Evelyn Pringle October 2004
Bush and his cronies in the drug and insurance industries have a major problem. Although they developed and implemented a brilliant Medicare profiteering scheme by which they could funnel billions of tax dollars to themselves, they cannot get their hands on the money because they can't get enough seniors to sign up for the prescription drug discount card program.
They are in dire need of senior funnels.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had projected that about 7 million senior citizens, out of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries, would sign up for cards. However, much to the Bush gang's dismay, that has not happened.
In order to get Congress to pass the underlying bill that contains the scheme, Bush, the industry, and their allies in Congress went to great lengths. They lobbied, lied, coerced members of Congress, and threatened a Medicare Actuary with termination if he told Congress the true cost of the bill, before it passed. And in the end, the bill was passed.
That's why I think it's so funny that they now find themselves in desperate need of seniors willing to sign up for the program to act as funnels. I guess they really thought that elderly people were so gullible that they wouldn't figure out what they were up to, and that mistake is turning out to be their worst miscalculation.
Although the Bush gang will accept applications from all seniors, they are particularly interested in getting the poorest seniors into the program; because those seniors can get an automatic $1200 subsidy between now and 2006 that can be funneled back to the crooks with no questions asked.
The Lobbying, Lies, And Coercion
In order to ensure the passage of their favored version of the Medicare prescription drug bill, Bush said it would only cost $395 billion, because he was warned by Republicans that it would not pass a vote in Congress if it went over $400 billion.
As far back as 5 months before the vote, Bush knew that the top Medicare Actuary, Richard Foster, estimated it would cost as much as $551 billion. He knew that Foster said the bill would actually boost payments to private health plans by $46 billion, more than 3 times the $14 billion estimate given to Congress. He also knew that Foster determined that drugmakers would receive $100 billion more than the estimate provided to Congress while lawmakers were debating whether or not to pass the bill.
Plain and simple, Bush not only deceived seniors and members of Congress, he lied to the American tax payers and ripped off $170 billion.
Only after the bill was passed, did we find out that the thugs threatened to fire Foster, if he told lawmakers about the true cost of the bill. And only after it was passed, did tax payers find out about its $534 billion price tag.
On top of all that, this month we found out that the cost of the bill has gone up another $42 billion.
Bottom line. As a result of Bush's Medicare scam, the drug and insurance industries will receive an additional $139.2 billion in profits over the next eight years with 61% of it going for prescription drugs and $14 billion going to HMOs. (Alan Sager, Boston University School of Public Health, 4/12/04)
It's Not So Easy To Con Seniors
I can see why the Bush gang thought it could make a bundle off this scheme. About 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible to enroll in the prescription drug discount card program and receive the accompanying $600 annual subsidy, according to the AP/Omaha World-Herald, 9/23.
However, it looks like seniors have refused to be conned because very few signed up. While Bush stuck to his part of the bargain and spent millions of tax dollars to promote the new bill, attempts by insurance providers to lure low-income recipients into the trap with a cash subsidy even failed to increase enrollment.
So far, only 4.3 million seniors have enrolled in the program since enrollment began on June 1, according to Peter Ashkenaz of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). But even that number is deceiving because only 25% of those 4.3 million enrolled in the program voluntarily. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, determined that millions of people were automatically enrolled because they are participants in HMO-style Medicare plans or state pharmacy assistance programs.
Missouri Democratic candidate for Congress, Jim Newberry, says seniors aren't signing up because the program provides no savings and its too confusing. "Talk to seniors. They'll tell you," he said. "The drug companies don't have to negotiate or compete. Seniors have to choose a card. It's harder than choosing a cell-phone plan."
He calls the program "corporate welfare for pharmaceutical companies rather than financial help for seniors."
He's right, millions of seniors are confused, and for good reason. Peter Rost is my designated expert on the subject of prescription drugs (unbeknownst to him). He has 20 years of experience marketing drugs.
Rost told Independent Media why the program is not working, "the system we have today to provide discounted or free drugs to seniors and low-income families is a patch-work, that not even a highly educated person can easily master," he said.
Rost thinks the applications may be too difficult to fill out. "According to press reports some drug firms require applications that are longer than a tax return. And our government implements a system for discount cards that is so complex that very few sign up for this," he noted.
New York Congressman Joseph Crowley agrees. "Most people in my district are not signed up for a discount drug card because they do not see a value to the plan," he says.
"The (Medicare) reform bill has done zero to lower the cost of prescription drugs for American seniors and has in fact raised premiums and created a confusing system of Medicare drug discount cards," Crowly said. "This bill was passed by the pharmaceutical industry."
Sen Edward Kennedy has weighed in with his opinion of the Bush discount card scam. "Only in this administration would the words `discount card' mean seniors get the card while corporations get the discounts,'' he said.
This Escalating Cost Of Drugs
Two separate reports from Families USA and AARP, have determined that price increases for prescription drugs over the past year have offset any savings that may have been gained from drug card program.
Seniors had better not count on saving money by signing up for the program. A report released by Crowley, called "Medicare Prescription Drug Cards," analyzed the 33 discount cards available in his district in mid-August, 2004 and the prices charged for the 10 top brand-name drugs used by seniors.
The report's findings were detailed in the Howard Beach Times.com on 9/23/04. The study calculated the cost of 10 drugs using the cards and then compared it with the prices of the same drugs from three other sources: a popular online pharmacy Web site, the market rate in Canada and the price negotiated by the US Department of Veterans' Affairs.
According to the report, card prices "are significantly higher than prices for the same drugs in Canada." In fact, the average prices were 62% higher using the cards than if they were purchased in Canada. For example, a 30-day supply of the arthritis drug Celebrex was $38.69 in Canada, but $74.14 or more with a card.
The report also found card prices much higher than the prices negotiated by the Dept for Veterans Affairs. In comparison, drugs with the cards were 64% higher.
And the card prices were nearly identical to prices charged by the internet pharmacy Drugstore.com. The report even found that some prices with the cards were comparable to the prices offered to Medicare beneficiaries without the cards.
Bush Decides To Force Seniors To Enter The Program
As it gets closer to the election, Bush knows he needs to get this show on the road. So due to his dire need of funnels, he apparently has decided to try and force low-income seniors into the program.
On Sepember 23, 2004, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that federal officials will mail Medicare prescription drug discount cards to about 1.8 million low-income seniors who already receive some government assistance with Medicare expenses, the New York Times reports.
The NYTs says beneficiaries who receive the cards will be assigned to one of the 17 companies that have agreed to issue drug discount cards to low-income beneficiaries.
I wonder which companies agreed to "help" these poor soles. Let's see now, for starters, how much is 1.8 million times $1,200? And then we have to divide that amount by 17. So how much money can each company count on from the get-go?
Another funny story is that card providers initially planned to charge seniors $30 for a card as part of the scam. How much is 7 million times $30? That money's lost. They tried to make mega bucks off our elderly from every angle. Too bad their house of cards is collapsing (no pun intended). When I think about it, this is just too funny.
Besides, there is still another little problem with trying to force low-income seniors into the program. To receive the subsidy, seniors must call a toll-free number and confirm their eligibility by answering questions about existing prescription drug coverage and annual income levels, according to the New York Times.
I know that this may be incomprehensible to the profiteers in this scheme, but some seniors not only do not have phones, many can't even use one due to any number of health problems. I wonder if Bush will sit there himself waiting for calls from seniors?
In this instance, I love being the bearer of bad news. I don't think the Bush gang is going to get enough funnels signed up for the card program before Bush is hit with an eviction notice at the White House on November 2.
Industry Was Drooling Over Long Term Profits
The primary groups that offer the cards are HMOs, pharmaceutical benefits managers (PBMs), insurance companies, and groups of insurers and drug companies combined.
According to a July 5, 2004 article in Business Week, players of every description are scrambling to get a foothold in the new business created when the prescription drug law was passed. "Insurance companies, drugstores, drugmakers, and distribution middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have all jumped in."
Business Week points out that the focus is on 2006, when the card is due to expire. At that point, it will be replaced by the more lucrative drug insurance that Congress agreed to fund, which will pay a set proportion of seniors' drug costs. "The key is for card sponsors to position themselves for '06," says Vicki Gottlisch, a lawyer at the nonprofit Center for Medicare Advocacy.
Business Week, says companies are aiming at 2006 and beyond. It details how "First Health Services Corp ... runs six state programs that already provide discount drugs for low-income people. Because Congress agreed to pay for $600 in free drugs through the Medicare card for many of these same seniors, First Health is offering its card to more than 250,000 elderly in three of those states -- Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania.
"The payoff: The Medicare law allows these low-income seniors to be automatically enrolled in a card -- and First Health has negotiated to sponsor it. That will help position First Health with these customers for 2006," says First Health CEO Teresa DiMarco.
When Kerry takes over the White House the industry won't have to worry about what will happen in 2006, because I suspect that one of his first moves in office will be to find a way to dismantle Bush's Medicare profiteering scheme.
What Are Lawmakers Doing To Help?
Currently, between 1 and 2 million Americans are breaking the law by using the Internet to buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies, and many more would like to. According to a poll done by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University School of Public Health, about 80% of Americans support importing drugs from Canada.
And who can blame them? In 2002, Americans paid 67% more than Canadians for prescription drugs and in 2004, it's estimated that US consumers will spend $210 billion.
John Kerry has said that under his health care proposal, "all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada."
Under pressure from voters, many governors and state officials are ignoring Bush's ban on importing drugs, and are creating websites that link consumers to Canadian pharmacies. For instance, New Hampshire has a link to Canadadrugs.com on its website, which is supported by its Republican Governor Craig Benson. The FDA has not moved to shut the sites down so far.
Minnesota Republican Gov Tim Pawlenty, also set up a state web site and explained, "We search the world market for the best deal for American consumers and I don't think we should carve out and make an exception for prescription drugs."
Illinois and Wisconsin recently launched "I-Saverk," the first state-sponsored program to help people buy cheaper drugs from both Europe and Canada. Some 24 other states are said to be considering legislation that would permit importation from other countries. Connecticut, West Virginia and Vermont have already enacted pro-importation laws.
However, I've always known that drug makers wouldn't sit back and allow this to go on for too long. They are already starting to cut shipments sent to Canada when the orders appear to exceed local needs.
When asked about this situation, Pawlenty said, "We'll have to look at other opportunities in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, and other countries we know are potential safe providers of prescription medicines. In the end they (U.S. drug makers ) can't suffocate the supply to the rest of the developed world."
I really like Gov Pawlenty's attitude (even if he is a Republican).
Peter Rost blames most of the problem on politics. "The objective does not appear to be to provide drugs, but to score political and public relations victories," he says. "We need comprehensive healthcare reform. Reimportation of drugs is a first step on the right way."
Along with importation, some lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that would allow the government to negotiate for lower prices like the Dept of Veteran's Affairs does. Rost believes a law should be enacted immediately.
He told Independent Media: "I'm very concerned about the fact that Medicare will not be allowed to negotiate drug prices. I think this is Un-American. This is the country in which we believe we have a God given right to clip coupons and get low grocery prices, haggle with car dealers and buy clothes only on sale," he noted.
"To forbid us from negotiating drug prices will raise taxes which is even more Un-American. And this is done to us by a Republican president! I'm shocked," he said.
For whatever its worth, I agree with Rost 100%.
Cut To The Chase - How Much Will Seniors Have To Pay In 2006?
In January 2006, Medicare Part D will offer seniors enrolled in a managed care program prescription drug coverage that will include premiums, co-payments, and a donut hole, or a gap in coverage between certain levels of drug expenses.
How much will seniors have to pay in 2006? To begin with, they will pay a premium of $35 a month ($420 a year), and for the first $250 in drug costs. For the next $2,000 in costs they will pay 25% and Medicare will cover the other 75%.
Once the drug costs reach $2,250, coverage will completely stop. Seniors then have to pay for the next $2,850 in drug expenses on their own (the doughnut hole). Coverage does not begin again until the total costs reach $5,100. Once drug expenses reach that level, Medicare will pay for 95% of the cost for the rest of the year.
Then in 2007, the process begins all over again, but with the likely possibility that both the deductible and the gap in coverage will increase, depending on how much the price of drugs go up. That is not good news because we all know how fast drug prices can rise in 12 months.
For example, Families USA did a study and found that, "Among the top 30 brand-name drugs, prices, on average, rose by 4.3 times the rate of inflation from January 2003 to January 2004," ("Sticker Shock" June, 2004)
In light of this report, I think we can safely assume that the rising drug prices will probably negate any savings that may result from the prescription drug bill in 2007.
I agree with Sen Kennedy, and I think as president, Kerry should follow his advice. "The Bush administration's drug discount card program has been a monumental failure," said Kennedy. "It's time to scrap and replace the administration's whole flawed Medicare bill with a program designed to meet the needs of seniors instead of designed to fatten the profits of drug companies and HMOs."
Seniors Will Give Bush The Boot
The group of voters with the highest prescription drug costs is made up of Americans over the age of 65. Seniors make up 13% of the population. This group also happens have the best record for voter participation. 72% of its members cast ballots in
2000.
Although its more than obvious that Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed, one of his many minions should have forced him to at least consider these statistics before he tried to con the elderly. Mark my word, pay-backs are hell. On Nov 2, seniors are going to show up to vote in record numbers and cause Bush to lose the election.
Showing posts with label Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Medicare Prescription Drug Scam Jumps From $400 Billion To Over $1 Trillion
Evelyn Pringle February 21, 2005
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act was passed. Many seniors expected the new law to provide relief for the ever-rising prescription drug costs but they were sadly mistaken.
We recently learned that instead of costing tax payers $400 billion, the bill is going to cost more than $1.3 Trillion, over the next 10 years, and the only ones benefiting from it are the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs.
The new law will not save tax payers any money because it specifically bars Medicare from negotiating for better drug prices like the Department of Veterans Affairs does, and it bans the importation of cheaper drugs from neighboring Canada and other countries. The notion that the bill will provide any meaningful savings for seniors is unlikely.
Due to its insider knowledge about the pending Medicare prescription bills in Congress, and the amount of money up for grabs, the pharmaceutical industry lobbied non-stop in 2002, to make sure that its favored version of the bill got passed. It spent a record breaking $91.4 million on lobbying, and 24 separate companies and trade groups spent over $1 million each. The top 10 drug companies and trade associations together, spent an estimated $55.8 million on lobbying.
However, what's $55 million compared to the $35.9 billion in profits that were realized by the same 10 companies in 2002. Since Bush took office, pharmaceutical industry profits have soared past all other business sectors, at a rate of more than 5 times greater than all other industries in the Fortune 500.
Prohibits Medicare From Negotiating For Lower-Priced Drugs
According to Senator Edward Kennedy, "The single most irresponsible provision in the Medicare bill is the prohibition that prevents Medicare from negotiating lower-priced prescription drugs."
Prescriptions bought by the VA cost at least 24% less than the average retail price, said Steve Thomas, director of the program. For many drugs, the VA negotiated price is on average 40% less that what most consumers pay, Thomas said.
When Bush was asked why he barred Medicare from bargaining for lower prices on behalf of its beneficiaries, he offered the feeble excuse that he was concerned that if Medicare negotiated with drug makers, it would amount to a government monopoly and a form of price controls.
That excuse is ridiculous. Although Medicare might be a major player in the market, being recipients are expected to buy over $1.5 trillion worth of drugs over the next 10 years, it could hardly be considered a monopoly in a market projected to earn about $4.6 trillion.
During the debate on the Medicare bill, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General said, "Medicare and its beneficiaries would save $1.6 billion a year if 24 drugs were reimbursed at amounts available to the VA." As an example of the possible savings, he listed the price of the asthma treatment drug, Albuterol, that was being sold for 47 cents, while the VA was paying only 5 cents.
Comptroller General, David Walker, of the General Accounting Office (GAO), has been recommending that Medicare should follow the VA model for years but Bush refuses to take the advice of our government experts.
Discount Drug Card Scam
Shortly after signing the new Medicare bill, Bush announced a plan for a drug discount card program. To enroll in the program seniors had to pick one of Bush's approved providers. A card could cost up to $30, and once chosen, seniors had to remain with the same provider for a year. No discounts were guaranteed, drug prices could change at any time, and drugs offered could also change at any time.
The card program in itself, is a scam. There are over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries in the country. Multiply that number times $30 and the first expected windfall of the scam becomes obvious. However, seniors were not half as dumb as Bush thought, and only a fraction of the beneficiaries even bothered to buy the cards.
Because they had insider knowledge about the program, the drug companies simply raised prices in anticipation of the cards being issued. In the first quarter of 2004, right before the program went into effect, some drug makers raised prices almost 7 times as fast as producers of all US goods, according to a study by the senior advocacy group AARP.
Bush claimed that using the cards would result in discounts of 10 to 25%, which amounts to a 0% discount considering the fact that drug prices increased by nearly 22% over the past 3 years. The dramatic increase in prices offset any potential savings on drugs purchased with the cards. Only the drug companies stand to make money with this deal.
Due to the enormous increase in drug costs, many seniors are skipping doses, cutting pills in half, or not taking the medication at all. In the long run, these drastic measures can actually prolong an illness and add to the expense of the treatment.
Discount Card Prices Verses Non-Card Prices
In April 2004, the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee, released a study that compared prices available to seniors who would pay the $30 to buy a card, against prices available to seniors who did not.
The study used prices from 3 card providers, ExpressScripts, Advance (Advance is owned by Bush-buddy David Halbert, who crafted major portions of the bill), and Walgreens. Prices of these companies were similar to all others. The drugs used in the study represent a month's supply of the top 10 brand-name drugs used by seniors.
The study compared the card prices to (1) prices in Canada; (2) prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (3) prices charged by internet outlets Drugstore.com and Costco.com.
Card prices were much higher than prices in Canada. A month's supply of the 10 drugs in Canada cost $596, while prices were $972 with Walgreens, $1,046 with Advance, and $1,061 with Express. The average card price was 72% higher than in Canada.
The difference for some drugs exceeded 100%. For instance, Celebrex, costs $81.28 at Walgreens, but only $38.69 in Canada; Prevacid was $129.68 with Express, but only $56.54 in Canada.
The comparison to drugs purchased by the VA, also found card prices much higher. With the VA the10 drugs cost $587, while the average price with the cards was $1,026, or more than 75% higher.
A month's supply of the drugs even cost less on internet sights Drugstore.com and Costco.com. While the average card price was $1,026, the drugs only cost $959 at Drugstore.com.
In June 2004, Families USA released the results from a study that tracked price changes for the top 30 brand name drugs prescribed to seniors. According to the report, between January 2001 and January 2004, the prices of the top 30 drugs increased by nearly 22%. On average, the cost of the drugs increased by 6.5%, while in the same time-frame, the overall rate of inflation, excluding energy, was only 1.5%.
Of these 30 drugs, 28 increased in price by 2 or more times the rate of inflation; 21 increased by three or more times the rate, and 14 increased in price by more than 5 times the rate of inflation.
The drug companies also raised prices at a break-neck speed right before the cards came out. For example, Nexium is used to treat heartburn, a problem for more than 40 million people. Democratic Rep Henry Waxman released a study that showed that in one month, between May 3 and June 3, 2004, the price of Nexium increased by 13%.
In 2003, the drug company AstraZeneca spent $411 million promoting the drug. And in return, it had sales of $3.3 billion, and became the 7th largest selling brand name drug according to the trade publication Pharmaceutical Executive.
Generic drug prices were also spiked. A report by the Wall Street Journal revealed that pharmacies were buying generic drugs for a few cents and marking them up nearly 200%. For example, a 90-day supply of generic Prozac costs only $4, and was sold for $14.94 at Costco.com. Yet the Medicare website showed one card sponsor charging $84.15.
Lawmakers On Both Sides Of The Isle
The importation issue is not only important to senior citizens, it affects all Americans. And they are speaking out. On December 22, 2004, Rep Bernie Sanders from Vermont issued the following statement in response to a Task Force Report, that came out against drug importation, from the Bush administration:
"It is ironic that two weeks after the HHS announcement that ... flu vaccine doses will be imported from Germany, HHS is ... saying drug importation cannot be done safely and affordably. This report is reflective of the entire Bush policy to protect the financial interest of the pharmaceutical industry over the health of regular Americans."
Sanders claims it is absurd to say we can't import drugs safely. "If we can import beef, poultry and vegetables ... there is no reason we cannot figure out a way to safely import prescription drugs. The momentum remains with the American people," he notes.
According to Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), "The only thing endangered by allowing Americans access to lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from abroad is the incredibly large profits of the drug companies who over-price their medicines in our market, just because they can," he said.
Importation would be legal if it was up to Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. During the debate over the prescription drug bill, he attempted to pass a provision that would have legalized importing drugs from Canadian with safeguards.
But Burton says he couldn’t get it passed because he ran into two brick walls: the drug industry and the government: “This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.”
How any politician can look an American citizen in the eye and argue against drug importation is beyond me.
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act was passed. Many seniors expected the new law to provide relief for the ever-rising prescription drug costs but they were sadly mistaken.
We recently learned that instead of costing tax payers $400 billion, the bill is going to cost more than $1.3 Trillion, over the next 10 years, and the only ones benefiting from it are the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs.
The new law will not save tax payers any money because it specifically bars Medicare from negotiating for better drug prices like the Department of Veterans Affairs does, and it bans the importation of cheaper drugs from neighboring Canada and other countries. The notion that the bill will provide any meaningful savings for seniors is unlikely.
Due to its insider knowledge about the pending Medicare prescription bills in Congress, and the amount of money up for grabs, the pharmaceutical industry lobbied non-stop in 2002, to make sure that its favored version of the bill got passed. It spent a record breaking $91.4 million on lobbying, and 24 separate companies and trade groups spent over $1 million each. The top 10 drug companies and trade associations together, spent an estimated $55.8 million on lobbying.
However, what's $55 million compared to the $35.9 billion in profits that were realized by the same 10 companies in 2002. Since Bush took office, pharmaceutical industry profits have soared past all other business sectors, at a rate of more than 5 times greater than all other industries in the Fortune 500.
Prohibits Medicare From Negotiating For Lower-Priced Drugs
According to Senator Edward Kennedy, "The single most irresponsible provision in the Medicare bill is the prohibition that prevents Medicare from negotiating lower-priced prescription drugs."
Prescriptions bought by the VA cost at least 24% less than the average retail price, said Steve Thomas, director of the program. For many drugs, the VA negotiated price is on average 40% less that what most consumers pay, Thomas said.
When Bush was asked why he barred Medicare from bargaining for lower prices on behalf of its beneficiaries, he offered the feeble excuse that he was concerned that if Medicare negotiated with drug makers, it would amount to a government monopoly and a form of price controls.
That excuse is ridiculous. Although Medicare might be a major player in the market, being recipients are expected to buy over $1.5 trillion worth of drugs over the next 10 years, it could hardly be considered a monopoly in a market projected to earn about $4.6 trillion.
During the debate on the Medicare bill, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General said, "Medicare and its beneficiaries would save $1.6 billion a year if 24 drugs were reimbursed at amounts available to the VA." As an example of the possible savings, he listed the price of the asthma treatment drug, Albuterol, that was being sold for 47 cents, while the VA was paying only 5 cents.
Comptroller General, David Walker, of the General Accounting Office (GAO), has been recommending that Medicare should follow the VA model for years but Bush refuses to take the advice of our government experts.
Discount Drug Card Scam
Shortly after signing the new Medicare bill, Bush announced a plan for a drug discount card program. To enroll in the program seniors had to pick one of Bush's approved providers. A card could cost up to $30, and once chosen, seniors had to remain with the same provider for a year. No discounts were guaranteed, drug prices could change at any time, and drugs offered could also change at any time.
The card program in itself, is a scam. There are over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries in the country. Multiply that number times $30 and the first expected windfall of the scam becomes obvious. However, seniors were not half as dumb as Bush thought, and only a fraction of the beneficiaries even bothered to buy the cards.
Because they had insider knowledge about the program, the drug companies simply raised prices in anticipation of the cards being issued. In the first quarter of 2004, right before the program went into effect, some drug makers raised prices almost 7 times as fast as producers of all US goods, according to a study by the senior advocacy group AARP.
Bush claimed that using the cards would result in discounts of 10 to 25%, which amounts to a 0% discount considering the fact that drug prices increased by nearly 22% over the past 3 years. The dramatic increase in prices offset any potential savings on drugs purchased with the cards. Only the drug companies stand to make money with this deal.
Due to the enormous increase in drug costs, many seniors are skipping doses, cutting pills in half, or not taking the medication at all. In the long run, these drastic measures can actually prolong an illness and add to the expense of the treatment.
Discount Card Prices Verses Non-Card Prices
In April 2004, the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee, released a study that compared prices available to seniors who would pay the $30 to buy a card, against prices available to seniors who did not.
The study used prices from 3 card providers, ExpressScripts, Advance (Advance is owned by Bush-buddy David Halbert, who crafted major portions of the bill), and Walgreens. Prices of these companies were similar to all others. The drugs used in the study represent a month's supply of the top 10 brand-name drugs used by seniors.
The study compared the card prices to (1) prices in Canada; (2) prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (3) prices charged by internet outlets Drugstore.com and Costco.com.
Card prices were much higher than prices in Canada. A month's supply of the 10 drugs in Canada cost $596, while prices were $972 with Walgreens, $1,046 with Advance, and $1,061 with Express. The average card price was 72% higher than in Canada.
The difference for some drugs exceeded 100%. For instance, Celebrex, costs $81.28 at Walgreens, but only $38.69 in Canada; Prevacid was $129.68 with Express, but only $56.54 in Canada.
The comparison to drugs purchased by the VA, also found card prices much higher. With the VA the10 drugs cost $587, while the average price with the cards was $1,026, or more than 75% higher.
A month's supply of the drugs even cost less on internet sights Drugstore.com and Costco.com. While the average card price was $1,026, the drugs only cost $959 at Drugstore.com.
In June 2004, Families USA released the results from a study that tracked price changes for the top 30 brand name drugs prescribed to seniors. According to the report, between January 2001 and January 2004, the prices of the top 30 drugs increased by nearly 22%. On average, the cost of the drugs increased by 6.5%, while in the same time-frame, the overall rate of inflation, excluding energy, was only 1.5%.
Of these 30 drugs, 28 increased in price by 2 or more times the rate of inflation; 21 increased by three or more times the rate, and 14 increased in price by more than 5 times the rate of inflation.
The drug companies also raised prices at a break-neck speed right before the cards came out. For example, Nexium is used to treat heartburn, a problem for more than 40 million people. Democratic Rep Henry Waxman released a study that showed that in one month, between May 3 and June 3, 2004, the price of Nexium increased by 13%.
In 2003, the drug company AstraZeneca spent $411 million promoting the drug. And in return, it had sales of $3.3 billion, and became the 7th largest selling brand name drug according to the trade publication Pharmaceutical Executive.
Generic drug prices were also spiked. A report by the Wall Street Journal revealed that pharmacies were buying generic drugs for a few cents and marking them up nearly 200%. For example, a 90-day supply of generic Prozac costs only $4, and was sold for $14.94 at Costco.com. Yet the Medicare website showed one card sponsor charging $84.15.
Lawmakers On Both Sides Of The Isle
The importation issue is not only important to senior citizens, it affects all Americans. And they are speaking out. On December 22, 2004, Rep Bernie Sanders from Vermont issued the following statement in response to a Task Force Report, that came out against drug importation, from the Bush administration:
"It is ironic that two weeks after the HHS announcement that ... flu vaccine doses will be imported from Germany, HHS is ... saying drug importation cannot be done safely and affordably. This report is reflective of the entire Bush policy to protect the financial interest of the pharmaceutical industry over the health of regular Americans."
Sanders claims it is absurd to say we can't import drugs safely. "If we can import beef, poultry and vegetables ... there is no reason we cannot figure out a way to safely import prescription drugs. The momentum remains with the American people," he notes.
According to Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), "The only thing endangered by allowing Americans access to lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from abroad is the incredibly large profits of the drug companies who over-price their medicines in our market, just because they can," he said.
Importation would be legal if it was up to Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. During the debate over the prescription drug bill, he attempted to pass a provision that would have legalized importing drugs from Canadian with safeguards.
But Burton says he couldn’t get it passed because he ran into two brick walls: the drug industry and the government: “This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.”
How any politician can look an American citizen in the eye and argue against drug importation is beyond me.
Bush's Medicare Scam May Cost Him the Election
Evelyn Pringle August 11, 2004
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, was passed. Bush signed the bill into law at the White House in a room filled with senior citizens who honestly believed that they were finally going to get help with the escalating costs of prescription drugs. Less than a year later, they realize they were duped, and that they are still victims of the high-price whims of the drug industry.
The health care advocacy group, Families USA, recently went on what it called a "Medicare Roadshow" to learn what seniors knew about the drug bill. "What we've learned from this experience is, the more seniors learn about the new Medicare law, the more unhappy they are," said Executive Director Pollack.
One of the biggest errors of the Bush presidency will turn out to be underestimating the intelligence of senior citizens. They know a scam when they see one. Rep Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, says he has met with many seniors and that, "there is an intuitive understanding that this bill was written by the drug and insurance industries."
Seniors make up 13% of the population, which means 13% percent of the most active block of voters in the country will be voting against Bush. The ill-conceived Medicare scam may just cost Bush the election.
What's Wrong With The Bill?
The bill was supposed to make drugs more affordable for seniors, but numerous studies indicate that it has done just the opposite.
The actual so-called benefit from the bill will not go into effect until 2006, so in the meantime, Bush came up with the idea for a prescription drug discount card program intended to reduce prescription drug costs for senior citizens between now and then. To that end, Bush selected roughly 70 private companies to administer the program and provide discount drug cards to seniors, at a fee of up to $30, for use at their pharmacies.
In reality, the drug card program has actually contributed to the problem of high drug costs because, (1) it specifically bars Medicare from negotiating for better prices on behalf of its 40 million members; (2) it prohibits importation and consumer access to lower cost drugs from other countries; (3) companies can change the drugs they offer or the prices they charge whenever they please, but seniors can only change cards once a year; and (4) all cards are not accepted at all pharmacies.
Most of the companies that Bush selected are either large insurance companies or prescription benefit managers (PBMs), and not surprising, most are top Republican campaign contributors. Many lawmakers, from both sides of the isle, say the card program will benefit the drug and insurance industries far more than the elderly.
In 2003, to ensure the passage of the industry's preferred version of the legislation, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups spent nearly $140 million, and deployed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington.
Topping the list of lobbyist spending by interested card providers, was industry giant Merck, at $8 million. But other companies were close behind. Blue Cross also dropped close to $8 million; Aetna spent $2.9 million; Wellpoint Health Networks coughed up $1.5 million; Pacificare put up $1.42 million; and United Healthcare dumped $1.2 million.
In addition, the industry gave more than $3 million in political contributions to the 11 elected officials largely credited with crafting the bill (9 Republicans).
But nobody raked in more campaign cash than Bush. To date, 21 industry executives and lobbyists have achieved "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status, which means they have raised at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively, during the 2000 or 2004 campaigns. These 21 Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $3.4 million for Bush.
According to the Public Citizen report entitled "The Medicare Drug War," this group include 5 executives from brand-name drug companies, 6 officials from HMOs, the CEO of a pharmacy services company that runs a PBM, the head of a direct-mail pharmacy, and 8 Washington lobbyists who represent drug companies and HMOs.
Its no wonder that Republican Senator John McCain, has described the new prescription drug bill as a "a living, breathing testimonial to the political influence of the pharmaceutical companies."
Ron Pollack, leader of the health care advocacy group, Families USA, says there is no need for a card program, that Medicare should be allowed to bargain for lower prices like the VA does. "Other than political pressure from the drug lobby, there is no sensible reason why Congress and the president refused to take this far more effective step," he said.
Senator Edward Kennedy agrees, "A genuine discount program would provide a single discount card for Medicare, and the [HHS] secretary ... would negotiate large savings and fair prices for senior citizens, just as the secretary of Veterans Affairs does for veterans. We need to end this shell game and find honest solutions to the crisis of excessive costs of prescription drugs," he says.
The industry also scored big by getting a bill passed that bars seniors from importing prescription drugs from other countries. That's why busloads of seniors are forced to take trips to Canada every month to buy prescription drugs that cost 40% less than in the US.
This year alone experts at Boston University estimate that Americans could save $59.7 billion by paying Canadian prices, and yet, Republicans and Bush refused to include a provision that would have provided seniors with this much needed assistance.
Another major problem with the bill is that once they chose a card provider, seniors are locked into that card for a whole year, while the companies can change the drugs offered, and their prices, whenever they want. Democrats tried to include a provision in the law that would have at least stopped companies from raising prices more often than once a month.
However, typical of the caring guy that he is, Bush got his allies in Congress to defeat the provision because in his words, "price stability is not a requirement of the drug benefit." Well that may be, but I think a little price stability might be nice for those seniors on fixed incomes.
Without the provision, Pollack believes that companies will get seniors to buy their cards, by offering great savings on certain drugs, and then cut the discount, or worse yet, stop offering the drugs altogether. "The potential for bait-and-switch is enormous," he said.
How Did Bush Ever Come Up With The Idea For Card Program?
Trust me, Bush is definitely not the brain behind this complicated scheme.
His good friend, David Halbert, the CEO of AdvancePCS, one of the companies that Bush approved to administer the program, is the guy responsible for coming up with key portions of the legislation.
On Dec 11, 2003, only two days after Bush signed the new Medicare bill into law, he came forward and released the details about this great discount drug card program, right at about the same time that the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report detailing the longstanding political and financial relationship between Bush and David Halbert.
CAP called attention to the fact that Halbert was allowed to help craft the very part of the bill that would have seniors buy discount drug cards from his company, Advance.
The next day, on December 12, the Boston Globe published an article that warned that a Texas company owned by Halbert, a campaign contributor and former business associate of Bush, would profit if Medicare endorsed the drug card program.
Other media sources noted the connection between the Medicare legislation, Bush and Halbert as far back as July 18, 2001, only 6 months after Bush took office. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that, "AdvancePCS has been working with the White House to create a nationwide private discount card program ...David Halbert, AdvancePCS' chief executive, said the Bush administration contacted his company about 2 months ago." When Bush announced the original plan, "Halbert stood next to the president in the Rose Garden" and he said "it was quite an experience."
We're not talking here about a new friendship. Halbert even helped boost Bush into politics. In 1994, when he was running for governor and needed cash, Bush turned to Halbert and he came through. According to the CAP, Halbert and his family members gave Bush $14,500.
Their ties go all the way back to Bush's days in the oil industry. According to an August 8, 2002 article in the Star-Telegram, "before starting what would become AdvancePCS, Halbert helped clean up a deal with Harken Energy (Bush's failed oil company) that had prompted an SEC investigation of Bush."
Shortly after the SEC investigation ended, Halbert asked Bush to invest money in his then new company, Advance Paradigm. Bush made a small investment in the company, and walked away with a six-figure bonanza a few years later in 1998 when he sold his stock.
Of course as we now know, by 1998 Bush had decided to run for the presidency and it would not have looked too good if he openly held on to shares in a drug company in the light of the plans that him and Halbert had concocted in the event that Bush ended up winning.
So, it should come as no surprise that all of the predications about the 2 cronies came true. Advance was approved to administer the cards and David Halbert is set to make a bundle.
David Sirota, author of the Progress Report, says, "The president needs to explain why he allowed his longtime Texas crony and benefactor to help write key pieces of Medicare legislation that guarantees nothing for seniors but billions for his friend's business," he said. "The White House is supposed to be the people's house, not the drug industry's corporate headquarters," Sirota added.
As usual, Bush refuses to address the issue. When reporters raised questions about the connection between Bush and Halbert, White House Spokesman Trent Duffy, said ''I'm not going to be able to say anything about specific conversations the White House had in crafting this legislation.''
How Did This Bill Ever Get Passed?
Initially AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for seniors, threw its 35 million member support behind the bill and described it as "a historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens."
However, since the bill was passed, AARP's decision to support the bill has led to damning repercussions. According to AARP CEO, Bill Novelli, "15,000 members have told the organization to cancel their membership because of the endorsement."
AARP has since acknowledged that the rising drug costs have wiped out any savings that may have resulted from the discount card plan. It conducted a study that showed that the prices of many brand name drugs commonly used by seniors rose sharply in the first few months of 2004, immediately following the enactment of the bill.
In fact, the study found that the overall annual rate of increase rose to 7.2% for the 12 months preceding March 2004. Which indicates that the industry already knew about the card program and was raising prices in 2003 in anticipation of it being implemented.
According to reports by both Families USA and AARP, the price hikes offset any savings on drugs bought with the cards. A report by the Wall Street Journal says companies raised prices on the most popular drugs "nearly 3.5 times faster on average than overall inflation." And it gets worse. In 2003, the price of 14 brand-name drugs that are most commonly used by seniors, increased by more than 5 times the rate of inflation.
Senator Kennedy summed up the drug card scam correctly. "For many medicines, price increases in just the last 12 months have already wiped out any savings that these cards may provide," he said, "the Bush Medicare bill is a sweetheart deal for big drug companies and a raw deal for senior citizens."
Bush Finds Ways To Con Congress Into Passing The Bill
The political plots behind the passage of the prescription drug legislation will likely be written about in history books in years to come. First off, Republican congressional leaders violated House rules by extending the voting period on the bill by 3 hours after the initial vote count came up short.
Then Rep Nick Smith (R- MI) disclosed that Republicans had attempted to sway his vote, with threats and bribery attempts, which included a promise of a $100,000 donation for his son's political campaign.
Next, Bush waged a $9 million deceptive TV ad campaign in attempt to sell the legislation to seniors (handled by the same media firm managing Bush's reelection campaign), and spent another $3 million for print, radio and Spanish speaking ads.
Then, shortly after the bill was passed, it became known that the administration had intentionally lied to members of Congress by quoting a $395 billion price tax for the bill, when it had known for 5 months that it would cost well over $500 billion.
It then came out that Bush's top negotiator on the bill, CMS Administrator Tom Scully, had threatened to fire the government's top expert on Medicare costs, Richard Foster, if he revealed the true cost of the bill to members of Congress, before they was voted it.
A March 23, 2004 Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, quotes Foster as saying that the higher projection was known before the House and Senate votes but that Scully told him, "We can't let that get out."
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Foster said that as early as June, 2003, he had shared his analysis that the legislation would exceed its target spending goal with Bush administration officials.
According to the NYTs, Foster's analysis revealed that the legislation "would cost 25% to 50% more than the Bush administration's estimates." And that Foster said, "The range of our estimates was $500 billion to $600 billion all the way through the process."
Foster's figures would have definitely threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost, the bill initially only passed the House by 1 vote. A later House-Senate compromise passed by only five votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill would have been doomed.
But why would Scully do this? Intentionally withhold information from Congress and tax payers regarding the cost of legislation ready to be voted on involving 100 billion dollars?
Well it helps to know that within a days of the bill being passed, Scully told reporters that he had been negotiating future employment with 3 lobbying firms and 2 investment companies. An investigation by the watchdog group Public Citizen, revealed that those 5 firms either represented, or have major stakes in 41 of the companies that would be affected by the new law.
So where does Scully work now? In the end, he accepted employment with 2 of the companies, the lobbying firm Alston & Bird and the private investment firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe. Since Scully joined the company, Alston & Bird has signed up over a dozen new health care clients, including industry giants Abbott Laboratories and Aventis Pharmaceuticals.
As it turns out, Foster was right. Estimates from the Office of Management and Budget released after the bill was passed showed that it would cost $534 billion, $134 billion more than the amount presented to Congress before they voted on the measure.
All of this was bad enough, but the icing on the cake came when the GAO recently announced that it had determined that Bush broke federal law by running the phony TV ads that concealed the fact that the news footage segments featured actors who were pretending to be reporters, and who were paid with federal funds to read scripts written by the administration.
The GAO concluded that the segments were "not strictly factual news stories," that they contained "notable omissions and weaknesses" about Medicare changes, and that running the ads constituted a "misuse of appropriated funds" in violation of federal law. So in a nutshell, Bush spent more than $12 million tax dollars to con the elderly.
What a guy. Bush may be the son of Barbara's every dream, but he's got to be every grandmother's nightmare.
How Were These Companies Chosen?
What qualifications were needed? That question requires a one word answer - money.
In order to protect the profits of the already most profitable business in the US, the drug industry made more than $44 million in political contributions since 1999, with 78% to Republicans and 22% to Democrats.
It also spent millions of dollars more hiring a multitude of lobbyists that outnumber the members in Congress; and funneled millions more to "front groups" that do the industry's bidding under more politically-palatable sounding names such as, "Citizens for a Better Medicare" and "United Seniors Association."
And of course the loyal guy that he is, Bush rewarded his top contributors. The top 7 executives and lobbyists from approved companies have raised, or pledged to raise, $100,000 or more for the Bush campaign. They are Wellcare executives Todd Farha and David Hart; Blue Cross executive Michael Hightower; United Health CEO William McGuire; Medco President Alan Lotvin; Express Scripts board member Samuel Skinner; and PacifiCare lobbyist Tom Loeffler.
Of the companies chosen, at least 20 have a history of being involveded in fraud charges, that include bilking Medicare and overcharging consumers. For instance, Best Buddy, David Halbert's company Advance, faced lawsuits last year over market manipulation, and its failure to disclose the extent of its financial ties with drug makers. AARP also sued Advance and accused the company of illicitly diverting seniors from AARP's drug-discount plan, and of actually putting seniors at risk for dangerous drug interactions.
Another Bush approved company, Medco Health Solutions, had to pay $29 million to settle claims by 20 states that it pressured doctors to switch the brands of their patient's medication to benefit Medco financially. It has also been charged with defrauding the federal employees' health plan.
In fact, Advance and Medco are both listed as defendants in a current lawsuit with 2 other approved companies, Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that they engaged in anti-competitive practices that harmed pharmacies, and that they entered into secret deals with drugmakers in return for kickbacks and other undisclosed incentives.
Yet even with its long history of corruption, Bush entrusted Medco to administer drug discount cards to our seniors. Why? $$$ A few weeks after Bush approved the company, Medco President, Alan Lotvin, co-sponsered a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush, according to a report by the Associated Press.
I know, I know. I should quit nitpicking. What are friends for right?
But Medco is not alone in paying huge fines. Many other companies that Bush approved have histories of paying large sums of money to settle fraud claims. According to the 2002 Medicaid Fraud Report, United Healthcare paid $4 million to settle allegations that it charged both Medicaid and Medicare for the same patient services.
In 2003, WellPoint paid over $9 million to settle charges that its Blue Cross subsidiary defrauded Medicare by auditing more claims and cost reports than it actually did.
Another example is Humana Health Plan. Between 1992 and 2000, it paid over $22 million to settle fraud claims that it billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the same services, and had received duplicate payments for the same patients.
Top lobbyists who raise big bucks for Bush also represent companies involved in fraud. Bush Pioneer, Tom Loeffler, is a lobbyist for PacificCare, a company that paid $87.3 million to settle charges of violating the federal False Claims Act in 2002.
The latest industry fraud case just became public on August 6, 2004, when New York City filed a lawsuit against 44 drug companies and their subsidiaries, accusing them of "deceptively inflating the cost of their drugs and defrauding taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars," the NYTs reports. According to the LA Times, almost every major US drug company is listed in the suit. We'll have to wait and see what the gang was up to in that case.
Of course I'm convinced that all of the above legal problems are probably the result of an 8 year period of honest mistakes. So by all means, let's throw open the door to the Medicare fund so that these crooks can get their hands on more of our tax dollars.
The question is how did these corrupt companies ever end up in a position where they can so easily and blatantly exploit our elderly? Only one person can answer that question and Bush ain't talking.
Related topics still to be covered in a series of articles on the Prescription Drug Bill are: (1) Comparing Drug Prices with the Card Program against prices available in other countries, prices negotiated VA style, and prices of internet pharmacies; (2) Who Gets the $550 Billion? (3) The Revolving Door Between the Bush White House and the Industry; (4) Other Negative Consequences of the Bill for Retirees; (5) Other Corrective Bills Currently Pending In Congress; and (6) What Happens In 2006?
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, was passed. Bush signed the bill into law at the White House in a room filled with senior citizens who honestly believed that they were finally going to get help with the escalating costs of prescription drugs. Less than a year later, they realize they were duped, and that they are still victims of the high-price whims of the drug industry.
The health care advocacy group, Families USA, recently went on what it called a "Medicare Roadshow" to learn what seniors knew about the drug bill. "What we've learned from this experience is, the more seniors learn about the new Medicare law, the more unhappy they are," said Executive Director Pollack.
One of the biggest errors of the Bush presidency will turn out to be underestimating the intelligence of senior citizens. They know a scam when they see one. Rep Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, says he has met with many seniors and that, "there is an intuitive understanding that this bill was written by the drug and insurance industries."
Seniors make up 13% of the population, which means 13% percent of the most active block of voters in the country will be voting against Bush. The ill-conceived Medicare scam may just cost Bush the election.
What's Wrong With The Bill?
The bill was supposed to make drugs more affordable for seniors, but numerous studies indicate that it has done just the opposite.
The actual so-called benefit from the bill will not go into effect until 2006, so in the meantime, Bush came up with the idea for a prescription drug discount card program intended to reduce prescription drug costs for senior citizens between now and then. To that end, Bush selected roughly 70 private companies to administer the program and provide discount drug cards to seniors, at a fee of up to $30, for use at their pharmacies.
In reality, the drug card program has actually contributed to the problem of high drug costs because, (1) it specifically bars Medicare from negotiating for better prices on behalf of its 40 million members; (2) it prohibits importation and consumer access to lower cost drugs from other countries; (3) companies can change the drugs they offer or the prices they charge whenever they please, but seniors can only change cards once a year; and (4) all cards are not accepted at all pharmacies.
Most of the companies that Bush selected are either large insurance companies or prescription benefit managers (PBMs), and not surprising, most are top Republican campaign contributors. Many lawmakers, from both sides of the isle, say the card program will benefit the drug and insurance industries far more than the elderly.
In 2003, to ensure the passage of the industry's preferred version of the legislation, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups spent nearly $140 million, and deployed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington.
Topping the list of lobbyist spending by interested card providers, was industry giant Merck, at $8 million. But other companies were close behind. Blue Cross also dropped close to $8 million; Aetna spent $2.9 million; Wellpoint Health Networks coughed up $1.5 million; Pacificare put up $1.42 million; and United Healthcare dumped $1.2 million.
In addition, the industry gave more than $3 million in political contributions to the 11 elected officials largely credited with crafting the bill (9 Republicans).
But nobody raked in more campaign cash than Bush. To date, 21 industry executives and lobbyists have achieved "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status, which means they have raised at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively, during the 2000 or 2004 campaigns. These 21 Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $3.4 million for Bush.
According to the Public Citizen report entitled "The Medicare Drug War," this group include 5 executives from brand-name drug companies, 6 officials from HMOs, the CEO of a pharmacy services company that runs a PBM, the head of a direct-mail pharmacy, and 8 Washington lobbyists who represent drug companies and HMOs.
Its no wonder that Republican Senator John McCain, has described the new prescription drug bill as a "a living, breathing testimonial to the political influence of the pharmaceutical companies."
Ron Pollack, leader of the health care advocacy group, Families USA, says there is no need for a card program, that Medicare should be allowed to bargain for lower prices like the VA does. "Other than political pressure from the drug lobby, there is no sensible reason why Congress and the president refused to take this far more effective step," he said.
Senator Edward Kennedy agrees, "A genuine discount program would provide a single discount card for Medicare, and the [HHS] secretary ... would negotiate large savings and fair prices for senior citizens, just as the secretary of Veterans Affairs does for veterans. We need to end this shell game and find honest solutions to the crisis of excessive costs of prescription drugs," he says.
The industry also scored big by getting a bill passed that bars seniors from importing prescription drugs from other countries. That's why busloads of seniors are forced to take trips to Canada every month to buy prescription drugs that cost 40% less than in the US.
This year alone experts at Boston University estimate that Americans could save $59.7 billion by paying Canadian prices, and yet, Republicans and Bush refused to include a provision that would have provided seniors with this much needed assistance.
Another major problem with the bill is that once they chose a card provider, seniors are locked into that card for a whole year, while the companies can change the drugs offered, and their prices, whenever they want. Democrats tried to include a provision in the law that would have at least stopped companies from raising prices more often than once a month.
However, typical of the caring guy that he is, Bush got his allies in Congress to defeat the provision because in his words, "price stability is not a requirement of the drug benefit." Well that may be, but I think a little price stability might be nice for those seniors on fixed incomes.
Without the provision, Pollack believes that companies will get seniors to buy their cards, by offering great savings on certain drugs, and then cut the discount, or worse yet, stop offering the drugs altogether. "The potential for bait-and-switch is enormous," he said.
How Did Bush Ever Come Up With The Idea For Card Program?
Trust me, Bush is definitely not the brain behind this complicated scheme.
His good friend, David Halbert, the CEO of AdvancePCS, one of the companies that Bush approved to administer the program, is the guy responsible for coming up with key portions of the legislation.
On Dec 11, 2003, only two days after Bush signed the new Medicare bill into law, he came forward and released the details about this great discount drug card program, right at about the same time that the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report detailing the longstanding political and financial relationship between Bush and David Halbert.
CAP called attention to the fact that Halbert was allowed to help craft the very part of the bill that would have seniors buy discount drug cards from his company, Advance.
The next day, on December 12, the Boston Globe published an article that warned that a Texas company owned by Halbert, a campaign contributor and former business associate of Bush, would profit if Medicare endorsed the drug card program.
Other media sources noted the connection between the Medicare legislation, Bush and Halbert as far back as July 18, 2001, only 6 months after Bush took office. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that, "AdvancePCS has been working with the White House to create a nationwide private discount card program ...David Halbert, AdvancePCS' chief executive, said the Bush administration contacted his company about 2 months ago." When Bush announced the original plan, "Halbert stood next to the president in the Rose Garden" and he said "it was quite an experience."
We're not talking here about a new friendship. Halbert even helped boost Bush into politics. In 1994, when he was running for governor and needed cash, Bush turned to Halbert and he came through. According to the CAP, Halbert and his family members gave Bush $14,500.
Their ties go all the way back to Bush's days in the oil industry. According to an August 8, 2002 article in the Star-Telegram, "before starting what would become AdvancePCS, Halbert helped clean up a deal with Harken Energy (Bush's failed oil company) that had prompted an SEC investigation of Bush."
Shortly after the SEC investigation ended, Halbert asked Bush to invest money in his then new company, Advance Paradigm. Bush made a small investment in the company, and walked away with a six-figure bonanza a few years later in 1998 when he sold his stock.
Of course as we now know, by 1998 Bush had decided to run for the presidency and it would not have looked too good if he openly held on to shares in a drug company in the light of the plans that him and Halbert had concocted in the event that Bush ended up winning.
So, it should come as no surprise that all of the predications about the 2 cronies came true. Advance was approved to administer the cards and David Halbert is set to make a bundle.
David Sirota, author of the Progress Report, says, "The president needs to explain why he allowed his longtime Texas crony and benefactor to help write key pieces of Medicare legislation that guarantees nothing for seniors but billions for his friend's business," he said. "The White House is supposed to be the people's house, not the drug industry's corporate headquarters," Sirota added.
As usual, Bush refuses to address the issue. When reporters raised questions about the connection between Bush and Halbert, White House Spokesman Trent Duffy, said ''I'm not going to be able to say anything about specific conversations the White House had in crafting this legislation.''
How Did This Bill Ever Get Passed?
Initially AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for seniors, threw its 35 million member support behind the bill and described it as "a historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens."
However, since the bill was passed, AARP's decision to support the bill has led to damning repercussions. According to AARP CEO, Bill Novelli, "15,000 members have told the organization to cancel their membership because of the endorsement."
AARP has since acknowledged that the rising drug costs have wiped out any savings that may have resulted from the discount card plan. It conducted a study that showed that the prices of many brand name drugs commonly used by seniors rose sharply in the first few months of 2004, immediately following the enactment of the bill.
In fact, the study found that the overall annual rate of increase rose to 7.2% for the 12 months preceding March 2004. Which indicates that the industry already knew about the card program and was raising prices in 2003 in anticipation of it being implemented.
According to reports by both Families USA and AARP, the price hikes offset any savings on drugs bought with the cards. A report by the Wall Street Journal says companies raised prices on the most popular drugs "nearly 3.5 times faster on average than overall inflation." And it gets worse. In 2003, the price of 14 brand-name drugs that are most commonly used by seniors, increased by more than 5 times the rate of inflation.
Senator Kennedy summed up the drug card scam correctly. "For many medicines, price increases in just the last 12 months have already wiped out any savings that these cards may provide," he said, "the Bush Medicare bill is a sweetheart deal for big drug companies and a raw deal for senior citizens."
Bush Finds Ways To Con Congress Into Passing The Bill
The political plots behind the passage of the prescription drug legislation will likely be written about in history books in years to come. First off, Republican congressional leaders violated House rules by extending the voting period on the bill by 3 hours after the initial vote count came up short.
Then Rep Nick Smith (R- MI) disclosed that Republicans had attempted to sway his vote, with threats and bribery attempts, which included a promise of a $100,000 donation for his son's political campaign.
Next, Bush waged a $9 million deceptive TV ad campaign in attempt to sell the legislation to seniors (handled by the same media firm managing Bush's reelection campaign), and spent another $3 million for print, radio and Spanish speaking ads.
Then, shortly after the bill was passed, it became known that the administration had intentionally lied to members of Congress by quoting a $395 billion price tax for the bill, when it had known for 5 months that it would cost well over $500 billion.
It then came out that Bush's top negotiator on the bill, CMS Administrator Tom Scully, had threatened to fire the government's top expert on Medicare costs, Richard Foster, if he revealed the true cost of the bill to members of Congress, before they was voted it.
A March 23, 2004 Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, quotes Foster as saying that the higher projection was known before the House and Senate votes but that Scully told him, "We can't let that get out."
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Foster said that as early as June, 2003, he had shared his analysis that the legislation would exceed its target spending goal with Bush administration officials.
According to the NYTs, Foster's analysis revealed that the legislation "would cost 25% to 50% more than the Bush administration's estimates." And that Foster said, "The range of our estimates was $500 billion to $600 billion all the way through the process."
Foster's figures would have definitely threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost, the bill initially only passed the House by 1 vote. A later House-Senate compromise passed by only five votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill would have been doomed.
But why would Scully do this? Intentionally withhold information from Congress and tax payers regarding the cost of legislation ready to be voted on involving 100 billion dollars?
Well it helps to know that within a days of the bill being passed, Scully told reporters that he had been negotiating future employment with 3 lobbying firms and 2 investment companies. An investigation by the watchdog group Public Citizen, revealed that those 5 firms either represented, or have major stakes in 41 of the companies that would be affected by the new law.
So where does Scully work now? In the end, he accepted employment with 2 of the companies, the lobbying firm Alston & Bird and the private investment firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe. Since Scully joined the company, Alston & Bird has signed up over a dozen new health care clients, including industry giants Abbott Laboratories and Aventis Pharmaceuticals.
As it turns out, Foster was right. Estimates from the Office of Management and Budget released after the bill was passed showed that it would cost $534 billion, $134 billion more than the amount presented to Congress before they voted on the measure.
All of this was bad enough, but the icing on the cake came when the GAO recently announced that it had determined that Bush broke federal law by running the phony TV ads that concealed the fact that the news footage segments featured actors who were pretending to be reporters, and who were paid with federal funds to read scripts written by the administration.
The GAO concluded that the segments were "not strictly factual news stories," that they contained "notable omissions and weaknesses" about Medicare changes, and that running the ads constituted a "misuse of appropriated funds" in violation of federal law. So in a nutshell, Bush spent more than $12 million tax dollars to con the elderly.
What a guy. Bush may be the son of Barbara's every dream, but he's got to be every grandmother's nightmare.
How Were These Companies Chosen?
What qualifications were needed? That question requires a one word answer - money.
In order to protect the profits of the already most profitable business in the US, the drug industry made more than $44 million in political contributions since 1999, with 78% to Republicans and 22% to Democrats.
It also spent millions of dollars more hiring a multitude of lobbyists that outnumber the members in Congress; and funneled millions more to "front groups" that do the industry's bidding under more politically-palatable sounding names such as, "Citizens for a Better Medicare" and "United Seniors Association."
And of course the loyal guy that he is, Bush rewarded his top contributors. The top 7 executives and lobbyists from approved companies have raised, or pledged to raise, $100,000 or more for the Bush campaign. They are Wellcare executives Todd Farha and David Hart; Blue Cross executive Michael Hightower; United Health CEO William McGuire; Medco President Alan Lotvin; Express Scripts board member Samuel Skinner; and PacifiCare lobbyist Tom Loeffler.
Of the companies chosen, at least 20 have a history of being involveded in fraud charges, that include bilking Medicare and overcharging consumers. For instance, Best Buddy, David Halbert's company Advance, faced lawsuits last year over market manipulation, and its failure to disclose the extent of its financial ties with drug makers. AARP also sued Advance and accused the company of illicitly diverting seniors from AARP's drug-discount plan, and of actually putting seniors at risk for dangerous drug interactions.
Another Bush approved company, Medco Health Solutions, had to pay $29 million to settle claims by 20 states that it pressured doctors to switch the brands of their patient's medication to benefit Medco financially. It has also been charged with defrauding the federal employees' health plan.
In fact, Advance and Medco are both listed as defendants in a current lawsuit with 2 other approved companies, Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that they engaged in anti-competitive practices that harmed pharmacies, and that they entered into secret deals with drugmakers in return for kickbacks and other undisclosed incentives.
Yet even with its long history of corruption, Bush entrusted Medco to administer drug discount cards to our seniors. Why? $$$ A few weeks after Bush approved the company, Medco President, Alan Lotvin, co-sponsered a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush, according to a report by the Associated Press.
I know, I know. I should quit nitpicking. What are friends for right?
But Medco is not alone in paying huge fines. Many other companies that Bush approved have histories of paying large sums of money to settle fraud claims. According to the 2002 Medicaid Fraud Report, United Healthcare paid $4 million to settle allegations that it charged both Medicaid and Medicare for the same patient services.
In 2003, WellPoint paid over $9 million to settle charges that its Blue Cross subsidiary defrauded Medicare by auditing more claims and cost reports than it actually did.
Another example is Humana Health Plan. Between 1992 and 2000, it paid over $22 million to settle fraud claims that it billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the same services, and had received duplicate payments for the same patients.
Top lobbyists who raise big bucks for Bush also represent companies involved in fraud. Bush Pioneer, Tom Loeffler, is a lobbyist for PacificCare, a company that paid $87.3 million to settle charges of violating the federal False Claims Act in 2002.
The latest industry fraud case just became public on August 6, 2004, when New York City filed a lawsuit against 44 drug companies and their subsidiaries, accusing them of "deceptively inflating the cost of their drugs and defrauding taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars," the NYTs reports. According to the LA Times, almost every major US drug company is listed in the suit. We'll have to wait and see what the gang was up to in that case.
Of course I'm convinced that all of the above legal problems are probably the result of an 8 year period of honest mistakes. So by all means, let's throw open the door to the Medicare fund so that these crooks can get their hands on more of our tax dollars.
The question is how did these corrupt companies ever end up in a position where they can so easily and blatantly exploit our elderly? Only one person can answer that question and Bush ain't talking.
Related topics still to be covered in a series of articles on the Prescription Drug Bill are: (1) Comparing Drug Prices with the Card Program against prices available in other countries, prices negotiated VA style, and prices of internet pharmacies; (2) Who Gets the $550 Billion? (3) The Revolving Door Between the Bush White House and the Industry; (4) Other Negative Consequences of the Bill for Retirees; (5) Other Corrective Bills Currently Pending In Congress; and (6) What Happens In 2006?
Truth About Importing Prescription Drugs
Evelyn Pringle September 2004
On September 10, 2004, Peter Rost, a physician and pharmaceutical industry executive, was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for Professional Journalists, and openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the pharmaceutical industry and politicians to block the importation of cheaper drug from other countries.
For the past 20 years, Rost has been marketing pharmaceuticals and he is currently a Vice President with Pfizer. He has agreed to give Independent Media TV an exclusive interview for a series of articles aimed at dispelling the myths about importation through an insider's window of truth on the issue.
Rost says that his #1 concern is for the people who can not afford their prescription drugs. He believes that people going without medication is a "bigger safety issue than anything else."
Why Is Peter Rost Speaking Out On This Issue?
Rost recently wrote a favorable review on Amazon.com of the book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to do About it" by Marcia Angell, which contains a highly critical assessment of the pharmaceutical industry.
The responses he received on the review made Rost realize that he had something to contribute to the debate. On the question of why he is speaking out, Rost says, "I believe I am doing the right thing, both in the long-term for the pharma industry and in the short-term for all the patients who cannot afford life-saving drugs."
First off, Rost wants everyone to know that when speaking publicly, he does not in any way represent Pfizer. "I'm simply using my right to free speech, guaranteed in the first amendment," he states.
Of course he realizes that he's not going to win any popularity contest with industry officials by speaking out but when asked whether he thinks Pfizer may take some kind of action against him for exercising his right to free speech, he says, "If they took any action against me, they would create a public martyr. I can't see how that would be in Pfizer's best interest."
Rost Hopes To Improve The Image Of Industry
A study presented in the February 2004 edition of Pharmaceutical Executive revealed that 87% of Americans do not believe the pharmaceutical industry is honest and trustworthy. Rost found it disturbing that only 13% of the public had a positive view of the industry. He would like to change that perception and hopes that his coming forward and speaking up about important issues will be a first step in the right direction.
How Many Excuses Can Bush Come Up With?
Bush has fought against importation using every reason under the sun, except the real one, GREED. He has been in bed with the drug companies for so long that I'm beginning to think they're providing him with free drugs. What else would explain all the stupid stories that he makes about importing drugs?
Come to think of it, who was he just with last week? None other than that pill-poppin idiot Rush. Maybe Bush's cronies in the industry are supplying both of them with drugs.
Ok, if its not drugs then I'll say this again, Bush really needs to get help for his compulsive lying disorder because his tales are becoming more far-fetched every day.
Lets take a look some of the ridiculous stories he has come up with lately, while we have the opportunity to get Rost's take on a few.
In April, Bush claimed that allowing drug importation would lead to jobs losses (although job losses never seemed to bother him before). He had Commerce Undersecretary Grant Aldonas tell a Senate panel that if Congress allows importation, "There will be disinvestment in the United States, a loss of employment opportunities and frankly a loss of an industry that is a huge multiplier" in terms of benefits to the overall U.S. economy, Aldonas said." [Source: Reuters, 04/27/04]
Yea right. And just where are they going? Besides, half of the drug companies are not located in the US to begin with, so we can toss that excuse out.
Here's one where Bush pulls out the FEAR card (hey, it works for everything else). He got FDA Official, Lester Crawford, to say that tampering with prescription drugs imported from Canada could be a way for terrorists to attack Americans. And old Lester added a nice touch by claiming that action by terrorists was the most serious of his concerns about the efforts to import drugs from Canada.
"THE most serious concern?" I'm really scared now. Those terrorists have apparently invaded every country and every industry.
But then again maybe not because the American Progress Action Fund described Crawford's comments as a way for the administration to use "the fear of terrorism" and called the warning a "cynical, baseless and transparent" tactic.
Rost doesn't seem too worried about this either. He says, "Some people clearly are very scared about this (importation) and will put forward almost any argument." As an example, he told about Lester saying that his main concern was that Al Qaeda might attack the supply of drugs coming from Canada, and added, "I assure you this is not a joke from Letterman."
Could have fooled me. Was it on Saturday Night Live then? Looks like we can toss that excuse out as well.
Then there's the old false advertising trick. Bush's favorite way to manipulate the minds of seniors. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline recently began running newspaper ads that question the quality and safety of drugs obtained from Canadian.
Which just proves once again that those greedy, heartless SOBs will go to any length to rip off seniors.
Then we are force-fed that worn-out, old wife's tale by William Hubbard, associate commissioner for policy and planning at the FDA, who says that "his agency was opposed to the drug import legislation because of fraud and safety concerns." [Source: Reuters, 04/27/04] (I guess he hasn't heard about Al Qaeda yet).
According to Rost, this one is as phony as all the others and he says, " this is an argument that could only be put forward in a country in which less than one in four citizens have applied for a passport in the last ten years and even fewer have traveled overseas." (Like America)
He points out that everyone has conveniently forgot to tell us " stay-at-home Americans" that "in Europe, reimportation of drugs, parallel trade as it is called there, is an institution which has been in place for 20 years. The European Union has an important law that guarantees free trade within the union," he says.
In fact, Rost says there are large pharmaceutical companies that specialize in nothing but buying drugs in southern Europe from Greece, Italy and Spain where the costs are often much less, and then shipping them to countries in northern Europe like the UK, Germany, and the Nordic countries.
Rost believes that the press has a duty to report objectively on facts and take a position when things need to change. "If, for example, you report on safety issues related to reimportation, without telling the public that this has been done safely within Europe for twenty years, you mislead the public," he claims. Rost believes the press should act as the nation's conscience.
The media needs to quit being so lazy, and start taking its job much more seriously. The public deserves to know the whole truth about government policies that affect their everyday lives. As long as Rost is brave enough to speak out, the media should be willing to feed the information to the public. Because if we stop and think about it, who knows when or if we will ever hear from another industry insider like Peter Rost again?
On September 10, 2004, Peter Rost, a physician and pharmaceutical industry executive, was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for Professional Journalists, and openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the pharmaceutical industry and politicians to block the importation of cheaper drug from other countries.
For the past 20 years, Rost has been marketing pharmaceuticals and he is currently a Vice President with Pfizer. He has agreed to give Independent Media TV an exclusive interview for a series of articles aimed at dispelling the myths about importation through an insider's window of truth on the issue.
Rost says that his #1 concern is for the people who can not afford their prescription drugs. He believes that people going without medication is a "bigger safety issue than anything else."
Why Is Peter Rost Speaking Out On This Issue?
Rost recently wrote a favorable review on Amazon.com of the book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to do About it" by Marcia Angell, which contains a highly critical assessment of the pharmaceutical industry.
The responses he received on the review made Rost realize that he had something to contribute to the debate. On the question of why he is speaking out, Rost says, "I believe I am doing the right thing, both in the long-term for the pharma industry and in the short-term for all the patients who cannot afford life-saving drugs."
First off, Rost wants everyone to know that when speaking publicly, he does not in any way represent Pfizer. "I'm simply using my right to free speech, guaranteed in the first amendment," he states.
Of course he realizes that he's not going to win any popularity contest with industry officials by speaking out but when asked whether he thinks Pfizer may take some kind of action against him for exercising his right to free speech, he says, "If they took any action against me, they would create a public martyr. I can't see how that would be in Pfizer's best interest."
Rost Hopes To Improve The Image Of Industry
A study presented in the February 2004 edition of Pharmaceutical Executive revealed that 87% of Americans do not believe the pharmaceutical industry is honest and trustworthy. Rost found it disturbing that only 13% of the public had a positive view of the industry. He would like to change that perception and hopes that his coming forward and speaking up about important issues will be a first step in the right direction.
How Many Excuses Can Bush Come Up With?
Bush has fought against importation using every reason under the sun, except the real one, GREED. He has been in bed with the drug companies for so long that I'm beginning to think they're providing him with free drugs. What else would explain all the stupid stories that he makes about importing drugs?
Come to think of it, who was he just with last week? None other than that pill-poppin idiot Rush. Maybe Bush's cronies in the industry are supplying both of them with drugs.
Ok, if its not drugs then I'll say this again, Bush really needs to get help for his compulsive lying disorder because his tales are becoming more far-fetched every day.
Lets take a look some of the ridiculous stories he has come up with lately, while we have the opportunity to get Rost's take on a few.
In April, Bush claimed that allowing drug importation would lead to jobs losses (although job losses never seemed to bother him before). He had Commerce Undersecretary Grant Aldonas tell a Senate panel that if Congress allows importation, "There will be disinvestment in the United States, a loss of employment opportunities and frankly a loss of an industry that is a huge multiplier" in terms of benefits to the overall U.S. economy, Aldonas said." [Source: Reuters, 04/27/04]
Yea right. And just where are they going? Besides, half of the drug companies are not located in the US to begin with, so we can toss that excuse out.
Here's one where Bush pulls out the FEAR card (hey, it works for everything else). He got FDA Official, Lester Crawford, to say that tampering with prescription drugs imported from Canada could be a way for terrorists to attack Americans. And old Lester added a nice touch by claiming that action by terrorists was the most serious of his concerns about the efforts to import drugs from Canada.
"THE most serious concern?" I'm really scared now. Those terrorists have apparently invaded every country and every industry.
But then again maybe not because the American Progress Action Fund described Crawford's comments as a way for the administration to use "the fear of terrorism" and called the warning a "cynical, baseless and transparent" tactic.
Rost doesn't seem too worried about this either. He says, "Some people clearly are very scared about this (importation) and will put forward almost any argument." As an example, he told about Lester saying that his main concern was that Al Qaeda might attack the supply of drugs coming from Canada, and added, "I assure you this is not a joke from Letterman."
Could have fooled me. Was it on Saturday Night Live then? Looks like we can toss that excuse out as well.
Then there's the old false advertising trick. Bush's favorite way to manipulate the minds of seniors. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline recently began running newspaper ads that question the quality and safety of drugs obtained from Canadian.
Which just proves once again that those greedy, heartless SOBs will go to any length to rip off seniors.
Then we are force-fed that worn-out, old wife's tale by William Hubbard, associate commissioner for policy and planning at the FDA, who says that "his agency was opposed to the drug import legislation because of fraud and safety concerns." [Source: Reuters, 04/27/04] (I guess he hasn't heard about Al Qaeda yet).
According to Rost, this one is as phony as all the others and he says, " this is an argument that could only be put forward in a country in which less than one in four citizens have applied for a passport in the last ten years and even fewer have traveled overseas." (Like America)
He points out that everyone has conveniently forgot to tell us " stay-at-home Americans" that "in Europe, reimportation of drugs, parallel trade as it is called there, is an institution which has been in place for 20 years. The European Union has an important law that guarantees free trade within the union," he says.
In fact, Rost says there are large pharmaceutical companies that specialize in nothing but buying drugs in southern Europe from Greece, Italy and Spain where the costs are often much less, and then shipping them to countries in northern Europe like the UK, Germany, and the Nordic countries.
Rost believes that the press has a duty to report objectively on facts and take a position when things need to change. "If, for example, you report on safety issues related to reimportation, without telling the public that this has been done safely within Europe for twenty years, you mislead the public," he claims. Rost believes the press should act as the nation's conscience.
The media needs to quit being so lazy, and start taking its job much more seriously. The public deserves to know the whole truth about government policies that affect their everyday lives. As long as Rost is brave enough to speak out, the media should be willing to feed the information to the public. Because if we stop and think about it, who knows when or if we will ever hear from another industry insider like Peter Rost again?
$130 Billion Dollar Medicare Rip-Off
Evelyn Pringle September 2004
On July 6, 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (IG) released a report stating that former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Thomas Scully pressured the agency's chief actuary, Richard Foster, to withhold cost estimates of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill when it was being considered by Congress last year.
Foster had claimed that Scully ordered him to withhold estimates that showed the bill would cost between $500-$600 billion, well above the $395 billion estimate on which members of Congress were set to base their vote.
Specifically, Foster's estimates were anywhere from 25 to 50% higher than those provided to members of Congress, and showed that rather than helping seniors lower prescription costs, the bill would be a windfall for drug companies, HMOs and insurance companies.
For instance, Foster's estimates projected that the new plan would boost Medicare payments to private health plans by $46 billion (over 3 times the $14 billion Bush estimate), and that drugmakers would collect $100 billion more than the estimate provided to Congress.
Bush knew about Foster's higher projections. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Trent Duffy, a Bush spokesman, acknowledged that the actuary's cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill.
The key to the success of Medicare scam was to hide Foster's estimates from members of Congress until after they voted to pass the bill, and the strategy worked.
If revealed, Foster's figures definitely would have threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost of $395 billion, the bill only passed by 5 votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill may well have been doomed.
In January, 2004, upon submitting his budget, Bush was forced to admit that the bill would probably cost $534 billion, not $395 billion.
When Foster's claims became public, Democrats were rightfully angry about being duped. They contend that Scully's actions forced them to vote on a bill without full knowledge of its cost. Rep Charles Rangel, senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said: " All I know is that the Congress did not have the best information available to make a judgment on vital legislation. ... We asked for it. We were not given it."
Many Republicans were also upset. Rep Trent Franks (R-Ariz) told the New York Times, "If anyone was truly pressured by a superior to withhold information from Congress, that is profoundly unethical and inappropriate."
Rep Sue Myrick, one of the 13 Republicans who were set to vote against the bill, said she was "very upset" when she learned of the higher estimate. "I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the bill), because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick said.
Who Asked For The Estimates?
Members of Congress had been requesting Foster's estimates for months. According to the New York Times, Cybele Bjorklund, an aide to California Rep Pete Stark, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, began to press Foster for his estimates in June, 2003. She said that after sending Foster an e-mail on June 17, and receiving no response, she called him on June 24. Bjorklund said that Foster told her, "I cannot give it to you; I'm afraid I could be fired."
She then called Scully, who she says told her, "If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast that his head will spin." Scully said that he recalls " a heated conversation, but says he never threatened to fire Mr. Foster," the New York Times reports.
Foster told colleagues that he would be fired if he revealed the estimates. "This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty nightmarish," Foster wrote in an e-mail to colleagues on June 26. "I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policy makers for political reasons." Knight Ridder obtained a copy of the e-mail.
Bjorklund told the New York Times that in January 2004, she received a fax revealing Foster's cost estimate for the Medicare legislation, the New York Times reports. The fax was dated June 11, 2003, and had "no hint of the sender" (New York Times, 3/18).
Scully Denial
In an interview with Knight Ridder, Scully denied Bjorklund's assertion that he had threatened to fire Foster. He said he curbed Foster on one specific request, made by Democrats on the eve of the first House vote in June, because he thought they would use the cost estimates to disrupt the debate.
Otherwise, Scully said that Foster was available to lawmakers and their staffs.
"... I don't think he ever felt - I don't think anybody (in the actuary's office) ever felt - that I restricted access. ... I think it's a very nice tradition that (the actuary) is perceived to be very nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition."
Scully said Liz Fowler, the chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary's independence. Fowler did not. " He's a liar," she said of Scully, according to Knight Ridder.
Results Of Investigation
After completing the investigation, the IG said that Scully may have violated ethical standards, but since he is no longer at CMS, recommended that no administrative action to be taken against him. She released a statement that said that Scully:
* Failed to produce premium estimates for drug coverage under the bill;
* Failed to provide congressional staff with total estimates and other information;
* Warned CMS' chief actuary, Richard Foster, that " disciplinary action" would be taken if Foster provided certain information in response to Congressional requests;
* Warned a Congressional staffer that Richard Foster would be fired for releasing information.
The report admitted that on 5 occasions between June and October 2003, which means before the bill was voted on, Scully blocked efforts by Foster to comply with requests from members of Congress for information about the cost of the Medicare drug bill.
And yet, the report concluded, "Our investigation failed to produce evidence that criminal statutes were violated in connection with the failure to respond to congressional requests."
Supposedly the legal question weighed was whether Foster could speak independently of his boss or needed to obey his boss. Drews concluded that Foster's job provides him "freedom from supervision in performing actuarial duties, not supervision of disclosure of Department records or information to the Congress."
"Since the Chief Actuary is subject to CMS supervision, the Administrator has the right to direct the Chief Actuary, just as any other CMS employee, to provide the Administrator with information for review prior to the information being provided to the Congress, or even direct that the information not be provided," Drews wrote.
Before Bush took office, the Medicare actuary's estimates were customarily provided to lawmakers who were debating Medicare legislation. This finding begs the question of how is Congress supposed to legislate when experts in the executive branch fail to share information about the cost of government programs?
Results Of Other Investigations
The finding that Scully's actions violated no laws is contrary to an April, 2004 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that also investigated the matter. The CRS concluded that Scully's threats to fire Foster probably violated a 1912 statute that says a federal employee's right to communicate with and provide information to Congress "may not be interfered with or impeded."
However, Justice Department lawyers claim that Scully was within his rights to order Foster to withhold information, as long as the directive was "not based upon an invalid or unlawful reason," wrote Katherine Drews, a Justice Department associate general counsel.
Now what the hell does that mean? In plain language please.
Am I missing something here? Since when did it become lawful for the president to conspire with policy officials to provide members of Congress with phony cost estimates on pending legislation in order to funnel $139 billion to cronies in the health care industry?
Foster sure doesn't agree with the findings. According to Knight Ridder, he stands by his position, " My perception remains that Mr. Scully withheld that information for political purposes. And regardless of his legal right to withhold it, I continue to believe that it's wrong and unethical to withhold technical information from Congress."
Where Is Scully Now?
Unbeknownst to Congress, Scully was trolling for a job within the industry at the same time that he was working on the final Medicare bill. Knight Ridder reported that Scully "was exploring jobs in the private sector while he was pushing for passage of the prescription-drug bill, thanks to a waiver from Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was still a federal employee."
So that means that at the same time that he was browbeating Foster, Thompson told Scully that he didn't have to abide by the federal law that bars presidential appointees from discussing employment with companies conducting business with their own department or agency. And neither Thompson or Scully felt a need to notify Congress of the waiver.
Where does Scully work these days? According to the July 7, 2004, Washington Post, Scully is registered as a lobbyist for major drug companies, including Abbott Laboratories and Aventis; for Caremark Rx, a pharmacy benefit manager; and for the American Chiropractic Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, among others.
All of these clients are affected by a bill that Scully helped write. But not to worry, according to Knight Ridder, the "White House announced in February that President Bush's appointees no longer would be permitted to job-hunt while on the federal payroll."
Who Else Was Involved In The Scam?
James Capretta, another top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, was also shown Foster's cost estimates for the bill. So he knew that the cost of the bill was far more than Bush had advertised.
Another official in on the scam was Doug Badger, Bush's top health policy adviser on Medicare. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Bush spokesman, Trent Duffy, acknowledged that "the actuary's cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill."
On March 24, 2004, Foster told the House Ways And Means Committee that he had shared the estimates with Doug Badger and that Badger seemed to be directing Scully in imposing the gag.
One might say that Badger waltzed through the revolving door backward. He quit his lobbying job to become a Bush adviser. Before accepting the White House position, he helped bring in more than $1 million for the firm of Council Ernst & Young, from clients like Aventis, Baxter Healthcare, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer.
And this is not Badger's first trip through the revolving door. He became a lobbyist after working as chief of staff to Sen Don Nickles (R-Okla) and staff director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He also has held positions at the DHHS and the Social Security Administration. I can't wait to see where Badger ends up in January 2005.
Others Also Left For Private Employment
By now there must be a well-beaten path between the backdoor of the White House and companies in the Health Care Industry. Scully wasn't the only guy trolling for private employment. Once the bill passed, members of the administration couldn't get to their new high-paying jobs fast enough.
The bill was signed into law on December 8, 2003. Exactly 1 day later, Thomas Grissom, director of the CMS, left to become a lobbyist for medical device maker Boston Scientific. Grissom had been in charge of developing policies and regulations for the Medicare fee-for-service program and for overseeing Medicare's $240 billion contractor budget.
I wonder how he was able to land a job the day after he quit his last one, especially in such a dire employment market? Maybe he could give some tips to the other people who are unemployed.
In January 2004, Dallas "Rob" Sweezy, the director of public and intergovernmental affairs at CMS, took a job with National Media Inc, which just happens to be the same firm that Bush paid $12 million to produce the phony TV ads touting the new bill, that the GOA determined were illegal and fraudulent.
National Media and its partner Alex Castellanos also served as consultants to both Bush campaigns and produced ads for the industry front group Citizens for Better Medicare.
However, Sweezy didn't last long at National Media. In May 2004, he went to work for the lobbying firm Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey, which represents Bristol-Myers Squibb, Purdue Pharma, First Health and PacifiCare.
James Capretta, Bush's top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, left in June 2004 to join Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, where he will likely represent clients from firms like Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, PacifiCare and Wyeth.
Now where have I heard the names of those companies before?
Medicare Scam Will Cost Bush The Election
"The truth of the matter is that the only way this President and the Republican Congress could pass the fatally flawed Medicare bill was to deceive Congress," said George Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "Seniors know they've been dealt a raw deal with the Medicare law, and they will have their say at the ballot box."
I look forward to seeing a record number of seniors at the polls.
On July 6, 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (IG) released a report stating that former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Thomas Scully pressured the agency's chief actuary, Richard Foster, to withhold cost estimates of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill when it was being considered by Congress last year.
Foster had claimed that Scully ordered him to withhold estimates that showed the bill would cost between $500-$600 billion, well above the $395 billion estimate on which members of Congress were set to base their vote.
Specifically, Foster's estimates were anywhere from 25 to 50% higher than those provided to members of Congress, and showed that rather than helping seniors lower prescription costs, the bill would be a windfall for drug companies, HMOs and insurance companies.
For instance, Foster's estimates projected that the new plan would boost Medicare payments to private health plans by $46 billion (over 3 times the $14 billion Bush estimate), and that drugmakers would collect $100 billion more than the estimate provided to Congress.
Bush knew about Foster's higher projections. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Trent Duffy, a Bush spokesman, acknowledged that the actuary's cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill.
The key to the success of Medicare scam was to hide Foster's estimates from members of Congress until after they voted to pass the bill, and the strategy worked.
If revealed, Foster's figures definitely would have threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost of $395 billion, the bill only passed by 5 votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill may well have been doomed.
In January, 2004, upon submitting his budget, Bush was forced to admit that the bill would probably cost $534 billion, not $395 billion.
When Foster's claims became public, Democrats were rightfully angry about being duped. They contend that Scully's actions forced them to vote on a bill without full knowledge of its cost. Rep Charles Rangel, senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said: " All I know is that the Congress did not have the best information available to make a judgment on vital legislation. ... We asked for it. We were not given it."
Many Republicans were also upset. Rep Trent Franks (R-Ariz) told the New York Times, "If anyone was truly pressured by a superior to withhold information from Congress, that is profoundly unethical and inappropriate."
Rep Sue Myrick, one of the 13 Republicans who were set to vote against the bill, said she was "very upset" when she learned of the higher estimate. "I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the bill), because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick said.
Who Asked For The Estimates?
Members of Congress had been requesting Foster's estimates for months. According to the New York Times, Cybele Bjorklund, an aide to California Rep Pete Stark, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, began to press Foster for his estimates in June, 2003. She said that after sending Foster an e-mail on June 17, and receiving no response, she called him on June 24. Bjorklund said that Foster told her, "I cannot give it to you; I'm afraid I could be fired."
She then called Scully, who she says told her, "If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast that his head will spin." Scully said that he recalls " a heated conversation, but says he never threatened to fire Mr. Foster," the New York Times reports.
Foster told colleagues that he would be fired if he revealed the estimates. "This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty nightmarish," Foster wrote in an e-mail to colleagues on June 26. "I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policy makers for political reasons." Knight Ridder obtained a copy of the e-mail.
Bjorklund told the New York Times that in January 2004, she received a fax revealing Foster's cost estimate for the Medicare legislation, the New York Times reports. The fax was dated June 11, 2003, and had "no hint of the sender" (New York Times, 3/18).
Scully Denial
In an interview with Knight Ridder, Scully denied Bjorklund's assertion that he had threatened to fire Foster. He said he curbed Foster on one specific request, made by Democrats on the eve of the first House vote in June, because he thought they would use the cost estimates to disrupt the debate.
Otherwise, Scully said that Foster was available to lawmakers and their staffs.
"... I don't think he ever felt - I don't think anybody (in the actuary's office) ever felt - that I restricted access. ... I think it's a very nice tradition that (the actuary) is perceived to be very nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition."
Scully said Liz Fowler, the chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary's independence. Fowler did not. " He's a liar," she said of Scully, according to Knight Ridder.
Results Of Investigation
After completing the investigation, the IG said that Scully may have violated ethical standards, but since he is no longer at CMS, recommended that no administrative action to be taken against him. She released a statement that said that Scully:
* Failed to produce premium estimates for drug coverage under the bill;
* Failed to provide congressional staff with total estimates and other information;
* Warned CMS' chief actuary, Richard Foster, that " disciplinary action" would be taken if Foster provided certain information in response to Congressional requests;
* Warned a Congressional staffer that Richard Foster would be fired for releasing information.
The report admitted that on 5 occasions between June and October 2003, which means before the bill was voted on, Scully blocked efforts by Foster to comply with requests from members of Congress for information about the cost of the Medicare drug bill.
And yet, the report concluded, "Our investigation failed to produce evidence that criminal statutes were violated in connection with the failure to respond to congressional requests."
Supposedly the legal question weighed was whether Foster could speak independently of his boss or needed to obey his boss. Drews concluded that Foster's job provides him "freedom from supervision in performing actuarial duties, not supervision of disclosure of Department records or information to the Congress."
"Since the Chief Actuary is subject to CMS supervision, the Administrator has the right to direct the Chief Actuary, just as any other CMS employee, to provide the Administrator with information for review prior to the information being provided to the Congress, or even direct that the information not be provided," Drews wrote.
Before Bush took office, the Medicare actuary's estimates were customarily provided to lawmakers who were debating Medicare legislation. This finding begs the question of how is Congress supposed to legislate when experts in the executive branch fail to share information about the cost of government programs?
Results Of Other Investigations
The finding that Scully's actions violated no laws is contrary to an April, 2004 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that also investigated the matter. The CRS concluded that Scully's threats to fire Foster probably violated a 1912 statute that says a federal employee's right to communicate with and provide information to Congress "may not be interfered with or impeded."
However, Justice Department lawyers claim that Scully was within his rights to order Foster to withhold information, as long as the directive was "not based upon an invalid or unlawful reason," wrote Katherine Drews, a Justice Department associate general counsel.
Now what the hell does that mean? In plain language please.
Am I missing something here? Since when did it become lawful for the president to conspire with policy officials to provide members of Congress with phony cost estimates on pending legislation in order to funnel $139 billion to cronies in the health care industry?
Foster sure doesn't agree with the findings. According to Knight Ridder, he stands by his position, " My perception remains that Mr. Scully withheld that information for political purposes. And regardless of his legal right to withhold it, I continue to believe that it's wrong and unethical to withhold technical information from Congress."
Where Is Scully Now?
Unbeknownst to Congress, Scully was trolling for a job within the industry at the same time that he was working on the final Medicare bill. Knight Ridder reported that Scully "was exploring jobs in the private sector while he was pushing for passage of the prescription-drug bill, thanks to a waiver from Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was still a federal employee."
So that means that at the same time that he was browbeating Foster, Thompson told Scully that he didn't have to abide by the federal law that bars presidential appointees from discussing employment with companies conducting business with their own department or agency. And neither Thompson or Scully felt a need to notify Congress of the waiver.
Where does Scully work these days? According to the July 7, 2004, Washington Post, Scully is registered as a lobbyist for major drug companies, including Abbott Laboratories and Aventis; for Caremark Rx, a pharmacy benefit manager; and for the American Chiropractic Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, among others.
All of these clients are affected by a bill that Scully helped write. But not to worry, according to Knight Ridder, the "White House announced in February that President Bush's appointees no longer would be permitted to job-hunt while on the federal payroll."
Who Else Was Involved In The Scam?
James Capretta, another top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, was also shown Foster's cost estimates for the bill. So he knew that the cost of the bill was far more than Bush had advertised.
Another official in on the scam was Doug Badger, Bush's top health policy adviser on Medicare. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Bush spokesman, Trent Duffy, acknowledged that "the actuary's cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill."
On March 24, 2004, Foster told the House Ways And Means Committee that he had shared the estimates with Doug Badger and that Badger seemed to be directing Scully in imposing the gag.
One might say that Badger waltzed through the revolving door backward. He quit his lobbying job to become a Bush adviser. Before accepting the White House position, he helped bring in more than $1 million for the firm of Council Ernst & Young, from clients like Aventis, Baxter Healthcare, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer.
And this is not Badger's first trip through the revolving door. He became a lobbyist after working as chief of staff to Sen Don Nickles (R-Okla) and staff director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He also has held positions at the DHHS and the Social Security Administration. I can't wait to see where Badger ends up in January 2005.
Others Also Left For Private Employment
By now there must be a well-beaten path between the backdoor of the White House and companies in the Health Care Industry. Scully wasn't the only guy trolling for private employment. Once the bill passed, members of the administration couldn't get to their new high-paying jobs fast enough.
The bill was signed into law on December 8, 2003. Exactly 1 day later, Thomas Grissom, director of the CMS, left to become a lobbyist for medical device maker Boston Scientific. Grissom had been in charge of developing policies and regulations for the Medicare fee-for-service program and for overseeing Medicare's $240 billion contractor budget.
I wonder how he was able to land a job the day after he quit his last one, especially in such a dire employment market? Maybe he could give some tips to the other people who are unemployed.
In January 2004, Dallas "Rob" Sweezy, the director of public and intergovernmental affairs at CMS, took a job with National Media Inc, which just happens to be the same firm that Bush paid $12 million to produce the phony TV ads touting the new bill, that the GOA determined were illegal and fraudulent.
National Media and its partner Alex Castellanos also served as consultants to both Bush campaigns and produced ads for the industry front group Citizens for Better Medicare.
However, Sweezy didn't last long at National Media. In May 2004, he went to work for the lobbying firm Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey, which represents Bristol-Myers Squibb, Purdue Pharma, First Health and PacifiCare.
James Capretta, Bush's top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, left in June 2004 to join Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, where he will likely represent clients from firms like Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, PacifiCare and Wyeth.
Now where have I heard the names of those companies before?
Medicare Scam Will Cost Bush The Election
"The truth of the matter is that the only way this President and the Republican Congress could pass the fatally flawed Medicare bill was to deceive Congress," said George Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "Seniors know they've been dealt a raw deal with the Medicare law, and they will have their say at the ballot box."
I look forward to seeing a record number of seniors at the polls.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Bush Gives Key to Medicare Fund to Known Criminals
Evelyn Pringle January 2005
The new Medicare Prescription Drug Bill was supposed to make drugs more affordable for seniors citizens, but numerous studies reveal that it has done just the opposite.
The actual so-called benefit from the bill will not go into effect until 2006, so in the meantime, Bush, and his cronies in the industry, came up with the idea for a prescription drug discount card program intended to reduce prescription costs for senior citizens until 2006. To that end, Bush chose roughly 70 private companies to administer the program and provide the discount cards to seniors, at a fee of up to $30, to use at pharmacies.
Time to do the math. The Medicare program has about 40 million participants. So multiply that number by $30 and see how much it comes to. If the Bush scam would have gone according to the plan, the companies authorized to administer the program would have made a bundle before the first prescription drug was even purchased. However, Bush and his gang underestimated the intelligence of seniors because few people signed up for the cards. In fact, last time I checked the companies couldn't even give them away.
What qualifications did a company have to have to be approved? That question requires a one word answer - money.
Most of the companies that Bush selected are either large insurance companies or prescription benefit managers (PBMs), and not surprising, most are top Republican campaign contributors. Many lawmakers, from both sides of the isle, say the card program will benefit the drug and insurance industries far more than the elderly.
To begin with, in 2003, to ensure the passage of the industry's preferred version of the bill, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups spent nearly $140 million, and deployed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington.
Topping the list of lobbyist spending by interested card providers, was industry giant Merck, at $8 million. But other companies were close behind. Blue Cross also dropped close to $8 million; Aetna spent $2.9 million; Wellpoint Health Networks coughed up $1.5 million; Pacificare put up $1.42 million; and United Healthcare dumped $1.2 million.
In order to protect the profits of the already most profitable business in the US, the drug industry doled out more than $44 million in political contributions since 1999, with 78% to Republicans and 22% to Democrats.
It also spent millions more hiring a multitude of lobbyists that outnumber the members in Congress; and funneled millions more to "front groups" that do the industry's bidding under more politically-palatable sounding names such as, "Citizens for a Better Medicare" and "United Seniors Association."
And of course the loyal guy that he is, Bush rewarded his top contributors. The top seven executives and lobbyists from companies Bush approved, raised $100,000 or more for his campaign, and include Wellcare executives Todd Farha and David Hart; Blue Cross executive Michael Hightower; United Health CEO William McGuire; Medco President Alan Lotvin; Express Scripts board member Samuel Skinner; and PacifiCare lobbyist Tom Loeffler.
Bush Hires Crooks To Rip Off Seniors
Of the companies chosen, at least 20 have a history of being involved in fraud charges, that include bilking Medicare and overcharging consumers. For instance, Bush-Best- Buddy, David Halbert's company Advance, faced lawsuits in 2003 for market manipulation, and its failure to disclose the extent of its financial ties with drug makers.
The senior citizen advocacy group, AARP, also sued Advance, and accused the company of illicitly diverting seniors from AARP's drug-discount plan, and of actually putting seniors at risk for dangerous drug interactions.
Another Bush approved company, Medco Health Solutions, had to pay $29 million to settle claims by 20 states that it pressured doctors to switch the brands of their patient’s medication to benefit Medco financially. It has also been charged with defrauding the federal employees’ health plan.
In fact, Advance and Medco are both listed as defendants in a current lawsuit with 2 other approved companies, Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that they engaged in anti-competitive practices that harmed pharmacies, and that they entered into secret deals with drugmakers in return for kickbacks and other undisclosed incentives.
Yet even with its long history of corruption, Bush entrusted Medco to administer drug discount cards to our seniors. Why? $$$ A few weeks after Bush approved the company, Medco President, Alan Lotvin, co-sponsored a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush, according to a report by the Associated Press.
But Medco is not the only approved company that has paid huge fines. Many other companies that Bush chose have histories of paying large sums of money to settle fraud claims, specifically related to ripping off Medicare and Medicaid. According to the 2002 Medicaid Fraud Report, United Healthcare paid $4 million to settle allegations that it charged both Medicaid and Medicare for the same patient services.
WellPoint paid over $9 million in 2003, to settle charges that its Blue Cross subsidiary defrauded Medicare by auditing more claims and cost reports than it actually did.
The Humana Health Plan is another big-time crook. Between 1992 and 2000, it paid over $22 million to settle fraud claims that it billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the same services, and had received duplicate payments for the same patients.
Top lobbyists who raised big bucks for Bush, also represent companies involved in fraud. Bush Pioneer, Tom Loeffler, is a lobbyist for PacificCare, a company that paid $87.3 million to settle charges of violating the federal False Claims Act in 2002.
The latest industry fraud case involving major drug companies became public on August 6, 2004, when New York City filed a lawsuit against 44 drug companies and their subsidiaries, accusing them of "deceptively inflating the cost of their drugs and defrauding taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars," the NYTs reports. According to the LA Times, almost every major US drug company is listed in the suit.
Of course I'm sure that all of those legal problems were probably just the result of an 8 year period of honest mistakes. So by all means, let's throw open the door to the Medicare fund so these crooks can get their hands on more of our tax dollars.
The question is how could these corrupt companies ever get in a position where they could so easily exploit our elderly? Only one person can answer that question and Bush ain't talking.
The new Medicare Prescription Drug Bill was supposed to make drugs more affordable for seniors citizens, but numerous studies reveal that it has done just the opposite.
The actual so-called benefit from the bill will not go into effect until 2006, so in the meantime, Bush, and his cronies in the industry, came up with the idea for a prescription drug discount card program intended to reduce prescription costs for senior citizens until 2006. To that end, Bush chose roughly 70 private companies to administer the program and provide the discount cards to seniors, at a fee of up to $30, to use at pharmacies.
Time to do the math. The Medicare program has about 40 million participants. So multiply that number by $30 and see how much it comes to. If the Bush scam would have gone according to the plan, the companies authorized to administer the program would have made a bundle before the first prescription drug was even purchased. However, Bush and his gang underestimated the intelligence of seniors because few people signed up for the cards. In fact, last time I checked the companies couldn't even give them away.
What qualifications did a company have to have to be approved? That question requires a one word answer - money.
Most of the companies that Bush selected are either large insurance companies or prescription benefit managers (PBMs), and not surprising, most are top Republican campaign contributors. Many lawmakers, from both sides of the isle, say the card program will benefit the drug and insurance industries far more than the elderly.
To begin with, in 2003, to ensure the passage of the industry's preferred version of the bill, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups spent nearly $140 million, and deployed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington.
Topping the list of lobbyist spending by interested card providers, was industry giant Merck, at $8 million. But other companies were close behind. Blue Cross also dropped close to $8 million; Aetna spent $2.9 million; Wellpoint Health Networks coughed up $1.5 million; Pacificare put up $1.42 million; and United Healthcare dumped $1.2 million.
In order to protect the profits of the already most profitable business in the US, the drug industry doled out more than $44 million in political contributions since 1999, with 78% to Republicans and 22% to Democrats.
It also spent millions more hiring a multitude of lobbyists that outnumber the members in Congress; and funneled millions more to "front groups" that do the industry's bidding under more politically-palatable sounding names such as, "Citizens for a Better Medicare" and "United Seniors Association."
And of course the loyal guy that he is, Bush rewarded his top contributors. The top seven executives and lobbyists from companies Bush approved, raised $100,000 or more for his campaign, and include Wellcare executives Todd Farha and David Hart; Blue Cross executive Michael Hightower; United Health CEO William McGuire; Medco President Alan Lotvin; Express Scripts board member Samuel Skinner; and PacifiCare lobbyist Tom Loeffler.
Bush Hires Crooks To Rip Off Seniors
Of the companies chosen, at least 20 have a history of being involved in fraud charges, that include bilking Medicare and overcharging consumers. For instance, Bush-Best- Buddy, David Halbert's company Advance, faced lawsuits in 2003 for market manipulation, and its failure to disclose the extent of its financial ties with drug makers.
The senior citizen advocacy group, AARP, also sued Advance, and accused the company of illicitly diverting seniors from AARP's drug-discount plan, and of actually putting seniors at risk for dangerous drug interactions.
Another Bush approved company, Medco Health Solutions, had to pay $29 million to settle claims by 20 states that it pressured doctors to switch the brands of their patient’s medication to benefit Medco financially. It has also been charged with defrauding the federal employees’ health plan.
In fact, Advance and Medco are both listed as defendants in a current lawsuit with 2 other approved companies, Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that they engaged in anti-competitive practices that harmed pharmacies, and that they entered into secret deals with drugmakers in return for kickbacks and other undisclosed incentives.
Yet even with its long history of corruption, Bush entrusted Medco to administer drug discount cards to our seniors. Why? $$$ A few weeks after Bush approved the company, Medco President, Alan Lotvin, co-sponsored a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush, according to a report by the Associated Press.
But Medco is not the only approved company that has paid huge fines. Many other companies that Bush chose have histories of paying large sums of money to settle fraud claims, specifically related to ripping off Medicare and Medicaid. According to the 2002 Medicaid Fraud Report, United Healthcare paid $4 million to settle allegations that it charged both Medicaid and Medicare for the same patient services.
WellPoint paid over $9 million in 2003, to settle charges that its Blue Cross subsidiary defrauded Medicare by auditing more claims and cost reports than it actually did.
The Humana Health Plan is another big-time crook. Between 1992 and 2000, it paid over $22 million to settle fraud claims that it billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the same services, and had received duplicate payments for the same patients.
Top lobbyists who raised big bucks for Bush, also represent companies involved in fraud. Bush Pioneer, Tom Loeffler, is a lobbyist for PacificCare, a company that paid $87.3 million to settle charges of violating the federal False Claims Act in 2002.
The latest industry fraud case involving major drug companies became public on August 6, 2004, when New York City filed a lawsuit against 44 drug companies and their subsidiaries, accusing them of "deceptively inflating the cost of their drugs and defrauding taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars," the NYTs reports. According to the LA Times, almost every major US drug company is listed in the suit.
Of course I'm sure that all of those legal problems were probably just the result of an 8 year period of honest mistakes. So by all means, let's throw open the door to the Medicare fund so these crooks can get their hands on more of our tax dollars.
The question is how could these corrupt companies ever get in a position where they could so easily exploit our elderly? Only one person can answer that question and Bush ain't talking.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Medicare Prescription Drug Law — Countdown to 2006
Evelyn Pringle June 25, 2005
As it stands right now, senior citizens will have a tough choice to make in 2006. Under the new Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, they can either come up with a $420 annual premium, a $250 deductible, 25 percent in co-payments on the first $2,250 of costs, and $2,850 to cover the gap in the benefit known as the doughnut hole, or they can quit taking their prescription medications, period.
In about six months, when the new law goes into full effect, it is estimated that the average senior will have about $3,100 in annual prescription costs and will end up having to pay 66 percent of that amount, or $2,080. After that, seniors will have to pay 100 percent of the costs from $2,251 to $5,100.
Thanks to George W Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, the undisputed benefactors of the new bill are the pharmaceutical companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using our senior citizens as funnels, drug makers will take in over $200 billion in new drug sales; and because the program will be administered by private companies, hundreds of billions more will go to HMOs and private insurance plans offering drug-only coverage.
The industry's preferred version of the bill that passed contains provisions that specifically bar the government from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices because, according to Bush, negotiating for lower prescription drug costs might constitute a monopoly. The bill also prohibits the importation of drugs from other countries because Bush says they might not be safe.
So how did the industry's version of the bill get passed? Easy answer: money. The pharmaceutical-insurance complex unleashed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding on the legislation and spent about $141 million on lobbying in Washington in 2003.
And even that figure represents only a portion of what was actually spent. The industry is only required to report money spent on lobbying Congress, Bush, and the executive branch. Millions more were spent on other forms of lobbying through print and TV advertising, campaign contributions, direct mailings, and state level lobbying.
But since the stakes were worth over $500 billion, the industry knew an investment of a few hundred million would be money well spent. Mere chickenfeed in comparison.
2006 Will Be a Nightmare for Seniors
People need to take a closer look at the prescription drug law and see how they will be affected by the provisions in the bill. For instance, there's not been much made of the fact that the new law makes it illegal for insurance companies to provide coverage for the "$2,850 doughnut hole" for which Medicare pays nothing — $2,850 a year is a lot of money for senior citizens on fixed incomes.
This gap will become even more alarming to many seniors when they learn that they are not allowed to buy any supplemental insurance to cover it. In fact, seniors who sign up for the program and already have a policy to cover the gap will not be allowed to renew it.
How do Republicans justify these doughnut hole provisions? They claim seniors, as beneficiaries, should pay the $2,850 themselves because, "when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services."
I'm sure most seniors didn't realize that the new law came with a lesson on how to budget their money so they won't "overuse" their drugs. And to think that this economics course only costs $2,850 a year.
Another little known fact is that low-income seniors will no longer be allowed to receive drug benefits from Medicaid (state insurance plans for low income people). State officials are worried because even though Medicare will now pay for far fewer drugs than state plans, the new law will bar state agencies from supplementing coverage to close the gap.
Retirees To Lose Drug Coverage From Previous Employers
When debating the new bill, Democrats had concerns that companies would cut retiree drug coverage benefits even faster than they already were. Well true to form, they have and it is becoming a very serious problem.
In the past two and a half years, 13% of large employers terminated drug coverage benefits for future retirees, and 22% more say they are likely to in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 23 percent of the nearly 12 million retirees with employer coverage will lose it when the new Medicare program goes into effect.
But here again, thanks to Bush, there is no incentive to provide coverage. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bush and his allies in Congress added a provision to the new bill that rewards companies with a tax subsidy even if they reduce retirees' drug coverage.
In effect, it creates a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits and allows some companies to get subsidies even if they shift part of the cost to retirees.
The WSJ says the provision was pushed into the law by the industry front group, Employers' Coalition on Medicare, which just happens to be made up of a group of corporations that gave Bush and the RNC more than $47 million since 2000.
Of the large corporations that will benefit from this provision, 10 have either tried to slash retiree coverage benefits in the past, or are trying to slash them now. They include 3M, Verizon, AT&T, IBM, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Bank of America.
These 10 companies alone gave more than $17 million to Bush and Republican members of Congress.
How much profit will these companies make off their $17 million investment? Plenty. For instance, GM estimates the provision will save the company $4 billion on the overall future cost of retiree care.
In March 2004, SBC Communications revealed that it would begin charging retirees monthly premiums and higher fees to save between $300 and $600 million a year. About 90,000 SBC retirees will now pay more for health care coverage. So how much did SBC spend to get the provision passed? $4,087,981 since 2000.
Verizon will also save a fortune. It expects to shave retiree costs by $1.3 billion. So how much did Verizon wager? Its contributions totaled $3,882,181,
In addition, the situation looks even worse for future retirees. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, that out of 408 companies surveyed, 71% now require retirees to pay more in premiums, nearly 10 percent have eliminated the coverage benefit altogether, and 20 percent said they will probably eliminate it by 2007.
2006 Almost Here
Six months from now when 2006 arrives, I urge seniors to remember to be grateful to Bush for including the provisions that made sure the government didn't enter into a monopoly by negotiating affordable drug prices and didn't allow the importation of unsafe drugs from other countries.
And, they should be especially grateful for the provision that made sure that they didn't frivolously "overuse" their medications for high blood pressure, lowering cholesterol, and controlling diabetes.
As it stands right now, senior citizens will have a tough choice to make in 2006. Under the new Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, they can either come up with a $420 annual premium, a $250 deductible, 25 percent in co-payments on the first $2,250 of costs, and $2,850 to cover the gap in the benefit known as the doughnut hole, or they can quit taking their prescription medications, period.
In about six months, when the new law goes into full effect, it is estimated that the average senior will have about $3,100 in annual prescription costs and will end up having to pay 66 percent of that amount, or $2,080. After that, seniors will have to pay 100 percent of the costs from $2,251 to $5,100.
Thanks to George W Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, the undisputed benefactors of the new bill are the pharmaceutical companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using our senior citizens as funnels, drug makers will take in over $200 billion in new drug sales; and because the program will be administered by private companies, hundreds of billions more will go to HMOs and private insurance plans offering drug-only coverage.
The industry's preferred version of the bill that passed contains provisions that specifically bar the government from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices because, according to Bush, negotiating for lower prescription drug costs might constitute a monopoly. The bill also prohibits the importation of drugs from other countries because Bush says they might not be safe.
So how did the industry's version of the bill get passed? Easy answer: money. The pharmaceutical-insurance complex unleashed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding on the legislation and spent about $141 million on lobbying in Washington in 2003.
And even that figure represents only a portion of what was actually spent. The industry is only required to report money spent on lobbying Congress, Bush, and the executive branch. Millions more were spent on other forms of lobbying through print and TV advertising, campaign contributions, direct mailings, and state level lobbying.
But since the stakes were worth over $500 billion, the industry knew an investment of a few hundred million would be money well spent. Mere chickenfeed in comparison.
2006 Will Be a Nightmare for Seniors
People need to take a closer look at the prescription drug law and see how they will be affected by the provisions in the bill. For instance, there's not been much made of the fact that the new law makes it illegal for insurance companies to provide coverage for the "$2,850 doughnut hole" for which Medicare pays nothing — $2,850 a year is a lot of money for senior citizens on fixed incomes.
This gap will become even more alarming to many seniors when they learn that they are not allowed to buy any supplemental insurance to cover it. In fact, seniors who sign up for the program and already have a policy to cover the gap will not be allowed to renew it.
How do Republicans justify these doughnut hole provisions? They claim seniors, as beneficiaries, should pay the $2,850 themselves because, "when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services."
I'm sure most seniors didn't realize that the new law came with a lesson on how to budget their money so they won't "overuse" their drugs. And to think that this economics course only costs $2,850 a year.
Another little known fact is that low-income seniors will no longer be allowed to receive drug benefits from Medicaid (state insurance plans for low income people). State officials are worried because even though Medicare will now pay for far fewer drugs than state plans, the new law will bar state agencies from supplementing coverage to close the gap.
Retirees To Lose Drug Coverage From Previous Employers
When debating the new bill, Democrats had concerns that companies would cut retiree drug coverage benefits even faster than they already were. Well true to form, they have and it is becoming a very serious problem.
In the past two and a half years, 13% of large employers terminated drug coverage benefits for future retirees, and 22% more say they are likely to in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 23 percent of the nearly 12 million retirees with employer coverage will lose it when the new Medicare program goes into effect.
But here again, thanks to Bush, there is no incentive to provide coverage. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bush and his allies in Congress added a provision to the new bill that rewards companies with a tax subsidy even if they reduce retirees' drug coverage.
In effect, it creates a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits and allows some companies to get subsidies even if they shift part of the cost to retirees.
The WSJ says the provision was pushed into the law by the industry front group, Employers' Coalition on Medicare, which just happens to be made up of a group of corporations that gave Bush and the RNC more than $47 million since 2000.
Of the large corporations that will benefit from this provision, 10 have either tried to slash retiree coverage benefits in the past, or are trying to slash them now. They include 3M, Verizon, AT&T, IBM, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Bank of America.
These 10 companies alone gave more than $17 million to Bush and Republican members of Congress.
How much profit will these companies make off their $17 million investment? Plenty. For instance, GM estimates the provision will save the company $4 billion on the overall future cost of retiree care.
In March 2004, SBC Communications revealed that it would begin charging retirees monthly premiums and higher fees to save between $300 and $600 million a year. About 90,000 SBC retirees will now pay more for health care coverage. So how much did SBC spend to get the provision passed? $4,087,981 since 2000.
Verizon will also save a fortune. It expects to shave retiree costs by $1.3 billion. So how much did Verizon wager? Its contributions totaled $3,882,181,
In addition, the situation looks even worse for future retirees. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, that out of 408 companies surveyed, 71% now require retirees to pay more in premiums, nearly 10 percent have eliminated the coverage benefit altogether, and 20 percent said they will probably eliminate it by 2007.
2006 Almost Here
Six months from now when 2006 arrives, I urge seniors to remember to be grateful to Bush for including the provisions that made sure the government didn't enter into a monopoly by negotiating affordable drug prices and didn't allow the importation of unsafe drugs from other countries.
And, they should be especially grateful for the provision that made sure that they didn't frivolously "overuse" their medications for high blood pressure, lowering cholesterol, and controlling diabetes.
Free Speech Banned by Big Pharma
What You Can't Say About Drug Importation
Evelyn Pringle October 2004
When Bush signed the new Medicare bill on December 8, 2003, he called it "the greatest advance in health care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare" in 1965.
No, he did not say this on Saturday Night Live, he said it at the White House.
The bill did more for the pharmaceutical industry than it did for seniors citizens. Drug companies can continue to charge outrageous prices because Republicans refuse to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.
Prescription drug spending is rising faster than any other health care expense. In 2003, total spending by Medicare beneficiaries on prescription drugs was $95 billion and senior citizens account for nearly 34% of all prescriptions sold.
The US is the only industrialized country without some form of price controls on drugs. It also accounts for more than half of the industry's profits. And profits would have to be high because according to recent reports from the top pharmaceutical companies, CEO compensation packages range from $23.9 million to $150.9 million for one year.
Who Is Peter Rost?
Peter Rost is a physician and pharmaceutical industry executive who began advocating for drug importation after he posted a positive review on Amazon.com about the book "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It," written by former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell.
On September 10, 2004, Rost, was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for Professional Journalists, and openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the pharmaceutical industry and politicians to block the importation of cheaper drug from other countries, according to Independent Media TV on 9/16/04
Rost is the first drug-industry executive to dispute publicly the industry and federal government position that importing drugs isn't safe. Rost, citing extensive experience with importing drug in Europe, says it is perfectly safe, according to Knight Ridder on 9/30/04.
For the past 20 years, Rost has been marketing pharmaceuticals and he is currently a Vice President with Pfizer. Rost says that his #1 concern is for the people who can not afford their prescription drugs. He believes that people going without medication is a "bigger safety issue than anything else," Independent reports.
Rost said that "[d]rug companies are testifying that imported drugs are unsafe. Nothing could be further from the truth" (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/24).
Does Importation Work? Springfield MA - A Case Study
According to FACSNET, in 1996, the city of Springfield, Mass, paid $33 million in health care costs. This year, the cost is estimated at $70 million, according to Michael Albano, who was mayor of Springfield from 1996 to January of 2004.
Albano and Peter Rost both spoke on the importation issue at the Sept 10, 2004, FACS seminar at the Society of Professional Journalists convention.
Albano says, "During my eight years as mayor, I watched this health care crisis develop: a 5 percent increase the first year, 10 percent, 15 to 20 percent increases ... It became abundantly apparent that no corporation in America, and cities are corporations, could sustain that type of growth without going bankrupt. As a business, you fold; but as a government, you have to continue to provide services that citizens expect, deserve and demand," Albano said.
Of the $33 million that Springfield paid for health care in 1996, prescription drugs accounted for $8.6 million. This year, out of $70 million in health care costs, prescription drugs will cost about $20 million. (Springfield has about 7,000 employees and 2,000 retirees and dependents. The employee numbers have changed little over the eight-year period.)
"Prices have more than doubled for the same amount of prescription medication," Albano said.
While he was mayor, the situation presented a tough choice: Find a way to reduce health care costs or cut city services.
"I said, That's enough," Albano said. "So I took trip to Windsor, Ontario. I looked at some pharmacies and selected a Canadian provider. And what a surprise: the exact same medications, the exact same name brands - no difference whatsoever - except the price."
"In the first year the city implemented the program, it saved $3 million. This year the city will save about $6.5 million," Albano said. "This is substantial for a city the size of Springfield."
Springfield is now considered a pioneer in the many efforts to legalize drug re-importation from Canada. Rost openly lauded Albano's efforts and successes in bringing affordable prescription drugs to Springfield.
Lawmakers Want Vote On Importation
Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are refusing to allow a quick vote on a bill for drug importation, even though many rank-and-file Republicans in Congress and most Democrats back the idea, says the New York Times on 9/16/04.
Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R- Maine) that would allow Americans to buy drugs from such heavily regulated nations as Canada, where some prescription drugs can cost as much as 50 percent less than in the United States. The bill is designed to provide American consumers with some relief from escalating drug prices.
Dorgan and several other lawmakers held press conferences to rally support for a vote to be taken on the importation bill, which has languished in the Senate for several months.
The House of Representatives has already passed a bill allowing FDA-approved drugs to be imported from Canada and other countries. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has refused to allow a similar bill to come up for a vote in the Senate.
Supporters wrote to Frist urging him to find time before the November elections to schedule a promised vote. Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson and other members of Congress say the law would pass if Frist would bring it to the floor, the Missourian reports.
According to The Hill on 9/14/04, Dorgan spokesman Barry Piatt said reimportation supporters would seek a vote regardless of Frist's position. "It's going to happen," Piatt said, adding that "everything that comes to the floor" is a possible vehicle.
Piatt said DorganÃs reimportation bill has "broad consensus support in the Senate and in the country." A Democratic staffer said the Dorgan bill may have 60 votes, says the Hill.
Democrats said the Food and Drug Administration had no record of any dangers presented by imported drugs. They argued that leading Republicans were using safety as an excuse to protect drug companies that charge more domestically for their products.
Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND), said, "Miracle drugs offer no miracles for people who cannot take them" because of the cost. Rep Marion Berry (D-Ark) said, "Here we are in a global economy, and the United States allows these drug companies to take advantage and rob our own people. That can't continue," in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 9/24.
Now Frists claims, "I don't think we can address it adequately in the next 17 days."
That's despite the fact that members of both parties in Congress support what is being called drug importation and it's extremely popular with the public, which will decide whether to re-elect members of Congress in November, according to the 9/18/04 Enquirer.
In fact, according to the New York Times, Frist now says the Senate likely will not have time to debate the legislation this year, and Frist spokesperson Amy Call added, "Until he sees a way we can do this safely, he won't put the American people in jeopardy" by allowing drug importation, the Times reported on 9/24.
Dorgan claims that Frist made a commitment in March to allow a vote this year, in exchange for Dorgan agreeing not to block the confirmation of Mark McClellan as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dorgan said, "I think he ought to keep that commitment."
I hate to say it but I guess the naive Dorgan is going to have to find out the hard way that a commitment by a Bush-Puppet Republican is meaningless.
Rost Speaks Out - At His Own Peril
Over the past month, Peter Rost has spoken out in favor of the various bills under consideration by Congress and state governments, that would allow the importation of cheaper drugs into the US from other countries.
Rost became the first drug industry executives to speak out in support of reimporting drugs from Canada. At all activities, Rost stressed that he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a Pfizer representative. Nothing could have been made this more clear.
On Sept 23, Rost attended a Washington rally with about 10 lawmakers to support a bill to legalize the sale and use of imported drugs from other countries where drugs are between 30% to 70% cheaper than in the US. He also attended a rally with Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the following day, in attempt to convince Republican senators to allow a vote on the drug reimportation bill.
Drug companies have consistently opposed the move, arguing that US regulators could not guarantee the safety or quality of drugs brought in from other countries. But Rost counters that argument with the fact that European countries have used importation safely for 20 years, and he says drugmakers will "say anything" to prevent cheaper drugs from entering the US market.
Rost warns that, "The industry is making a big political mistake right now to fight reimportation."
"The biggest safety issue is people not taking the drugs they need," he added at at the news conference with Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Reps Dan Burton (R-Ind), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) (Wall Street Journal, 9/22).
"A lot of people cannot afford life-saving drugs. Drug re-importation provides an alternative supply at lower prices for people who cannot afford the full price," Rost said.
Europe has been trading pharmaceuticals for decades with no negative consequences, he explained. "The European union mandates free trade and movement of goods," he said. "Companies specialize in doing nothing but buying drugs cheaply and importing then to northern countries."
"Drugs don't work if you don't take them," he noted. "If you can't afford them, you can't use them."
"Drugs are supposed to improve life and make us healthy," Rost said. "In the US, we have shorter life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than host of other developed countries - Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc. ... I hope speaking out will not only help patients but also wake up the drug companies."
Sen Snowe (R-Maine) added, "If European countries can safety trade prescription drugs, the United States should be up to the task as well," New York Times, 9/24.
According to Rost, "Holding up a vote on importation ... has a high cost not just in money, but in American lives. Every day we delay, Americans die because they cannot afford life-saving drugs." NYT / Sept 24th, 2004
Dr. Alan Sager, a researcher at the Boston University, says the same thing. "It is an abomination that any American continues to suffer pain, disease and premature death for lack of needed medications," he said.
Do Bush or his industry cronies or his Republican allies in Congress care that people are going without their life-saving drugs? Not for a minute.
No Free Speech For Pfizer Employees
So much for free speech if you work for a drug company. Pfizer has recently launched an investigation of RostÃs political activities. Rost has informed Independent Media that Pfizer has started an investigation and the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP in New York will conduct the inquiry.
Rost told Independent, "The Pfizer inquiry came as a surprise to me, since I have always stated that I speak as a private citizen and do not in any way represent Pfizer in my public appearances and also do not comment on Pfizer. I am simply exercising my constitutional right to campaign for a candidate, a bill or an issue on the political agenda."
Depth of Probe
RostÃs attorney, David Green of Morristown, NJ, said Rost was first questioned about his contacts with reporters on Sept. 21. Rost said the Pfizer lawyer asked him to list all of his contacts with the media and noted RostÃs quotes in news articles.
In response to Independent's questions about his Pfizer interview, Rost says, "(I) spent a long and very intense day ... answering detailed questions about all my contacts with the press and my private discussions with Senators and Congressmen. The questioning was so intense that we didn't even break for lunch until 2:30 p.m."
"I have been interrogated about every detail of my contacts with the press; who I have talked to, who I've met with, who else was there, what was said, if the talk was recorded, who called whom, and a line by line review of many articles and quotes," Rost said.
Rost also told the Washington Post, "I was peppered with questions from morning to evening," said Rost. "As a private citizen in a protected political activity, my concern was getting all these questions about my discussions with elected representatives," on 10/1/04.
Rost was questioned about conversations with lawmakers and their staffs. "They were very specific about wanting to know everything I remembered from these conversations," Rost said. "They wanted to know who was there, who said what," the WP reported.
He told Independent Media, "Pfizer has also mapped all my contacts with Senators, Congressmen and their aids. I have been asked whom I met, at what time and where, who else was present, and I've been asked about every detail of my private conversation with Senators and Congressmen," Rost said.
Apparently Pfizer also plans to monitor RostÃs future political activities. He told Independent, "I've also had to answer questions about all my planned future political activity, which Senators, Congressmen and Governors have contacted me, where I will appear to speak, and who is paying for travel."
Rost said he only responded to the questions because he believed his refusal might have been used as grounds to fire him.
Pfizer spokesman, Jack Cox, wouldn't discuss the nature of Rost's daylong interview, but said, "the meeting was professional and entirely consistent with Pfizer's policies regarding respect for employees," according to a 9/30/04 article in Knight Ridder.
The top dogs at Pfizer have shown themselves to be true Republicans. True to form, when they can't defeat the message, attack the messenger. This in depth questioning, is not the first indication that Pfizer was not too happy about Rost's activities.
On 9/28/04, Chuck Hardwick, a Pfizer senior vice president, sent a letter to Dorgan and other members of Congress attacking RostÃs credentials and stating, "Dr. Rost has no qualifications to speak on importation, no responsibilities in this area at Pfizer, no knowledge of the information and analysis Pfizer has provided to the government on this issue, and no substantive grasp of how importation may impact the safety of this nation's drug supply."
Of course it might be a bit embarrassing to have Rost support importing drugs, when Pfizer happens to be the highest-profile company cracking down wholesalers in Canada. It lead the industry effort against drug importation. In fact, CEO McKinnell threatened to blacklist Canadian pharmacies that sell drugs to Americans.
Right To Free Speech OK If Pfizer Says So
From day one, Rost made it clear to Independent that he did not in any way represent Pfizer. He does not believe he can be fired for making statements on his own time, because such activities are protected in New York, where Pfizer is located, and in New Jersey, where Rost resides, by laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on political beliefs.
Rost contends that he is within his rights to speak out irregardless of where he works. "It is important to remember that Pfizer employment matters are governed by New York State Law and New Jersey State Law, among others," he says.
According to the Office of New York State Attorney General, "An employee who is discharged because of his participation, on his own time, in lawful political or recreational activities can bring an action against his employer for damages and equitable relief," quoting relevant laws.
Besides all that, if Rost was backing a candidate that Pfizer was supporting it would be permissible. Rost says Pfizer regularly distributes political literature to its employees.
"I also note that Dr. Hank McKinnell and his direct reports frequently use their positions within Pfizer to compel Pfizer employees to support political causes they believe in," he said. "I regularly receive direct mails and e-mails from Dr. McKinnell suggesting that I make political financial contributions or that I contact my elected representatives on a particular issue."
"I also find posters at work encouraging political activity," he added.
"When you do that as an employer, you also have to accept it if people are politically active about issues that you may not agree on. You can't say it's OK to just support certain things and not others," Rost said.
Lawmakers And Media Come Out To Support Rost
Rep Ann Northrup (R-Ky) said that Hardwick's letter concerning Rost was "insulting," adding that it "regurgitated the same sorts of claims they have made in the past, claims that have been refuted."
In response to the inappropriate tactics being used by Pfizer against Rost, members of Congress wrote a letter to Pfizer, on his behalf, condemning its intimidation of Rost. "If this is true, [Wednesday's] interrogation, during which attorneys demanded details of private conversations with Members of Congress and their staffs, was clearly intended to intimidate Dr. Rost," the letter said.
Rep Sanders, a Vermont independent, is also upset. "I find it an outrage that Pfizer would suggest that because somebody happens to work for Pfizer, that they're not allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to support a particular piece of legislation. ... My guess is those employees of Pfizer who are touting the company line in opposition of drug importation are not being brought before lawyers and cross-examined for hours," he said.
The Associated Press lists the 7 lawmakers who signed the letter as: Bernard Sanders, I-Vt; Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill; Dan Burton, R-Ind; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; Jim Langevin, D-RI; and Marion Berry, D-Ark.
It goes without saying that Independent Media plans to monitor this situation every single day. And at the same time, it goes without saying that Independent Media will be monitored.
Having said that, I'd advise Pfizer to pick its battles more carefully. Does it really want to go up against the press, politicians, Americans and especially senior citizens? It might want to rethink their strategy when attacking Peter Rost.
As Usual With Bush - It's About Money
Lawmakers also went to bat for Rost in Congress. "The issue of safety is a hoax, and when somebody tells you it is not about money, folks, it is about money," said Rep Rahm Emanuel. The Illinois Democrat pointed out on the House floor that Rost disputed his industry's position that importation can't be done safely.
Rost explains that at times, he felt pressured to donate money to specific candidates. "The push from Pfizer to donate part of my Pfizer salary to political causes is very strong," he said. "After I failed to pay $2,000 for a political fundraiser sponsored by Pfizer in 2003, I was contacted by Mr. Hank McKinnell, through a secretary who said she called on his behalf, reminding me to attend."
"I would hope that a company that so closely tracks political activity and donations among its employees and supports employee political activism also will tolerate dissenting individual initiatives that allow our democracy to flourish," Rost said.
Rost's assertions about Pfizer financially supporting politicians were easy enough to verify. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors political contributions, Pfizer and its PACs are the largest contributors among drug companies, forking out $1.15 million in the 2004 cycle, with two-thirds of that amount going to Republicans.
And let's take a look at Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell. He is a Bush Ranger, which means he has raised more than $200,000 for Bush's reelection. Until last year, he served as chairman of the board for Pharma. Pfizer is one of the most profitable companies in the country and it spent $3.7 million on Washington lobbying in 2003.
As of July, 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush has already received $ $844,349 from the Pharmaceutical Industry. This figure already dwarfs his 2000 total of $499,283. [Center for Responsive Politics, July 2004].
I just had an amusing thought. When Bush gets booted out of the White House, who's going to funnel pay-off money to the industry? Or are they about even now?
Industry Pay-Offs
During a recent debate on the issue, Congressman Burton said this is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.
Burton says the new law makes it clear the industry got its money's worth. He says billions of dollars are in it for drug companies in this new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
A 1/15/04 report by Campaign Money Watch, asked "How blatant is the pay-to-play system between the pharmaceutical industry and those in powerful political positions in Washington? Consider this sentence from a letter from then RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson to then Bristol-Meyers CEO Charles Heimbold:
"We must keep the lines of communication open if we want to continue passing legislation that will benefit your industry."
The company and its employees have given over $4 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1999, over 80% to Republicans. Heinbold is no longer CEO of Bristol because he was appointed by Bush to be US Ambassador to Sweden, the reports adds.
The big shots of the industry were also out in full force during the Republican Convention. Among the drug company financed functions were 2 breakfasts, sponsored by Pfizer, for Oregon delegates, a state that has recently sought permission from the federal government to import cheaper drugs from Canada.
What Does Bush Say About Importation?
Just listen to what Bush had to say in return for all that money, to make sure the bills wouldn't be passed. "Before I'll allow that to happen, I'm going to make sure that you're safe," Bush said. "Because all you need to do is get a batch of drugs manufactured elsewhere that sounds like they're legitimate and get sick, and then you're going to be wondering, where were the people, why weren't they doing their jobs of protecting consumer safety?"
He said this with a straight smirk and it gets better.
At a health care forum in Blaine, Minn, Bush said, "Let me talk real quick about a subject I know is on your mind," claiming his administration is studying the issue. "I know it sounds attractive to some, importation of drugs. And it may work. But, sure enough, if we're not careful, drugs manufactured in the Third World over which we have no control could use Canada as a way to get into this state. And then we got a problem, a safety problem," the New York Times reported on 9/16/04.
Is there any issue on which Bush won't try to use the terrorist fear tactics? Never mind that he allows the importation of everything else. "The president would import sneakers from Taiwan, T shirts from Hong Kong and coffee from Colombia," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). "But drugs from Canada, no way! Again, the drug companies win and the seniors lose." Newsday on 9/18/04.
Ya know, somebody ought to tell Bush that while out on the campaign trail, he should really knock of the phony caring act because his words don't match his arrogant personality or his cowboy swagger.
Bush And Drugmakers Cut Off Supplies In One Way Or Another
Several of the world's biggest drug makers are restricting supply to online Canadian pharmacies that ship to the US, leading to delays of several weeks for many customers. In severe cases, some sites have stopped accepting new clients looking for the hardest-to-get medications, according to the 9/15/04 South Bend Tribune.
Rost is upset that companies are cutting off supplies. "It strikes me as immoral to limit trade to Canada under the guise that it is unsafe," he said in a telephone interview.
"The big safety issue is people not taking drugs -- people having heart attacks because they can't afford to stay on cholesterol-lowering medication," he told the Boston Globe on 9/23/04.
But that's not all they are up to. For his part of the bargain, Bush is striking out with the power of the government. "Hundreds of people in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont had their Canadian prescription-drug orders seized and thousands more had their shipments delayed after about 450 packages arriving in Miami from the Bahamas were seized by U.S. Customs in July," USA Today reported on 9/16/04.
"The seizure was the first large-scale effort by U.S. Customs and the Food and Drug Administration to halt prescription shipments from Canadian pharmacies, although individual packages have been halted in the past." USA says.
"We have hundreds of seniors calling our office, saying, 'Where are my prescription drugs?'", says Chris Lisi, spokeswoman for Sen Mark Dayton, D-Minn, who strongly supports allowing importation of lower-cost drugs from Canada. Dayton and Democrat Wisconsin Gov Jim Doyle protested the FDA seizure.
Dayton issued a statement and responded to comments from seniors whose drugs were seized, saying, "Rather than scaring Minnesota seniors and taking their affordable prescription drugs, FDA should focus its resources on working with Congress to create legislation that would facilitate safe and legal drug importation. We should be confiscating only those packages that come from unknown or questionable sources or contain suspicious substances, not medicines sent to America's seniors from reputable Canadian pharmacies" (Miami Herald, 9/15).
According to an article on 9/15/04 by Associated Press, "Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold said in a letter to the agency they have received dozens of complaints from Wisconsin residents that the FDA had intercepted their orders of prescription drugs."
The senators said they were "concerned that the FDA's actions could pose health risks to American consumers" and asked if the FDA plans "to use any other enforcement mechanisms to try to curtail the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada."
Wisconsin Gov Jim Doyle said the seizure shows that the Bush administration has "decided it will do whatever it can to protect drug company profits."
And if you think this is bad, just wait and see what's in store for Americans if Bush is elected to 4 more years when he won't be facing reelection and can drop the phony caring act.
Canada Is Very Insulted
Rost has said that some of Bush's argument about the safety of drugs are greatly exaggerated like the one above. When the FDA Acting Chief Lester Crawford made the outlandish suggestion that terrorists could use imported drugs from Canada to poison Americans, he found it ridiculous.
Rost said, "Drugs from Canada are absolutely, positively safe," he said in a 9/18/04 phone interview with the Winnipeg Free Press. "What has been said (by Internet opponents) about Canadian drugs is, quite frankly, insulting, I would think, if I were a Canadian. Let's get real. It's exactly the same product that the same (pharmaceutical) companies are selling in Canada that they are selling in the U.S."
And indeed Canadians are insulted. At a convention of the Iowa Association of Health Underwriters, Canada's former prime minister defended the safety of his country's prescription-drug system during an appearance in Des Moines, according to the Des Moines Register on 9/16/04.
Jean Chretien, who retired last year, dismissed claims that Canada's drug-inspection system is less effective than the United States'. "Do you think we're crazy in Canada - that we would let people sell unsafe drugs?" he said. "Do you think that as prime minister I would face the Canadian people and say, 'Too bad, you know, but we don't inspect drugs?' . . . I hope you agree with me that we're not that uncivilized," the Register reports.
Of course I agree that Canadians are not crazy or uncivilized. If only the same could be said about the current occupant of our White House.
Bogus Research and Development Excuse
Pfizer questions Rost ability to understand the research and development issue. The industry says importing drugs would hurt profits that are relied upon to pay for research. Pfizer says Rost has ignored his company's extensive research.
I found that funny because I thought Rost sounded fairly knowledgeable on the topic. He seemed to grasp the amount of money involved in research. According to the 9/28/04 Missourian, at news conference, Rost said that of drug giant MerckÃs $22.5 billion in annual sales, it spent $3.2 billion on research and development and $3.3 billion on stock dividends and reported a profit of $6.8 billion. Although Merck would lose money if the legislation passed, he said, drug companies would still be profitable enough to encourage investment in research.
So Rost doesn't know what he's talking about on the subject of importation? Well he sure had me fooled.
Lawmakers Become Willing To Break The Law
Legislatures all over the country are responding to demands from their constituents, with 24 states considering bills to import drugs from Canada or elsewhere. West Virginia, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Vermont and Rhode Island have already enacted laws that take the first steps toward engaging in broad imports of prescription medicines from Canada, although the federal government is challenging the legality of some of the programs, according to the LA Times on 9/30/94.
Many state and local governments are vowing to disregard federal laws. According to the 10/1/04 Bangor Daily News, Maine will challenge the federal DHHS by initiating a program to re-import drugs from Canada, Gov John Baldacci announced: "The state can't wait ... for the federal government to enact reforms that ensure affordable access to medications for all Americans and will instead take action on behalf of Maine citizens."
Indiana Gov Joe Kernan says his state will help hundreds of thousands of public employees save money on prescription drugs next year one way or another, according to the 9/16/04 Washington Times.
Kernan plans to bring healthcare providers, business leaders and government officials together in early December to find ways to lower prescription drugs costs for state employees and eventually all Hoosiers, the Indianapolis Star Tribune said. If no state or federal solution is found by March 1, 2005, Kernan said he would support ways to help Hoosiers reimport drugs from Canada and other countries.
According to the 8/16/04 Boston Herald, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and city officials "shrugged off" a warning in a letter sent by FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard about the safety risks of a program that allows some city employees and retirees to reimport lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada.
In the letter, Hubbard asked Menino to end the "Meds by Mail" program, which began in August. About 14,000 city employees, retirees and their dependents covered under the city health plan qualify for the program. Boston officials have distributed more than 840 applications for the program.
Calgary-based Total Care Pharmacy provides the medications, and Menino has said that the contract between the city and the pharmacy requires safety measures and ensures quality. Hubbard warned that the FDA in the future might ask a judge to issue an injunction against the program but currently seeks to convince Boston officials to end the program voluntarily (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/5).
Since March, Wisconsin has filled 1,663 prescriptions under a state reimportation program. Susan Reinardy, a Wisconsin Department of Public Health and Family Services administrator, said that although in the early stages of the program Total Care shipped three generic medications not approved by FDA, the problem has not continued. "We're very happy with their responsiveness," she added (Boston Herald, 8/6).
Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wisconsin all have websites that connect consumers to Canada drug importation companies. Additionally, the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia have come out in favor of importation (Stateline.org, Sept 14, 2004, "Minnesota gov. leads fight for legal Rx importsì).
Other Actions Against The Bush Drug Gang
Bush and his cronies in the industry are being hit from every angle. According to the 9/6/04 issue of American Medical News, Vermont has now sued the federal government for the right to reimport prescription medications.
The lawsuit alleges that the government wrongly denied Vermont's request to establish a reimportation program. The FDA rejected the request claiming it was worried about drug safety. The lawsuit is the first of its kind.
Gov James Douglas, says, "Vermont will not sit back and watch as the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs continues to rise. Nor are we content to simply ignore the law," Douglas said. "Real leadership means challenging those laws and policies you oppose and working within our systems to change them," notes American Medical.
In the law suit, the Vermont claims the FDA violated the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Officials say the law requires the federal government to create rules that allow wholesalers, pharmacists and state benefit programs to import drugs and calls for the government to give guidance on the circumstances under which the FDA would give waivers allowing importation for personal use.
Vermont claims the Bush administration has done neither and is asking the court to require the government to establish rules and guidelines promptly. "It is our hope and expectation that Vermont's leadership will result in a legal precedent that benefits every Vermonter and every American," Douglas said. "The ultimate goal is to get the best possible market prices at our pharmacies here at home."
On another front, saying Kentucky could save more than $100 million a year in health care costs, state Auditor Crit Luallen called on the state to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, according to the 9/29/04 Currier Journal. If Gov Ernie Fletcher agrees, Kentucky would join other states, including Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont, in seeking federal waivers to allow the importation of drugs from Canada.
Almost two-thirds of Kentuckians want the federal government to make it easier to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries, according to a Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll conducted in May. Kentucky Rep Anne Northup, R-Louisville, is also pushing federal legislation to allow prescription drug sales from Canada.
The battleground has been set between the States and the White House. If Bush and Pharma want to continue the war of blocking ways for Americans to obtain affordable prescription drugs, they had better be ready to do a lot more than harass employees who refuse to turn a blind eye to their corruption.
Rost Vows To Stay The Course
Peter Rost vows to continue his support of importation efforts no matter what Pfizer does or doesnÃt do. In closing, he shared some personal thoughts that would never in a million years lead anyone to think that he is employed in the pharmaceutical industry:
--I don't believe we are put on this earth to make as much money as we can. --I donÃt think weÃre here to rip off the weakest and poorest. --We are here to help each other and make it a better world.
Evelyn Pringle October 2004
When Bush signed the new Medicare bill on December 8, 2003, he called it "the greatest advance in health care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare" in 1965.
No, he did not say this on Saturday Night Live, he said it at the White House.
The bill did more for the pharmaceutical industry than it did for seniors citizens. Drug companies can continue to charge outrageous prices because Republicans refuse to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.
Prescription drug spending is rising faster than any other health care expense. In 2003, total spending by Medicare beneficiaries on prescription drugs was $95 billion and senior citizens account for nearly 34% of all prescriptions sold.
The US is the only industrialized country without some form of price controls on drugs. It also accounts for more than half of the industry's profits. And profits would have to be high because according to recent reports from the top pharmaceutical companies, CEO compensation packages range from $23.9 million to $150.9 million for one year.
Who Is Peter Rost?
Peter Rost is a physician and pharmaceutical industry executive who began advocating for drug importation after he posted a positive review on Amazon.com about the book "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It," written by former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell.
On September 10, 2004, Rost, was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for Professional Journalists, and openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the pharmaceutical industry and politicians to block the importation of cheaper drug from other countries, according to Independent Media TV on 9/16/04
Rost is the first drug-industry executive to dispute publicly the industry and federal government position that importing drugs isn't safe. Rost, citing extensive experience with importing drug in Europe, says it is perfectly safe, according to Knight Ridder on 9/30/04.
For the past 20 years, Rost has been marketing pharmaceuticals and he is currently a Vice President with Pfizer. Rost says that his #1 concern is for the people who can not afford their prescription drugs. He believes that people going without medication is a "bigger safety issue than anything else," Independent reports.
Rost said that "[d]rug companies are testifying that imported drugs are unsafe. Nothing could be further from the truth" (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/24).
Does Importation Work? Springfield MA - A Case Study
According to FACSNET, in 1996, the city of Springfield, Mass, paid $33 million in health care costs. This year, the cost is estimated at $70 million, according to Michael Albano, who was mayor of Springfield from 1996 to January of 2004.
Albano and Peter Rost both spoke on the importation issue at the Sept 10, 2004, FACS seminar at the Society of Professional Journalists convention.
Albano says, "During my eight years as mayor, I watched this health care crisis develop: a 5 percent increase the first year, 10 percent, 15 to 20 percent increases ... It became abundantly apparent that no corporation in America, and cities are corporations, could sustain that type of growth without going bankrupt. As a business, you fold; but as a government, you have to continue to provide services that citizens expect, deserve and demand," Albano said.
Of the $33 million that Springfield paid for health care in 1996, prescription drugs accounted for $8.6 million. This year, out of $70 million in health care costs, prescription drugs will cost about $20 million. (Springfield has about 7,000 employees and 2,000 retirees and dependents. The employee numbers have changed little over the eight-year period.)
"Prices have more than doubled for the same amount of prescription medication," Albano said.
While he was mayor, the situation presented a tough choice: Find a way to reduce health care costs or cut city services.
"I said, That's enough," Albano said. "So I took trip to Windsor, Ontario. I looked at some pharmacies and selected a Canadian provider. And what a surprise: the exact same medications, the exact same name brands - no difference whatsoever - except the price."
"In the first year the city implemented the program, it saved $3 million. This year the city will save about $6.5 million," Albano said. "This is substantial for a city the size of Springfield."
Springfield is now considered a pioneer in the many efforts to legalize drug re-importation from Canada. Rost openly lauded Albano's efforts and successes in bringing affordable prescription drugs to Springfield.
Lawmakers Want Vote On Importation
Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are refusing to allow a quick vote on a bill for drug importation, even though many rank-and-file Republicans in Congress and most Democrats back the idea, says the New York Times on 9/16/04.
Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R- Maine) that would allow Americans to buy drugs from such heavily regulated nations as Canada, where some prescription drugs can cost as much as 50 percent less than in the United States. The bill is designed to provide American consumers with some relief from escalating drug prices.
Dorgan and several other lawmakers held press conferences to rally support for a vote to be taken on the importation bill, which has languished in the Senate for several months.
The House of Representatives has already passed a bill allowing FDA-approved drugs to be imported from Canada and other countries. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has refused to allow a similar bill to come up for a vote in the Senate.
Supporters wrote to Frist urging him to find time before the November elections to schedule a promised vote. Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson and other members of Congress say the law would pass if Frist would bring it to the floor, the Missourian reports.
According to The Hill on 9/14/04, Dorgan spokesman Barry Piatt said reimportation supporters would seek a vote regardless of Frist's position. "It's going to happen," Piatt said, adding that "everything that comes to the floor" is a possible vehicle.
Piatt said DorganÃs reimportation bill has "broad consensus support in the Senate and in the country." A Democratic staffer said the Dorgan bill may have 60 votes, says the Hill.
Democrats said the Food and Drug Administration had no record of any dangers presented by imported drugs. They argued that leading Republicans were using safety as an excuse to protect drug companies that charge more domestically for their products.
Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND), said, "Miracle drugs offer no miracles for people who cannot take them" because of the cost. Rep Marion Berry (D-Ark) said, "Here we are in a global economy, and the United States allows these drug companies to take advantage and rob our own people. That can't continue," in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 9/24.
Now Frists claims, "I don't think we can address it adequately in the next 17 days."
That's despite the fact that members of both parties in Congress support what is being called drug importation and it's extremely popular with the public, which will decide whether to re-elect members of Congress in November, according to the 9/18/04 Enquirer.
In fact, according to the New York Times, Frist now says the Senate likely will not have time to debate the legislation this year, and Frist spokesperson Amy Call added, "Until he sees a way we can do this safely, he won't put the American people in jeopardy" by allowing drug importation, the Times reported on 9/24.
Dorgan claims that Frist made a commitment in March to allow a vote this year, in exchange for Dorgan agreeing not to block the confirmation of Mark McClellan as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dorgan said, "I think he ought to keep that commitment."
I hate to say it but I guess the naive Dorgan is going to have to find out the hard way that a commitment by a Bush-Puppet Republican is meaningless.
Rost Speaks Out - At His Own Peril
Over the past month, Peter Rost has spoken out in favor of the various bills under consideration by Congress and state governments, that would allow the importation of cheaper drugs into the US from other countries.
Rost became the first drug industry executives to speak out in support of reimporting drugs from Canada. At all activities, Rost stressed that he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a Pfizer representative. Nothing could have been made this more clear.
On Sept 23, Rost attended a Washington rally with about 10 lawmakers to support a bill to legalize the sale and use of imported drugs from other countries where drugs are between 30% to 70% cheaper than in the US. He also attended a rally with Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the following day, in attempt to convince Republican senators to allow a vote on the drug reimportation bill.
Drug companies have consistently opposed the move, arguing that US regulators could not guarantee the safety or quality of drugs brought in from other countries. But Rost counters that argument with the fact that European countries have used importation safely for 20 years, and he says drugmakers will "say anything" to prevent cheaper drugs from entering the US market.
Rost warns that, "The industry is making a big political mistake right now to fight reimportation."
"The biggest safety issue is people not taking the drugs they need," he added at at the news conference with Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Reps Dan Burton (R-Ind), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) (Wall Street Journal, 9/22).
"A lot of people cannot afford life-saving drugs. Drug re-importation provides an alternative supply at lower prices for people who cannot afford the full price," Rost said.
Europe has been trading pharmaceuticals for decades with no negative consequences, he explained. "The European union mandates free trade and movement of goods," he said. "Companies specialize in doing nothing but buying drugs cheaply and importing then to northern countries."
"Drugs don't work if you don't take them," he noted. "If you can't afford them, you can't use them."
"Drugs are supposed to improve life and make us healthy," Rost said. "In the US, we have shorter life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than host of other developed countries - Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc. ... I hope speaking out will not only help patients but also wake up the drug companies."
Sen Snowe (R-Maine) added, "If European countries can safety trade prescription drugs, the United States should be up to the task as well," New York Times, 9/24.
According to Rost, "Holding up a vote on importation ... has a high cost not just in money, but in American lives. Every day we delay, Americans die because they cannot afford life-saving drugs." NYT / Sept 24th, 2004
Dr. Alan Sager, a researcher at the Boston University, says the same thing. "It is an abomination that any American continues to suffer pain, disease and premature death for lack of needed medications," he said.
Do Bush or his industry cronies or his Republican allies in Congress care that people are going without their life-saving drugs? Not for a minute.
No Free Speech For Pfizer Employees
So much for free speech if you work for a drug company. Pfizer has recently launched an investigation of RostÃs political activities. Rost has informed Independent Media that Pfizer has started an investigation and the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP in New York will conduct the inquiry.
Rost told Independent, "The Pfizer inquiry came as a surprise to me, since I have always stated that I speak as a private citizen and do not in any way represent Pfizer in my public appearances and also do not comment on Pfizer. I am simply exercising my constitutional right to campaign for a candidate, a bill or an issue on the political agenda."
Depth of Probe
RostÃs attorney, David Green of Morristown, NJ, said Rost was first questioned about his contacts with reporters on Sept. 21. Rost said the Pfizer lawyer asked him to list all of his contacts with the media and noted RostÃs quotes in news articles.
In response to Independent's questions about his Pfizer interview, Rost says, "(I) spent a long and very intense day ... answering detailed questions about all my contacts with the press and my private discussions with Senators and Congressmen. The questioning was so intense that we didn't even break for lunch until 2:30 p.m."
"I have been interrogated about every detail of my contacts with the press; who I have talked to, who I've met with, who else was there, what was said, if the talk was recorded, who called whom, and a line by line review of many articles and quotes," Rost said.
Rost also told the Washington Post, "I was peppered with questions from morning to evening," said Rost. "As a private citizen in a protected political activity, my concern was getting all these questions about my discussions with elected representatives," on 10/1/04.
Rost was questioned about conversations with lawmakers and their staffs. "They were very specific about wanting to know everything I remembered from these conversations," Rost said. "They wanted to know who was there, who said what," the WP reported.
He told Independent Media, "Pfizer has also mapped all my contacts with Senators, Congressmen and their aids. I have been asked whom I met, at what time and where, who else was present, and I've been asked about every detail of my private conversation with Senators and Congressmen," Rost said.
Apparently Pfizer also plans to monitor RostÃs future political activities. He told Independent, "I've also had to answer questions about all my planned future political activity, which Senators, Congressmen and Governors have contacted me, where I will appear to speak, and who is paying for travel."
Rost said he only responded to the questions because he believed his refusal might have been used as grounds to fire him.
Pfizer spokesman, Jack Cox, wouldn't discuss the nature of Rost's daylong interview, but said, "the meeting was professional and entirely consistent with Pfizer's policies regarding respect for employees," according to a 9/30/04 article in Knight Ridder.
The top dogs at Pfizer have shown themselves to be true Republicans. True to form, when they can't defeat the message, attack the messenger. This in depth questioning, is not the first indication that Pfizer was not too happy about Rost's activities.
On 9/28/04, Chuck Hardwick, a Pfizer senior vice president, sent a letter to Dorgan and other members of Congress attacking RostÃs credentials and stating, "Dr. Rost has no qualifications to speak on importation, no responsibilities in this area at Pfizer, no knowledge of the information and analysis Pfizer has provided to the government on this issue, and no substantive grasp of how importation may impact the safety of this nation's drug supply."
Of course it might be a bit embarrassing to have Rost support importing drugs, when Pfizer happens to be the highest-profile company cracking down wholesalers in Canada. It lead the industry effort against drug importation. In fact, CEO McKinnell threatened to blacklist Canadian pharmacies that sell drugs to Americans.
Right To Free Speech OK If Pfizer Says So
From day one, Rost made it clear to Independent that he did not in any way represent Pfizer. He does not believe he can be fired for making statements on his own time, because such activities are protected in New York, where Pfizer is located, and in New Jersey, where Rost resides, by laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on political beliefs.
Rost contends that he is within his rights to speak out irregardless of where he works. "It is important to remember that Pfizer employment matters are governed by New York State Law and New Jersey State Law, among others," he says.
According to the Office of New York State Attorney General, "An employee who is discharged because of his participation, on his own time, in lawful political or recreational activities can bring an action against his employer for damages and equitable relief," quoting relevant laws.
Besides all that, if Rost was backing a candidate that Pfizer was supporting it would be permissible. Rost says Pfizer regularly distributes political literature to its employees.
"I also note that Dr. Hank McKinnell and his direct reports frequently use their positions within Pfizer to compel Pfizer employees to support political causes they believe in," he said. "I regularly receive direct mails and e-mails from Dr. McKinnell suggesting that I make political financial contributions or that I contact my elected representatives on a particular issue."
"I also find posters at work encouraging political activity," he added.
"When you do that as an employer, you also have to accept it if people are politically active about issues that you may not agree on. You can't say it's OK to just support certain things and not others," Rost said.
Lawmakers And Media Come Out To Support Rost
Rep Ann Northrup (R-Ky) said that Hardwick's letter concerning Rost was "insulting," adding that it "regurgitated the same sorts of claims they have made in the past, claims that have been refuted."
In response to the inappropriate tactics being used by Pfizer against Rost, members of Congress wrote a letter to Pfizer, on his behalf, condemning its intimidation of Rost. "If this is true, [Wednesday's] interrogation, during which attorneys demanded details of private conversations with Members of Congress and their staffs, was clearly intended to intimidate Dr. Rost," the letter said.
Rep Sanders, a Vermont independent, is also upset. "I find it an outrage that Pfizer would suggest that because somebody happens to work for Pfizer, that they're not allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to support a particular piece of legislation. ... My guess is those employees of Pfizer who are touting the company line in opposition of drug importation are not being brought before lawyers and cross-examined for hours," he said.
The Associated Press lists the 7 lawmakers who signed the letter as: Bernard Sanders, I-Vt; Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill; Dan Burton, R-Ind; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; Jim Langevin, D-RI; and Marion Berry, D-Ark.
It goes without saying that Independent Media plans to monitor this situation every single day. And at the same time, it goes without saying that Independent Media will be monitored.
Having said that, I'd advise Pfizer to pick its battles more carefully. Does it really want to go up against the press, politicians, Americans and especially senior citizens? It might want to rethink their strategy when attacking Peter Rost.
As Usual With Bush - It's About Money
Lawmakers also went to bat for Rost in Congress. "The issue of safety is a hoax, and when somebody tells you it is not about money, folks, it is about money," said Rep Rahm Emanuel. The Illinois Democrat pointed out on the House floor that Rost disputed his industry's position that importation can't be done safely.
Rost explains that at times, he felt pressured to donate money to specific candidates. "The push from Pfizer to donate part of my Pfizer salary to political causes is very strong," he said. "After I failed to pay $2,000 for a political fundraiser sponsored by Pfizer in 2003, I was contacted by Mr. Hank McKinnell, through a secretary who said she called on his behalf, reminding me to attend."
"I would hope that a company that so closely tracks political activity and donations among its employees and supports employee political activism also will tolerate dissenting individual initiatives that allow our democracy to flourish," Rost said.
Rost's assertions about Pfizer financially supporting politicians were easy enough to verify. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors political contributions, Pfizer and its PACs are the largest contributors among drug companies, forking out $1.15 million in the 2004 cycle, with two-thirds of that amount going to Republicans.
And let's take a look at Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell. He is a Bush Ranger, which means he has raised more than $200,000 for Bush's reelection. Until last year, he served as chairman of the board for Pharma. Pfizer is one of the most profitable companies in the country and it spent $3.7 million on Washington lobbying in 2003.
As of July, 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush has already received $ $844,349 from the Pharmaceutical Industry. This figure already dwarfs his 2000 total of $499,283. [Center for Responsive Politics, July 2004].
I just had an amusing thought. When Bush gets booted out of the White House, who's going to funnel pay-off money to the industry? Or are they about even now?
Industry Pay-Offs
During a recent debate on the issue, Congressman Burton said this is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.
Burton says the new law makes it clear the industry got its money's worth. He says billions of dollars are in it for drug companies in this new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
A 1/15/04 report by Campaign Money Watch, asked "How blatant is the pay-to-play system between the pharmaceutical industry and those in powerful political positions in Washington? Consider this sentence from a letter from then RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson to then Bristol-Meyers CEO Charles Heimbold:
"We must keep the lines of communication open if we want to continue passing legislation that will benefit your industry."
The company and its employees have given over $4 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1999, over 80% to Republicans. Heinbold is no longer CEO of Bristol because he was appointed by Bush to be US Ambassador to Sweden, the reports adds.
The big shots of the industry were also out in full force during the Republican Convention. Among the drug company financed functions were 2 breakfasts, sponsored by Pfizer, for Oregon delegates, a state that has recently sought permission from the federal government to import cheaper drugs from Canada.
What Does Bush Say About Importation?
Just listen to what Bush had to say in return for all that money, to make sure the bills wouldn't be passed. "Before I'll allow that to happen, I'm going to make sure that you're safe," Bush said. "Because all you need to do is get a batch of drugs manufactured elsewhere that sounds like they're legitimate and get sick, and then you're going to be wondering, where were the people, why weren't they doing their jobs of protecting consumer safety?"
He said this with a straight smirk and it gets better.
At a health care forum in Blaine, Minn, Bush said, "Let me talk real quick about a subject I know is on your mind," claiming his administration is studying the issue. "I know it sounds attractive to some, importation of drugs. And it may work. But, sure enough, if we're not careful, drugs manufactured in the Third World over which we have no control could use Canada as a way to get into this state. And then we got a problem, a safety problem," the New York Times reported on 9/16/04.
Is there any issue on which Bush won't try to use the terrorist fear tactics? Never mind that he allows the importation of everything else. "The president would import sneakers from Taiwan, T shirts from Hong Kong and coffee from Colombia," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). "But drugs from Canada, no way! Again, the drug companies win and the seniors lose." Newsday on 9/18/04.
Ya know, somebody ought to tell Bush that while out on the campaign trail, he should really knock of the phony caring act because his words don't match his arrogant personality or his cowboy swagger.
Bush And Drugmakers Cut Off Supplies In One Way Or Another
Several of the world's biggest drug makers are restricting supply to online Canadian pharmacies that ship to the US, leading to delays of several weeks for many customers. In severe cases, some sites have stopped accepting new clients looking for the hardest-to-get medications, according to the 9/15/04 South Bend Tribune.
Rost is upset that companies are cutting off supplies. "It strikes me as immoral to limit trade to Canada under the guise that it is unsafe," he said in a telephone interview.
"The big safety issue is people not taking drugs -- people having heart attacks because they can't afford to stay on cholesterol-lowering medication," he told the Boston Globe on 9/23/04.
But that's not all they are up to. For his part of the bargain, Bush is striking out with the power of the government. "Hundreds of people in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont had their Canadian prescription-drug orders seized and thousands more had their shipments delayed after about 450 packages arriving in Miami from the Bahamas were seized by U.S. Customs in July," USA Today reported on 9/16/04.
"The seizure was the first large-scale effort by U.S. Customs and the Food and Drug Administration to halt prescription shipments from Canadian pharmacies, although individual packages have been halted in the past." USA says.
"We have hundreds of seniors calling our office, saying, 'Where are my prescription drugs?'", says Chris Lisi, spokeswoman for Sen Mark Dayton, D-Minn, who strongly supports allowing importation of lower-cost drugs from Canada. Dayton and Democrat Wisconsin Gov Jim Doyle protested the FDA seizure.
Dayton issued a statement and responded to comments from seniors whose drugs were seized, saying, "Rather than scaring Minnesota seniors and taking their affordable prescription drugs, FDA should focus its resources on working with Congress to create legislation that would facilitate safe and legal drug importation. We should be confiscating only those packages that come from unknown or questionable sources or contain suspicious substances, not medicines sent to America's seniors from reputable Canadian pharmacies" (Miami Herald, 9/15).
According to an article on 9/15/04 by Associated Press, "Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold said in a letter to the agency they have received dozens of complaints from Wisconsin residents that the FDA had intercepted their orders of prescription drugs."
The senators said they were "concerned that the FDA's actions could pose health risks to American consumers" and asked if the FDA plans "to use any other enforcement mechanisms to try to curtail the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada."
Wisconsin Gov Jim Doyle said the seizure shows that the Bush administration has "decided it will do whatever it can to protect drug company profits."
And if you think this is bad, just wait and see what's in store for Americans if Bush is elected to 4 more years when he won't be facing reelection and can drop the phony caring act.
Canada Is Very Insulted
Rost has said that some of Bush's argument about the safety of drugs are greatly exaggerated like the one above. When the FDA Acting Chief Lester Crawford made the outlandish suggestion that terrorists could use imported drugs from Canada to poison Americans, he found it ridiculous.
Rost said, "Drugs from Canada are absolutely, positively safe," he said in a 9/18/04 phone interview with the Winnipeg Free Press. "What has been said (by Internet opponents) about Canadian drugs is, quite frankly, insulting, I would think, if I were a Canadian. Let's get real. It's exactly the same product that the same (pharmaceutical) companies are selling in Canada that they are selling in the U.S."
And indeed Canadians are insulted. At a convention of the Iowa Association of Health Underwriters, Canada's former prime minister defended the safety of his country's prescription-drug system during an appearance in Des Moines, according to the Des Moines Register on 9/16/04.
Jean Chretien, who retired last year, dismissed claims that Canada's drug-inspection system is less effective than the United States'. "Do you think we're crazy in Canada - that we would let people sell unsafe drugs?" he said. "Do you think that as prime minister I would face the Canadian people and say, 'Too bad, you know, but we don't inspect drugs?' . . . I hope you agree with me that we're not that uncivilized," the Register reports.
Of course I agree that Canadians are not crazy or uncivilized. If only the same could be said about the current occupant of our White House.
Bogus Research and Development Excuse
Pfizer questions Rost ability to understand the research and development issue. The industry says importing drugs would hurt profits that are relied upon to pay for research. Pfizer says Rost has ignored his company's extensive research.
I found that funny because I thought Rost sounded fairly knowledgeable on the topic. He seemed to grasp the amount of money involved in research. According to the 9/28/04 Missourian, at news conference, Rost said that of drug giant MerckÃs $22.5 billion in annual sales, it spent $3.2 billion on research and development and $3.3 billion on stock dividends and reported a profit of $6.8 billion. Although Merck would lose money if the legislation passed, he said, drug companies would still be profitable enough to encourage investment in research.
So Rost doesn't know what he's talking about on the subject of importation? Well he sure had me fooled.
Lawmakers Become Willing To Break The Law
Legislatures all over the country are responding to demands from their constituents, with 24 states considering bills to import drugs from Canada or elsewhere. West Virginia, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Vermont and Rhode Island have already enacted laws that take the first steps toward engaging in broad imports of prescription medicines from Canada, although the federal government is challenging the legality of some of the programs, according to the LA Times on 9/30/94.
Many state and local governments are vowing to disregard federal laws. According to the 10/1/04 Bangor Daily News, Maine will challenge the federal DHHS by initiating a program to re-import drugs from Canada, Gov John Baldacci announced: "The state can't wait ... for the federal government to enact reforms that ensure affordable access to medications for all Americans and will instead take action on behalf of Maine citizens."
Indiana Gov Joe Kernan says his state will help hundreds of thousands of public employees save money on prescription drugs next year one way or another, according to the 9/16/04 Washington Times.
Kernan plans to bring healthcare providers, business leaders and government officials together in early December to find ways to lower prescription drugs costs for state employees and eventually all Hoosiers, the Indianapolis Star Tribune said. If no state or federal solution is found by March 1, 2005, Kernan said he would support ways to help Hoosiers reimport drugs from Canada and other countries.
According to the 8/16/04 Boston Herald, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and city officials "shrugged off" a warning in a letter sent by FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard about the safety risks of a program that allows some city employees and retirees to reimport lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada.
In the letter, Hubbard asked Menino to end the "Meds by Mail" program, which began in August. About 14,000 city employees, retirees and their dependents covered under the city health plan qualify for the program. Boston officials have distributed more than 840 applications for the program.
Calgary-based Total Care Pharmacy provides the medications, and Menino has said that the contract between the city and the pharmacy requires safety measures and ensures quality. Hubbard warned that the FDA in the future might ask a judge to issue an injunction against the program but currently seeks to convince Boston officials to end the program voluntarily (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/5).
Since March, Wisconsin has filled 1,663 prescriptions under a state reimportation program. Susan Reinardy, a Wisconsin Department of Public Health and Family Services administrator, said that although in the early stages of the program Total Care shipped three generic medications not approved by FDA, the problem has not continued. "We're very happy with their responsiveness," she added (Boston Herald, 8/6).
Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wisconsin all have websites that connect consumers to Canada drug importation companies. Additionally, the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia have come out in favor of importation (Stateline.org, Sept 14, 2004, "Minnesota gov. leads fight for legal Rx importsì).
Other Actions Against The Bush Drug Gang
Bush and his cronies in the industry are being hit from every angle. According to the 9/6/04 issue of American Medical News, Vermont has now sued the federal government for the right to reimport prescription medications.
The lawsuit alleges that the government wrongly denied Vermont's request to establish a reimportation program. The FDA rejected the request claiming it was worried about drug safety. The lawsuit is the first of its kind.
Gov James Douglas, says, "Vermont will not sit back and watch as the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs continues to rise. Nor are we content to simply ignore the law," Douglas said. "Real leadership means challenging those laws and policies you oppose and working within our systems to change them," notes American Medical.
In the law suit, the Vermont claims the FDA violated the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Officials say the law requires the federal government to create rules that allow wholesalers, pharmacists and state benefit programs to import drugs and calls for the government to give guidance on the circumstances under which the FDA would give waivers allowing importation for personal use.
Vermont claims the Bush administration has done neither and is asking the court to require the government to establish rules and guidelines promptly. "It is our hope and expectation that Vermont's leadership will result in a legal precedent that benefits every Vermonter and every American," Douglas said. "The ultimate goal is to get the best possible market prices at our pharmacies here at home."
On another front, saying Kentucky could save more than $100 million a year in health care costs, state Auditor Crit Luallen called on the state to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, according to the 9/29/04 Currier Journal. If Gov Ernie Fletcher agrees, Kentucky would join other states, including Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont, in seeking federal waivers to allow the importation of drugs from Canada.
Almost two-thirds of Kentuckians want the federal government to make it easier to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries, according to a Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll conducted in May. Kentucky Rep Anne Northup, R-Louisville, is also pushing federal legislation to allow prescription drug sales from Canada.
The battleground has been set between the States and the White House. If Bush and Pharma want to continue the war of blocking ways for Americans to obtain affordable prescription drugs, they had better be ready to do a lot more than harass employees who refuse to turn a blind eye to their corruption.
Rost Vows To Stay The Course
Peter Rost vows to continue his support of importation efforts no matter what Pfizer does or doesnÃt do. In closing, he shared some personal thoughts that would never in a million years lead anyone to think that he is employed in the pharmaceutical industry:
--I don't believe we are put on this earth to make as much money as we can. --I donÃt think weÃre here to rip off the weakest and poorest. --We are here to help each other and make it a better world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)