Even though health reform legislation is still in the planning stages at this point, the anticipated opposition have stepped up their crusade to thwart its progress. But of course, those of us who were around for the same battle during the previous decade know that we're up for a battle of monumental proportions. So get ready for some new organization, lobby faction, elected official or interest group to emerge on a weekly basis. And a big-budget sequel to the "Harry & Louise" commercials is coming. Bet on it. This game's going into overtime.
This is despite the fact that the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care. Yet the public option or single-payer health care (what most REALLY want) is still confusingly seen as an imminent threat to some.
Some of those who oppose the public option have made their objectives known, like the American Medical Association's recent flip-flopping that was revisted today in Nicholas Kristof's excellent op-ed in today's New York Times:
Yet when the A.M.A. uses its lobbying muscle to oppose major health reform — yet again! — that feels like a betrayal. Doctors work hard to keep us healthy when we’re in their offices, and that’s why they win our trust and admiration — yet the A.M.A.’s lobbying has sometimes undermined the health of the very patients whom the doctors have sworn to uphold.
I might expect the American Association of Used Car Dealers to focus exclusively on wallet-fattening, but we expect better of physicians.
In fairness, most physicians expect better as well, which is why the A.M.A. is on the decline.
It would be nice to think that opposition to what 3/4 of Americans want from our government would be the nadir of certain groups like the A.M.A. And would maybe even give certain members of Congress (like this one and this one) an opportunity to rethink their undermining actions toward true reform.
At least that's what I thought until Big Pharma decided to throw its hat into the ring.
Published today in the industry publication Medical Marketing & Media:
Kathleen Buto, VP, health policy, for Johnson & Johnson told a congressional committee the pharmaceutical industry is concerned a public health plan could undermine a market-based system that provides incentives for the long-term research that is needed to find cures for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
"A government plan that negotiates prices of pharmaceuticals would be more likely to use price controls that would undermine risky and long-term research in important new treatments," she said. "We won't know what hasn't been developed until we look back and wonder why we aren't seeing the breakthroughs we've seen in the past."
She voiced support of a public-private plan, similar to the co-op concept that was floated around recently by Sen. Charles Schumer. But this argument from J&J has a much different, more sinister slant. You see, Big Pharma doesn't want to lose its grip on the uncontrolled price gouging that it has maintained for prescription drugs. They fear that with a public option in place, a $75 refill of Doribax will only cost $10 across the board. And let's not forget the fact that prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world, making Big Pharma the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S.
So Ms. Buto, an average return of 17% on revenue isn't good enough for you? Are you truly interested in research funding for disease cures, or just fattening up the hedge fund?
J&J's primary argument is in lock step with the rest of Big Pharma: that the prices they set are necessary in order to continue to fund new and ongoing research to find remedies and cures for certain diseases. What's overlooked in taking this approach, however, is that:
- Only 11% of drug candidates that enter clinical trials are successful and receive approval for sale.
- Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2004 (3), 711-716
- A small portion of the drug companies' expenditures are used for research and development, with the majority of their money being spent in the areas of marketing and administration.
- from "Why Are Drug Prices So High?" by Francine Brewer (PSC/CUNY)
- Prescription drug prices are rising significantly faster than general inflation.
- AARP, March 2007
- The pharmaceutical industry spent $855 million, more than any other industry, on lobbying activities from 1998 to 2006 (with plenty of Congressmen in their back pockets).
- Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY, 5/11/07
So the facts appear to confirm that the public option will not affect Big Pharma's research funding in any way. It will, however, put a heavy dent in their fat revenues which fund lobbying efforts and campaign contributions. So are we not seeing the power behind pushing for the public option? Not only would we gain better, more affordable health care and a higher quality of life, but Big Pharma's grip on Washington, DC and K Street would be loosened by a considerable margin. J&J and the rest of Big Pharma don't (and shouldn't) enable our elected officials to earn another term in office, THE VOTERS DECIDE THAT OUTCOME.
So here's one suggestion among many to keep Big Pharma from calling the shots and killing health reform: Call or write to your local senators and state representatives. Sure, you can do the e-mail thing or one of those mass online message things that MoveOn.org does, but to hear the direct voice of a constituent is far more powerful. I wrote my first letter to a Congressman when I was five years old. Don't let the comforts and convenience of modern technology push you or anyone else with the same concern into complacency. If this is a cause that's meaningful enough to you, then take the time to put phone to ear and/or pen to paper and do it.
You can confirm your local senators and state representative here.
Disclaimer: This diary is in no way affiliated with the little banner ad that you probably see below.