Democrats this election cycle. The group says it seeks bipartisan solutions on various issues and <a href="https://center-forward.org/orphan-drugs-fight-treat-rare-diseases/" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">advocated to preserve a tax credit</a> for rare-disease medicine research in the GOP tax bill, a position supported by PhRMA.The group gave to both liberal and conservative causes, though the numbers tend to be higher for conservative groups. It gave $150,000 to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=521870839" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee</a> and $350,000 to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=050532524" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican State Leadership Committee</a>, as well as $325,000 to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=113655877" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican Governors Association</a> and $305,000 to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=521304889" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Governors Association</a>.“PhRMA works with many organizations with which we have both agreements and disagreements on public policy issues, and believe this dialogue is essential to advancing solutions that are in the best interest for patients,” PhRMA spokesperson Holly Campbell said in a statement on the tax filing.The group gave $1 million to the <a href="https://www.thenrrt.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">National Republican Redistricting Trust</a>, founded primarily to help GOP candidates win House seats in gerrymandered Democrat-controlled states. Another conservative group, the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F203581&year=2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Job Creators Network</a>, received $500,000.Another $500,000 went to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000049389&year=2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Coalition for Affordable Health Coverage</a>, which aims to <a href="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/aa74e81b676f6a390631dd0c2/files/d4868416-545a-4b66-b0d7-e95bdd29fd37/CAHC_2018_HIX_Report_FINAL.01.pdf?utm_source=CAHC+2018+Press+List-+JF&utm_campaign=baf603aed6-Monday_Call_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3fb2891f60-baf603aed6-1208650093" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">eliminate the public exchange healthcare model</a> and replace it with a private system. The group also gave $1.75 million to the Healthcare Leadership Council, which similarly pushes for “<a href="https://www.hlc.org/news/healthcare-leaders-say-increasing-competition-not-importing-price-controls-is-key-to-bolstering-medicine-affordability/" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">increased competition</a>” over price controls.The trade group had much more money to spend than ever before last year, raising more than $455 million, up from $270 million in 2016. Thus, it gave out $31 million in grants to other groups in 2017, up from $26 million the year prior. The grants are not reported to the FEC as they not considered to be “political” in nature even if the recipient of the grant ultimately spends some of that money on political activities. Thus, the grants are not revealed until yearly IRS tax filings filed 10-and-a-half months after the end of PhRMA’s fiscal year.<div class="related-box" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; width: 760px; padding: 8px 0px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 12px;">RELATED TOPICS<ul class="related-list" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px -5px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/america-first-politics/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">America First Politics</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/american-action-network/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">American Action Network</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/american-conservative-union/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">American Conservative Union</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/americans-for-prosperity/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Americans for Prosperity</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/center-forward/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Center Forward</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/coalition-for-affordable-health-coverage/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Coalition for Affordable Health Coverage</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/dark-money/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">dark money</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic-governors-association/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Democratic Governors Association</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic-legislative-campaign-committee/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/donald-trump/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Donald Trump</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/karl-evers-hillstrom/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">karl evers-hillstrom</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/national-republican-redistricting-trust/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">National Republican Redistricting Trust</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/pharmaceutical-research-manufacturers-of-america/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/phrma/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">phrma</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/republican-governors-association/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Republican Governors Association</a></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 5px 10px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; float: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/republican-state-leadership-committee/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-height: 1e+06px; background: rgb(236, 238, 242); text-decoration-line: none; display: block; padding: 5px 11px; border-radius: 3px;">Republican State Leadership Committee</a></li></ul></div> 






quincy klugman 2 tv show got hatch to cave on blocking orphan drug, RR signed bill npr widow of woody guthrie (incentive to dev rx)Johnson & Johnson is cheating women and girls out of the chance to beat poverty.Turns out the pharmaceutical giant that has promised generations of children 'no more tears' is dodging its taxes.And it’s not the only member of the big pharma club that systematically stashes its profits in overseas tax havens. According to a new report by Oxfam International, Pfizer, Merck & Co (MSD), and Abbott are at it too. In doing so, they’re cheating governments out of millions that could be invested in public services – healthcare, education, and infrastructure.<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/we-need-healthcare-champions-not-puppets-documents-expose-big-pharmas-scheme-turn-democratic">https://www.alternet.org/we-need-healthcare-champions-not-puppets-documents-expose-big-pharmas-scheme-turn-democratic</a></div><div>
</div><div> a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/22/study-finds-single-payer-viable-2018-elections" style="text-decoration-line: none;">growing number</a> of <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/20/embracing-medicare-all-and-refusing-corporate-cash-abdul-el-sayed-touted-true" style="text-decoration-line: none;">political candidates</a> facing November elections proclaim their support for <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/tag/single-payer" style="text-decoration-line: none;">single-payer</a> healthcare—which the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/12/spreading-wildfire-majority-americans-including-74-democrats-now-support-single" style="text-decoration-line: none;">majority</a> of Americans want to replace the nation's current for-profit system—the Democratic primary for Hawaii's 1st Congressional District is shedding light on the insurance and pharmaceutical industry forces working against a transition to Medicare for All.At least three of the six candidates running to represent the "reliably" Democratic district in Hawaii "took time out from their schedules to talk to a consultant dispatched by the Healthcare Leadership Council, a lobbying group that seeks to advance the goals of the largest players in the private healthcare industry," <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/08/02/healthcare-medicare-for-all-hawaii/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to</a> a new report by The Intercept.Although much of the report focuses on the Hawaii race, as The Intercept notes, the Healthcare Leadership Council—which is funded by Big Pharma companies such as Pfizer and Novartis—spends more than <a href="https://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/363/363668803/363668803_201612_990O.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$5 million</a> a year representing the interests of "insurers, hospitals, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, health product distributors, and information technology companies" across the nation.The lobbying group reached out to and met with former state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, Hawaii Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, and Honolulu City Council Member Ernest Martin, then crafted <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4618671-Hawaii-1st-District-HLC-Survey.html#document/p1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">dossiers</a> that included "their photos, biographical sketches, contact information for their campaigns, and a checklist for determining their positions on certain issues of importance to the Healthcare Leadership Council," based in part upon the candidates' answers to a survey about specific policy proposals.The Intercept, which obtained and published the dossiers, reports:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Of Kim, the former state senator, the group's profile says, "She is very pro-market, opposes any attempt at single-payer, does not support price controls on pharmaceuticals, and agrees that Medicaid and Medicare need to be managed by the private market."Chin is a "moderate Democrat that has represented healthcare providers in Med-mal lawsuits," said the Healthcare Leadership Council's profile. Chin, the survey noted, "supports the market concept advocated by HLC and does not think a single-payer/Medicare for All approach would work in Hawaii.""Martin supports a majority of HLC's positions," the profile on the Honolulu City Council member says. "He does not want single-payer." But, the dossier noted, Martin needed better education on health policy.In some cases, what the candidates told the lobbyist appeared to differ from what they told voters.</blockquote>"Democrats running in a primary election will say they support 'Medicare for All,' but what do they say to lobbyists behind the scenes?" responded fellow candidate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/tag/kaniela-ing" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Kaniela Ing</a>, a vocal supporter of Medicare for All and other progressive policies who did not meet with the healthcare industry lobbyists."We need healthcare champions, not puppets," added Ing, a state lawmaker and democratic socialist whose <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/26/producers-ocasio-cortezs-viral-video-make-ad-progressive-hawaiian-kaniela-ing-will" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recent campaign ad</a> has drawn national attention to the race.People for Bernie, a collective formed in response to the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—a longtime supporter of single-payer who <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/13/everyone-covered-no-one-goes-broke-sanders-introduces-medicare-all-bill" style="text-decoration-line: none;">introduced</a> a Medicare for All bill in the Senate last September—turned to Twitter Thursday to share the report and urge progressives to help Ing get elected.Of the other two candidates in the race, a spokesperson for Republican-turned-Democratic state legislator Beth Fukumoto told The Intercept that the Healthcare Leadership Council had not contacted her campaign, and Ed Case, a former congressman and "Blue Dog" Democrat, did not respond to request for comment.</div><div>
</div><div></div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/trump-peddles-false-hope-terminally-ill-right-try-law">https://www.alternet.org/trump-peddles-false-hope-terminally-ill-right-try-law</a>... doctors and medical researchers were <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-to-try-bill-trump-signing-will-it-help-terminally-ill-patients-today-2018-05-30/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none;">casting doubt</a> on Trump’s claims. At best, the Right to Try law will help a few patients suffering from certain terminal illnesses for which there are promising treatments under review, but only if they are wealthy enough to pay for the treatments and the cost of treating any negative side effects, most likely without help from their insurance plan. For this reason alone, the new law is not expected to help nearly as many people as Trump claims.At worst, critics say Right to Try is a <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-very-worst-version-of-the-sham-known-as-right-to-try-is-poised-to-become-law/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none;">stealth attempt by libertarian ideologues</a> to undermine patients’ rights and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-31/right-to-try-author-says-law-s-intent-is-to-diminish-fda-s-power" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none;">chip away at the FDA’s regulatory authority </a>over chemicals that have yet to be proven safe and effective. Medical experts point out that the FDA already has a program for allowing patients to try drugs that have not completed clinical trials, and the agency approves 99 percent of applications. The Right to Try legislation simply cuts government watchdogs charged with protecting consumer safety out of the process.Of course, the experimental chemicals and devices patients now have the “right” to try must also be effective at treating serious illness without presenting intolerable side effects. According to Vinay Prasad, a doctor and professor of medicine at Oregon State University, this is a feat achieved by only 10 percent of drugs that initially enter clinical trials. Manufacturers must also agree to provide them in the first place.“It isn’t accurate to call these drugs, though, because they are just chemicals, most of which don’t work,” Prasad said.In a series of tweets, Prasad said Right to Try advocates associated with conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Goldwater Institute had created a “misleading narrative” about a large number of patients who had exhausted their options and wanted to try new drugs. (Right to Try advocates routinely campaigned with sick children to pass laws in a number of states, and a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-to-try-bill-trump-signing-will-it-help-terminally-ill-patients-today-2018-05-30/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none;">young boy battling muscular dystrophy</a> joined Trump as he signed the bill into law.)<blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019613838725120" data-tweet-id="1002019613838725120" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a><a data-scribe="mini_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019613838725120" style="text-decoration-line: none;">30 May</a><a data-scribe="in_reply_to_user_link" href="https://twitter.com//status/1002019612161011713" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Replying to @VinayPrasadMD</a>This group & partners created a misleading narrative where many sick patients had exhausted proven options and wanted to try "drugs" that were still in clinical trials.

It isn't accurate to call these drugs, though, because they are just chemicals, most of which don't work.</blockquote><blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065" data-scribe="subject" data-tweet-id="1002019614967128065" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a>  In fact, multiple studies show that most of these chemicals do not come to market FOR ANY PURPOSE.
₁₀% come to market FOR SOME USE, but maybe not the use you wanted to "try" it for (i.e. true % chance of benefit, even lower) <a data-pre-embedded="true" data-scribe="" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/tSb5rrMJAC" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pic.twitter.com/tSb5rrMJAC</a><a data-datetime="07+0000" data-scribe="full_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065" style="text-decoration-line: none;">7:51 PM - May 30, 2018</a><a data-scribe="photo" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065/photo/1" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /></blockquote><a data-scribe="photo" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065/photo/1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Companies can still deny requests to “try” their experimental treatments and have plenty of reasons to do so, including fear that a bad outcome could lead to lawsuits and delay or threaten a drug’s ultimate approval. In fact, Prasad and other experts say manufacturers, not the FDA, are the real barrier between terminally ill patients and emerging treatments.</a><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">
Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a><a data-scribe="mini_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024324495163392" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">30 May</a><a data-scribe="in_reply_to_user_link" href="https://twitter.com//status/1002023498833772545" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">Replying to @VinayPrasadMD</a>The legislation does protect health providers and pharmaceutical companies from legal liability if their experimental products do more harm than good, but manufacturers may not feel protected until that language is tested in court. Despite the “Right to Try” moniker, the law offers no new rights to patients besides the ability to seek treatments that have not been tested and approved by the FDA.<blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024324495163392" data-tweet-id="1002024324495163392" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Also worth noting that the FDA is not holding back cures in cancer or other serious ailments

In fact, they are rubber-stamping the most toxic, and marginal products

The avg cancer drug approved adds 2 months of life!
in ideal settings
less in real world<a data-expanded-url="//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf" data-scribe="url" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/lw3UA91ib2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="blank" title="//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf …</a><a data-pre-embedded="true" data-scribe="" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/1Vk1eWK4oG" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pic.twitter.com/1Vk1eWK4oG</a></blockquote><blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024688996909056" data-scribe="subject" data-tweet-id="1002024688996909056" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a>  I find it interesting to note what the Right to Try bill does not include
No "Right to Have Approved Drugs Be Affordable"
No "Right to Have Pharma make Better Drugs"
No "Right not to go bankrupt from paying for drugs you need"
No "Right to make companies GIVE the drug"<a data-datetime="17+0000" data-scribe="full_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024688996909056" style="text-decoration-line: none;">8:11 PM - May 30, 2018</a></blockquote>For these reasons, medical experts argue that the Right to Try law <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1714054" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">will do little for most families facing a terminal illness</a>, all while curtailing the FDA’s ability to control access to investigational drugs. That’s why more than 300 doctors and academics signed <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryW_bzxzNXC9SAthX09KLOqNMW57qZMq/view" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">a letter</a> in February urging members of Congress to ditch the legislation, despite pressure from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.“This legislation sells vulnerable patients and families false hope at the expense of weakening the FDA’s critical role in making sure that all Americans can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of our medical products,” the authors wrote, adding that their view is shared by the American Lung Association, the Children’s Brain Tumor Foundation, the National Health Council and many other groups.When it comes to policy, Trump has never been concerned with the fine print. That’s a job he leaves up to staffers and members of his cabinet, many of whom come directly from the world of big business or the far right of the Republican Party. The president promotes their policies with broad strokes and bold promises, just as he did on Wednesday as he signed the Right to Try bill and declared a victory during another week of damaging headlines. In politics, however, the devil is in the details, and what Trump wants you to see on TV is not always what you get.=master negotiator allow US gov to negot is no-brainer but no... America’s trading partners “need to pay more because they’re using socialist price controls, market access controls, to get unfair pricing,” said Alex Azar, Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, who, perhaps not incidentally, was a former top executive at the drug maker Eli Lilly and Company.By this tortured logic, if other nations allow drug companies to charge whatever they want, U.S. drug companies will then lower prices in the United States.This is nonsensical. It would just mean more profits for U.S. drug companies. (Revealingly, the stock prices of U.S. pharmaceutical companies rose after Trump announced his plan.) While it’s true that Americans spend <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmacycheckerblog.com%2Fstruggling-to-afford-meds-americans-spend-more-on-drugs-than-other-countries&t=Y2ZmZmY2Y2I0Yjg0YWViM2I3ZjFkYjc4OWFhZTRlYzg5ZWRmMDA2ZixydVpNbVJJZQ%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F119767465905&m=1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">far more</a> on medications per person than do citizens in any other rich country – even though Americans are no healthier – that’s not because other nations freeload on American drug companies’ research.Big Pharma in America spends more on advertising and marketing than it does on research – often tens of millions to promote a single drug.American drug companies also spend hundreds of millions lobbying the government. Last year alone, their lobbying tab came to $171.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.The U.S. government supplies much of the research Big Pharma relies on through the National Institutes of Health. This is a form of corporate welfare that no other industry receives. That’s more than oil and gas, insurance, or any other American industry. It’s more than the formidable lobbying expenditures of America’s military contractors. Big Pharma spends tens of millions more on campaign expenditures.They spend so much on politics in order to avoid price controls, as exist in most other nations, and other government attempts to constrain their formidable profits.For example, in 2003, Big Pharma got a U.S. law prohibiting the government from using its considerable bargaining clout under Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate lower drug prices. Other nations with big healthcare plans routinely negotiate lower drug prices.In reality, private health insurers don’t have anywhere near the clout of Medicare and Medicaid – which was the whole point of Big Pharma’s getting Congress to ban such negotiations in the first place.During his campaign Trump promised to reverse this law. But the plan he revealed Friday doesn’t touch it. Trump’s plan seeks only to make it easier for private health insurers to negotiate better deals for Medicare beneficiaries.  In the last few years, U.S. drug companies have also blocked Americans from getting low-cost prescription drug from Canada, using the absurd argument that Americans can’t rely on the safety of drugs coming from our northern neighbor – whose standards are at least as high as ours.Trump’s new plan doesn’t change this, either.  To put all this another way, when Americans buy drugs in the United States, they really buy a package of advertising, marketing, and political influence-peddling. Consumers in other nations don’t pay these costs. Which explains a big part of why drug prices are lower abroad. Trump’s so-called plan to lower drug prices disregards this reality.Trump’s plan nibbles at the monopoly power of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, but doesn’t deal with the central fact that their patents are supposed to run only twenty years but they’ve developed a host of strategies to keep patents going beyond then.One is to make often insignificant changes in their patented drugs that are enough to trigger new patents and thereby prevent pharmacists from substituting cheaper generic versions.Before its patent expired on Namenda, its widely used drug to treat Alzheimer’s, Forest Labs <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fpresswatch.com%2Fhealth%2F%3Flimit%3D101%26searchterm%3Dannounced&t=OGYxODY5NGEyZTlkYTE5ZjE5ZTcxMzQwMjQyZmM5ZjA1ZGFmNjVhOCw1QXlPZFlQRA%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F99279814665&m=1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">announced</a> it would stop selling the existing tablet form of in favor of new extended-release capsules called Namenda XR [extra revenue?]. Even though Namenda XR was just a reformulated version of the tablet, the introduction prevented generic versions from being introduced.  Other nations don’t allow drug patents to be extended on such flimsy grounds. Trump’s plan doesn’t touch this ploy.Another tactic used by U.S. drug companies has been to sue generics to prevent them from selling their cheaper versions, then settle the cases by paying the generics to delay introducing those cheaper versions.Such “pay-for-delay” agreements are illegal in other nations, but antitrust enforcement hasn’t laid a finger on them in America – and Trump doesn’t mention them although they cost Americans an estimated <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fnews-events%2Fmedia-resources%2Fmergers-and-competition%2Fpay-delay&t=NWY5M2EwNDVjZjI0MDYxMzkwMGIzMzg5ZGJiYmYyNGU3ODEzMzY3MCxydVpNbVJJZQ%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F119767465905&m=1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$3.5 billion</a>a year.Even after their patents have expired, U.S. drug companies continue to aggressively advertise their brands so patients will ask their doctors for them instead of the generic versions. Many doctors comply.Other nations don’t allow direct advertising of prescription drugs – another reason why prices are lower there and higher here. Trump’s plan is silent on this, too. (Trump suggests drug advertisers should be required to post the prices of their drugs, which they’re already expert at obscuring.)If Trump were serious about lowering drug prices he’d have to take on the U.S. drug manufacturers.But Trump doesn’t want to take on Big Pharma. As has been typical for him, rather than confronting the moneyed interests in America he chooses mainly to blame foreigners. Robt r<a href="https://www.alternet.org/trumps-new-drug-pricing-plan-just-another-nonsensical-scam-designed-blame-foreigners">https://www.alternet.org/trumps-new-drug-pricing-plan-just-another-nonsensical-scam-designed-blame-foreigners</a><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act</a></div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Legislative history</h2>According to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times" class="mw-redirect" title="New York Times" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times</a> December 17, 2004 editorial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin" title="Billy Tauzin" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">W.J."Billy" Tauzin</a>, the Louisiana Republican who chaired the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.House_Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Energy and Commerce Committee</a> from 2001 until February 4, 2004 was one of the chief architects of the new Medicare law.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-NYT_2004_dec_17-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-USNews_2004-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a> In 2004 when Tauzin was appointed as chief lobbyist for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Research_and_Manufacturers_of_America" title="Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America</a> (PhRMA), the trade association and lobby group for the drug industry with a "rumored salary of $2 million a year,"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-NYT_2004_dec_17-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a> drawing criticism from a Washington-based <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Citizen" title="Public Citizen" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Public Citizen</a>, the consumer advocacy group. They claimed that Tauzin "may have been negotiating for the lobbying job while writing the Medicare legislation."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-USNews_2004-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[7]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-washingtonpost_dec_2004-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[8]</a> Tauzin was responsible for including a provision that prohibited Medicare from negotiating prices with drug companies.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a><blockquote class="templatequote" style="overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 40px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"It's a sad commentary on politics in Washington that a member of Congress who pushed through a major piece of legislation benefiting the drug industry, gets the job leading that industry."<div class="templatequotecite" style="line-height: 1.5em; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px;">— <cite style="font-style: inherit;">Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook 2004</cite></div></blockquote>House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-USNews_2004-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a><blockquote class="templatequote" style="overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 40px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"I think if seniors want to know why the pharmaceutical companies made out so well at their expense, all they have to do is look at this. This is an abuse of power. This is a conflict of interest."<div class="templatequotecite" style="line-height: 1.5em; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px;">— <cite style="font-style: inherit;">House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi 2004</cite></div></blockquote>The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six months in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill.The bill was introduced in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">House of Representatives</a> early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Speaker</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert" title="Dennis Hastert" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Dennis Hastert</a>. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_J.Istook,Jr." class="mw-redirect" title="Ernest J. Istook, Jr." style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Ernest J. Istook, Jr.</a> (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.W.Bill_Young" class="mw-redirect" title="C.W. Bill Young" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">C.W. Bill Young</a> (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Otter" title="Butch Otter" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Butch Otter</a> (ID-1) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Ann_Emerson" title="Jo Ann Emerson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jo Ann Emerson</a> (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval.The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wu" title="David Wu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">David Wu</a> (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert" title="Dennis Hastert" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Dennis Hastert</a> and Majority Leader <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay" title="Tom DeLay" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Tom DeLay</a> sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Smith(U.S.politician)" title="Nick Smith (U.S. politician)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Nick Smith</a> (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea." After controversy ensued, Smith clarified no explicit offer of campaign funds was made, but that he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" which he had assumed included financial support.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[10]</a>At about 5:50 a.m., Otter and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Franks" title="Trent Franks" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Trent Franks</a> (AZ-2) were convinced to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_M.Dooley" class="mw-redirect" title="Calvin M. Dooley" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Calvin M. Dooley</a> (CA-20), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Marshall(U.S.politician)" class="mw-redirect" title="Jim Marshall (U.S. politician)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jim Marshall</a> (GA-3) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scott(Georgia_politician)" title="David Scott (Georgia politician)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">David Scott</a> (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Miller(congressman)" class="mw-redirect" title="Brad Miller (congressman)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Brad Miller</a> (D-NC-13), and then, Republican <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Culberson" title="John Culberson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">John Culberson</a> (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a>The Democrats cried foul, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Thomas" title="Bill Thomas" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Bill Thomas</a>, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means committee, challenged the result in a gesture to satisfy the concerns of the minority. He subsequently voted to table his own challenge; the tally to table was 210 ayes, 193 noes.[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>]The Senate's consideration of the conference report was somewhat less heated, as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture" title="Cloture" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">cloture</a> on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a> However, a budget point of order raised by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle" title="Tom Daschle" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Tom Daschle</a>, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham" title="Lindsey Graham" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Lindsey Graham</a> (R-SC), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott" title="Trent Lott" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Trent Lott</a> (R-MS), and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden" title="Ron Wyden" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Ron Wyden</a> (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[13]</a> The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Costs[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Costs" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. Administration official <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A.Scully" title="Thomas A. Scully" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Thomas Scully</a> instructed analyst Richard Foster not to tell Congress of Foster's finding that the cost would actually be over $500 billion. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a> As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[16]</a><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Negotiating of prescription drug prices</h2>Since the enactment of Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, only insurance companies administering Medicare prescription drug program, not Medicare, have the legal right to negotiate drug prices directly from drug manufacturers. The Medicare Prescription Drug act expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating bulk prescription drug prices.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[17]</a>:117<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-Samuel_2004_political-prescription-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[18]</a> On January 31, 2017, President Trump, following his meeting with CEOs of pharmaceutical firms and the chairmen of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Research_and_Manufacturers_of_America" title="Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America</a>,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-reuters_T100_drugmakers-19" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[19]</a> who had promised to let "Medicare negotiate bulk discounts in the price it pays for prescription drugs," abandoned his pledge.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[20]</a> On February 7, 2017, White House spokesman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Spicer" title="Sean Spicer" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sean Spicer</a> confirmed that President Trump still favored medicare negotiating the prices of prescription drugs.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,Improvement,and_Modernization_Act#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[21]</a></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/19/the_forgotten_flip_flop_2003_medicare_reform.html">http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/19/the_forgotten_flip_flop_2003_medicare_reform.html</a>The Forgotten Flip-Flop: 2003 Medicare ReformBy Matthew YglesiasGeorge W. Bush signs the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
In response to Ezra Klein's piece on the psychology of the GOP flip-flop on individual mandates, Peter Suderman asks if Democrats haven't flip-flopped on Medicare privatization instead.My view on this is perhaps closest to Brian Beutler's. The best defense of Republican behavior on this is to distinguish between tactical opportunism and a mostly consistent view that social welfare spending should be lower rather than higher. Politicians often say things that are inconsistent with what they said at earlier points, but the long arc of Republican health care policymaking at the federal level has been to try to spend less money rather than more.Which is why I think the most interesting flip-flop isn't about Obamacare, it's about the exceptional moment in 2003 when George W. Bush and the Republican congressional leadership—including current tightwad-in-chief Paul Ryan—whipped votes in favor of what was, at the time, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson was in office. That was the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The legislation was, in many ways, like something straight out of the D.C. compromise blueprint. The basic idea was to do something Democrats wanted to do—make Medicare benefits more generous. But it was structured so as to be very favorable to pharmaceutical companies and insurance firms. And the pot was sweetened by including substantial money to facilitate seniors opting out of Medicare and into subsidized private plans. Republicans made a giant exception to their aversion to spending money on non-military matters for this, and it wasn't paid for by offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. Only two Democratic senators ended up voting for it, but at the same time Democrats didn't filibuster it to death even though they had the votes.When I was originally covering this story, I assumed the bill would never pass. The Republican version of a Medicare benefit seemed to me to be a tactical retreat. Democrats had a much more progressive bill to achieve this purpose, so I thought the GOP had ginned up an alternative to muddy the waters but fundamentally had no particular interest in a very expensive addition to Medicare. But they did. It was a hard lift whipping the votes in the House to pass the thing since many conservatives objected, but they got it done.And in an odd coda, the bill's passage was integral to the birth of the Affordable Care Act. That's because the deficit-financed subsidies to private insurers inside Medicare became offsetting spending that Democrats could cut in order to make Obamacare deficit-neutral. If the Bush administration had never created that program in the first place, Democrats wouldn't have been able to cut it later on and use those savings to finance their own health care bill. They'd have either had to write a much stingier program or else include substantially more in the way of tax hikes. And yet even though the 2003 Medicare bill was controversial at the time, it seems to have basically been eliminated from memory. Now all good Republicans are against spending money on anything, but nobody proposes to repeal the basic benefit. It's as if the whole thing never happened.
<a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/taxpayers-not-big-pharma-have-funded-research-behind-every-new-drug-2010?">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/taxpayers-not-big-pharma-have-funded-research-behind-every-new-drug-2010</a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/drugs/drug-companies-are-funding-investigational-studies-influence-their-results">https://www.alternet.org/drugs/drug-companies-are-funding-investigational-studies-influence-their-results</a>Remember how appalled we felt as a society when we discovered that, for so long, we had been mistakenly taking <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/big-tobacco-finally-tells-truth-court-ordered-ad-campaign-n823136" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Big Tobacco’s word</a> that cigarettes are harmless? Rinse and repeat with <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/a-deeply-misleading-ad-tries-to-derail-marijuana-legalization-in-massachusetts-b0e1b0189d7a/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">lobbyists for Big Alcohol fear-mongering about legal weed</a>. And again and again with a panoply of consumer-level commodities and goods.Nowadays we have all these familiar worries, but about our drugs and medications instead. It’s become so bad that there's now reason to believe Big Pharma is also colluding to poison the well of scientific inquiry.The truth is, there are many examples of private industry paying for positive press from the scientific community. When you look closer at our spending priorities as a nation, it’s not entirely difficult to see why. As public funding for the sciences has fallen away, many scientists have had to pivot toward more consistent—and ethically fraught—sources of funding and stability as surely as politicians who, for want of public election funding, get buoyed by billionaires at <a href="https://wlns.com/2017/11/30/skubick-whats-on-the-menu-snyder-hosts-100k-per-plate-fundraiser-tonight/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$100,000-per-plate fundraising dinners</a>.We’ll take a look at case studies in a moment, but for right now, think about how important it is for us to be able to trust, at a minimum level, the products we invite into our bodies and our homes.It’s become common knowledge that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt out there. This is a serious affront to justice that has gone on for far too long. The fight for consumer protections of all kinds can and must begin with health care, medicines, prescription drugs and medical devices. Here are the stakes.The Erosion of TrustIn 2006, GlaxoSmithKline—the esoteric name for a ubiquitous diabetes treatment brand—took a victory lap after a lengthy <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066224" style="text-decoration-line: none;">report in the New England Journal of Medicine</a> declared its Avandia medication to be the most effective of the three diabetes drugs tested.Unfortunately for readers and patients, the extent of the report’s bias was not as attention-grabbing as the headline and ensuing celebratory press releases. In fact, with the help of the FDA and renowned heart specialist Steven Nissen, the Washington Post found that GlaxoSmithKline directly funded the research itself. All 11 of the paper's authors <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?utm_term=.4b6b45f7a087" style="text-decoration-line: none;">had received consultation fees</a>, grants or another form of monetary compensation.There may be no clearer example of conflicts of interest in the halls of science. Given the degree to which private money may have influenced the result of this scientific endeavor, we have little choice but to assume it did.Even worse? The drug didn’t merely fail to help patients cope with their illnesses, it actually raised their risk of heart attack. Avandia effectively doesn’t exist anymore in the U.S., in part because GlaxoSmithKline was so busy trying to force two logical dots to connect that it didn’t even pick up on all the collateral damage.This is outrageous. Consumers shouldn’t have to second-guess the medical professionals who are supposed to help us take care of ourselves.The Fall of Accountable ScienceBetween 2011 and 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine published more than 70 “original studies” of newly FDA-approved and experimental drugs. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?utm_term=.4b6b45f7a087" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Of these 70-plus reports</a>:<ul dir="ltr" style=""><li style="">
Up until about the 1980s, the federal government was the primary financier of scientific research in the world of medicine. In the '60s and '70s, the federal government had a 70 percent share of scientific research. In 2013, that number <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50" style="text-decoration-line: none;">finally dropped below the 50 percent mark</a>.Sixty received direct pharmaceutical company funding.</li><li style="">Fifty were written or co-written by a current employee of a pharmaceutical company.</li><li style="">Thirty-seven had lead writers who had, at some point, received speaking fees or other compensation from the subject of the study.</li></ul>As you may have guessed, there is at least token legal oversight available for clinical investigations of new drugs in the form of FDA regulation. In addition to protecting the personal information of trial participants (patients), the FDA also maintains that <a href="https://www.td2inc.com/news/what-is-a-clinical-investigation" style="text-decoration-line: none;">no drug may reach the investigation phase</a> until its effects—and its lack of harm—have both been documented in a lab setting. As you can likely tell, these protections no longer appear adequate.It has become an open secret that most of the drugs the FDA concerns itself with <a href="https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted" style="text-decoration-line: none;">cannot be relied upon to greatly outperform placebos, or existing treatments, in a vast majority of cases</a>. Moreover, the wholesale regulatory capture of the FDA has resulted in a situation where this vital public office <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2809" style="text-decoration-line: none;">serves as a glorified rubber patent stamp</a> for protecting medicines as privately owned, profit-generating pieces of intellectual property.The American People Are No Longer in Control of Their Scientific DestinyA generation or so ago, the skill with which a nation pursued and made use of scientific knowledge was one of the chief metrics of its greatness. However, starting in the 1980s, the United States <a href="https://hbr.org/1991/11/does-privatization-serve-the-public-interest" style="text-decoration-line: none;">took a decided turn away from public sector expansion</a>. Reagan-era policies aimed to privatize government services in the name of balancing local and state budgets. Since then, the world has watched as Americans have continued to vote accountable government and transparent scientific study nearly out of existence by proponents of “small government” and the shifting of fiscal, bureaucratic and legislative power from the public to the private sector.When corporatists boast of the rate of innovation in the private sector, they generally fail to mention <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929310-200-state-of-innovation-busting-the-private-sector-myth/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">where the money came from</a> that makes all that innovation possible—or what America used to do with it instead. In truth, privatization does not necessarily lead to less government, as its proponents would like to believe. In many cases of privatized innovation, the government still plays a significant role along the value chain of innovation.The difference, though, is that instead of the government being involved for the sake of oversight and accountability, profit-seeking privatized enterprises can lobby for the expansion of public funding just the same as those in the public sector would. Those private companies can then <a href="https://hbr.org/1991/11/does-privatization-serve-the-public-interest" style="text-decoration-line: none;">skim off only the most successful ventures</a>. It’s simply another example of how the government continues to turn a blind eye to unethical, profit-mongering business practices in the name of “trickle down economics,” which we know <a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143174/purest-supply-side-economics-experiment-date-finally-over-unmitigated-failure" style="text-decoration-line: none;">have not worked in the past</a>.However, the winds of change seem to be shifting. For all our present social and political turmoil, we’re more aware of the problem than ever before. But before we can fix it, we must remember science is, like any other endeavor, a human institution.Like a passionate grade-school teacher who can’t do her best work due to a lack of school funding, scientists of all stripes are, after all, human beings with their own biases, internal monologues, ideas, agendas and needs. Science is one of the most vitally important institutions we have right now. Most <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-poll/most-americans-want-aggressive-action-on-climate-change-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN18X198" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Americans say it’s very nearly the only thing that matters</a> in the face of global, anthropocentric climate change, but it’s currently perishing from neglect.Here is the silver lining: Though junk science seems to have a stubborn place in the spotlight and in our shared vocabulary, scientists are actively trying to turn the tables. Inspired in part by the fallout from the 2016 election, American scientists are <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qeypb/3000-scientists-have-asked-for-help-running-for-office-to-oppose-trump" style="text-decoration-line: none;">seeking political office at a brisk clip</a>—and being vocal about it, too.Additionally, it seems that we are finally collectively beginning to wake up to the enormous disservices that Big Pharma has done our society. Throwing our support behind scientist-politicians could be one aid to the problem, but we also need to address the bigger issues at hand with how our medical knowledge is funded and who we can trust to provide us with real answers to medical questions.Government oversight and funding are important aspects of that, and improved transparency regarding where we’re getting our “science” is something people <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/17/health-advocates-combat-opioid-epidemic-target-big-pharma" style="text-decoration-line: none;">are finally starting to advocate for</a>, and should continue to. With this two-part awakening in both the scientific and general community, we can only hope that we are, at last, reaching the end of the road for scientific illiteracy in the States.<div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_living" style="width: 630px; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="author-bio" style="">Kate Harveston</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>