Reich: The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy

by Roy C | August 12, 2009 at 03:02 pm
248 views | 26 Recommendations | 5 comments

Photos

Robert Reich

Robert Reich

see larger image

uploaded by Roy C

There are three or four policies that President Obama could and should include in health care reform.

One of these is tort reform. Many doctors simply get out of practicing medicine because they cannot afford nor can they stand the emotional stress of lawsuits.

If you think that they only occur to deserving doctors, think again. More on this in a later story.

But, one of Bush's biggest mistakes was to give the elderly the drugs they needed, that they had been buying from Canada, but at American prices, protecting the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

We simply cannot afford this approach, and we need negotiated prices with Big Pharma. Further, subsidies are not free market mechanisms. We have the right to negotiate a price.

Robert Reich, friend of Bill's, ex-Secretary of Labor, has a remarkable opinion piece from Salon, which I have excerpted a large part of below.

I will be following up with pieces from the Life Extension Foundation's articles and editorials on generic drugs and on why the medical system is going to fail anyway.

Hopefully, some of you will get it that while reform is necessary, the real reforms necessary have already been rejected by Obama's policy people.

Obama's agreement with Big Pharma may help healthcare reform pass, but it may also mean higher drug prices for you

By Robert Reich

Aug. 10, 2009 |

I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I'm appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm to buy their support.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher healthcare costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

In return, Big Pharma isn't just supporting universal healthcare. It's also spending lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

I want universal health insurance. And having had a front-row seat in 1994 when Big Pharma and the rest of the health-industry complex went to battle against it, I can tell you firsthand how big and effective the onslaught can be. So I appreciate Big Pharma's support this time around, and I like it that the industry is doing the reverse of what it did last time, and airing ads to persuade the public of the rightness of the White House's effort.

But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It's bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry's support to a key piece of legislation, we're in big trouble. That's called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it's doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the president.

When the industry support comes with an industry-sponsored ad campaign in favor of that legislation, the threat to democracy is even greater. Citizens end up paying for advertisements designed to persuade them that the legislation is in their interest. In this case, those payments come in the form of drug prices that will be higher than otherwise, stretching years into the future.

I don't want to be puritanical about all this. Politics is a rough game in which means and ends often get mixed and melded. Perhaps the White House deal with Big Pharma is a necessary step to get anything resembling universal health insurance. But if that's the case, our democracy is in terrible shape. How soon until big industries and their Washington lobbyists have become so politically powerful that secret White House-industry deals like this are prerequisites to any important legislation? When will it become standard practice that such deals come with hundreds of millions of dollars of industry-sponsored TV advertising designed to persuade the public that the legislation is in the public's interest? (Any Democrats and progressives who might be reading this should ask themselves how they'll feel when a Republican White House cuts such deals to advance its own legislative priorities.)

We're on a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
3
peter.reardon

As Reich said "our democracy [the US] is in terrible shape."

1
Rory Cripps

Summary of a July 7, 2009 piece in The Wall Steet Journal:

   Pfizer, the U.S. pharmaceutical giant, is targeting what it calls the "bottom of the pyramid" in an effort to gain a larger market share in emerging markets and to offset the recent decline in its U.S. drug sales. U.S.  sales of prescription drugs are expected to decline this year for the first time in fifty years while the sale of prescription drugs, in emerging markets, has risen from $67.2 billion in 2003 to $152.7 billion in 2008.     
   Sales of pharmaceutical drugs bring in about $770 billion per year. One of the targeted emerging markets is Venezuela, where Pfizer sales reps make their pitch to local doctors in some of that country's poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods. "There's an economy in the barrios" says the man that Pfizer has put in charge of its strategy in Venezuela. One of Pfizer's sales rep, Julio Rodriguez, avoids atrracting attention in the slums of Venezuela by wearing a polo shirt with a red logo which is the color worn by supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. 
    In addition to Venezuela, Pfizer is expanding in China, India, Brazil, Russia and Turkey. According to the WSJ reporter, "Pfizer is benefiting from a belief in Venezuela and in much of the world that branded medicines are worth paying a premium for because they're safer and more effective than generics. Pfizer's prices in Venezuela tend to be about 30% under U.S. prices, but are still 40% to 50% more than generics. Mr Rodriguez's main approach in persuading doctors to prescribe Pfizer drugs is to emphasize the brand's quality over generics."

   In my opinion, there are some very disturbing things about the above scenario. One of them is the extent to which clever marketing  and sales techniques, on the part of giant U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers, are  used to convince poor people  to spend 40% to 50% more on  brand-name drugs that are no different, in terms of  effect, from  generic drugs. Also, why are Pfizer's drug prices 30% less in Venezuela than they are in the U.S.? I've got alot more to say about the extent to which prescription drugs are being "pushed" here in the U.S.

   

  


   

  



   

  

0
158

very good article

0
Barry Artiste

Excellent story Roy

1
Barry Artiste

60 minutes did a story a while back that has a florida hospital charging 17 dollars for an aspirin cause a nurse administered it.  Guess the patients hands were broken/.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

albertacowpoke
First Flagged at 4:51 PM, Aug 12, 2009 by albertacowpoke
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (26)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from