Democrats

Pharma plots Democratic course

Maureen Martino — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:32:04 -0500

With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, Big Pharma leaders are busy planning how the industry will work with this new wave of politicians. President-elect Obama and other Democrats are looking to overhaul the country's healthcare system, which they say has grown far too costly and leaves over 45 million people uninsured. Democrats aren't pleased with the pharma industry's high drug prices, aggressive marketing and drug safety problems either. But leaders like Schering-Plough CEO Fred Hassan (photo) and Bayer CEO Arthur Higgins (photo) are stressing the need for Pharma to strengthen ties with the Democrats.

"[W]e're working very hard to build bridges...all we're asking for is we have some points to make. You don't have to accept those points, but we just ask you to listen. That's the beginning of a dialogue," noted Higgins. Pharma already laid the groundwork by donating heavily to Democrats during the campaign process.

An expanded healthcare system would benefit drug companies because it would give patients greater access to prescription drugs. On the flip side, however, the government could place pricing pressure on these drugs, which would cut into Big Pharma's bottom line. Industry group PHrMA is already planning a PR campaign touting the benefit of free-market healthcare system.

- read this Pharmalot article

Pharma's pragmatic shift to Democrats

Tracy Staton — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:42:50 -0400

Throughout this election cycle, we've been hearing about pharma's shift toward Democrats. Today, the New York Times takes a closer look at the numbers and the trends behind them. Just listen to this progression of figures: Pharma companies gave the Dems 49 percent of their $20 million in contributions for the 2008 election, compared with 31 percent in 2000 and 2006, 26 percent in 2002 and 34 percent in 2004. That's an increase of 15 percentage points or more.

The three drugmakers who've given the most are Pfizer, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson. Pfizer employees and its PAC forked over 85 percent of their money to Republicans in 2000; most recently, they gave 67 percent to that party in 2006. But in 2008? Dems got 51 percent. J&J forked over at least 61 percent--and as much as 70 percent--to Republicans over the past four elections, but this time Democrats got 59 percent.

Most prominent of the trends is the simple fact that Democrats are likely to pick up more seats in Congress, so the folks in charge of writing legislation will be sitting on that side of the aisle. And no one ever accused drugmakers of not being pragmatic. "They want to be at the table," explained Rep. Pete Stark, a California Democrat who heads up the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.

John McCain's much-quoted demonizing of pharma as the "big bad guys" hasn't helped the Republican cause, either.

- read the NYT story

Pharma continues Democratic shift

Tracy Staton — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:37:25 -0400

Want to know why Big Pharma is trending Democratic in this election cycle? Well, it's not just a feud with Republican nominee John McCain, who's called drugmakers "big bad guys." And it's not only in the presidential contest: down the ballot, House and Senate Republicans are losing out big-time on contributions from the pharma industry. For the first time, we'll add, in six election cycles.

The force behind pharma's leftward shift comes not from ideology but via the market. According to Politico, it's all about growth in federal healthcare programs. These days, pharma revenues aren't free-market sales covered by insurers or paid for in cash. More than half of the U.S. market is now controlled by government.

Understandably, drugmakers would like to protect those programs. And frankly, they'd like more government-funded, stable sources of revenue. They're cozying up to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, which wants more and better healthcare for low-income communities, for instance. And they're giving to pro-business Dems, perhaps hoping that they'll help fight government-negotiated drug pricing and drug importation programs favored by others in their party.

But will the leftward largesse last? If Democrat Barack Obama is elected, and he and a Democratic Congress push through those hated programs, the industry could well move back to its more familiar pals on the right. But if McCain wins? Who knows: So far pharma has supported Obama over McCain two-to-one.

- read the story at Politico

Pharma money on display for Dems

Tracy Staton — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:02:20 -0400

Big Pharma has ponied up big bucks to help finance the Democratic National Convention--and the companies have sent their CEOs to Denver to put their mouths where their money is.

The list of health-oriented sponsors reads like a roll call of drugmakers: Merck, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Mylan, Abbott and Eli Lilly. Five of those companies--Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Amgen and Merck--have put CEO power behind their cash. AstraZeneca and Lilly dispatched their CEOs--David Brennan (photo) and John Lechleiter (photo), respectively--to receptions and luncheons the companies sponsored. Pfizer's Jeff Kindler (photo) and Amgen's Kevin Sharer (photo) participated in a health roundtable. And at a PhRMA-sponsored brunch, Merck CEO Richard Clark (photo) and AstraZeneca's Brennan mingled with the invitation-only crowd.

And tonight, when Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination, Pfizer folks will be on hand in coveted skybox seats reserved for those donors who've given more than $1 million. Let's see who turns up for John McCain's Republican star turn next week.

- read the WSJ Health Blog post
- see the FDA Legislative Watch piece
- get the skybox article from the Dallas Morning News

Big pharma political spending gets results

Christe Bruderlin-Nelson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:28:21 -0400

Is it better to spend another couple hundred million on R&D or use it to make sure you have friends in high places? Ask Big Pharma, which spent a record-breaking chunk of change on political lobbying in 2007, dropping $168 million to help the industry gain influence--and it is paying off. This was a 36 percent increase from the previous year and brings the total cash spent on lobbying by drug and device manufacturers to a whopping billion dollars over the last decade.

Top priorities for lobbying included patent rules, accessing drugs in international free trade agreements, blocking pharmaceutical importation, limiting restrictions on direct-to-consumer ads, extending the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and efforts to expand government funding aimed at insuring low-income children. Some notable payoffs included the removal of some proposed restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising and the passage of two bills aimed at speedier approval processes.

Who were the biggest spenders? According to the Center for Public Integrity, the industry's trade group PhRMA spent $22.7 million, followed by BIO at $7.2 million. The biggest corporate spenders were Amgen ($16.3 million) and Pfizer ($13.8 million). Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, J&J spent between $7.7 billion and $9 billion. Novartis, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squib were the $6-million-dollar players, and Abbott Labs rounded out the top 10, with $4.6 million dedicated to lobbying in 2007.

The Center for Responsive Politics also weighed in, saying the industry has given more money to democrats than republicans for the first time ever for the 2008 elections. Traditionally, Republican-dominated Congresses have been more amenable to the industry. The fact that the Democrats regained Congressional control in 2007 might have influenced the staggering amounts dedicated to lobbying.

- read the Wall Street Journal report
- here's what the Indy Star had to say
- check out the top-10 list at the WSJ blog

Dems still in the pharma-contribution lead

Tracy Staton — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:04:57 -0400

More evidence that pharma is swinging blue--and that Republicans could have a tough time this election year. Drug and medical device companies, who once contributed to the GOP three-to-one over Democrats, have given $7.4 million to Democratic candidates this cycle. That compares with just $7 million for Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "Money follows the power," a spokeswoman said. "And it can predict power."

The discrepancy is most obvious in the presidential race. We've kept you updated on the pharma-funding imbalance in the race so far, and here are the newest figures: $639,124 for Sen. Barack Obama and $574,828 for Sen. Hillary Clinton, compared with $168,300 for Sen. John McCain. To be fair, there's more reason to give in the closely contested race for the Democratic nomination; because McCain has had his nomination sewn up for some time, fundraising has fallen off, but likely will pick back up as the general election approaches.

One beneficiary of the increased spending on Democrats: Rep. Frank Pallone, who represents a district in New Jersey--which, of course, is home to many of pharma's giants. He's taken in $87,124 from drug and device companies this round. "In the past, I got almost nothing, and many of the Democrats got almost nothing," Pallone said.

- see the Associated Press story

Stupak: FDA needs subpoena power

Tracy Staton — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:05:12 -0400

Rep. Bart Stupak (photo) might be a severe FDA critic, but he's also shaping up to be the agency's dearest friend. Chief of the House Energy and Commerce committee's oversight-and-investigations group, Stupak helped push FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to ask for millions more in FDA funding--and now he's suggesting that the FDA needs subpoena power. That's no small thing; it would allow the FDA to demand documents from drugmakers rather than simply ask nicely and say please.

Apparently, Democrats on the committee have been rankled by the FDA's lack of power in that department because they think it has limited the agency's pharma investigations. During a recent hearing, Stupak asked CDER honcho Janet Woodcock and her deputy whether they'd like subpoena power; they agreed it would be "very useful." Now, Stupak has written to von Eschenbach asking his opinion on the potential change. He'd like to add it to a drug importation bill now pending in the House. No word on what the commish plans to say in response.

- read the WSJ Health Blog item

FDA policing researchers enough?

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:59:55 -0400

Not to be outdone by Democrats calling for pharma-related investigations by the Government Accountability Office, two Republican Congressmen are asking the GAO to probe the FDA's methods for disciplining researchers who break drug-trial rules. Rep. Joe Barton and John Shimkus wrote a letter to the government auditor, saying that FDA oversight of trials needs to be reviewed.

Barton alleged in a statement that the FDA "has waited months and sometimes years to take action against doctors who lied about their work" and suggests that the agency should use its authority to disqualify any "liars" from participating in drug studies. The two men also want the GAO to determine whether the FDA does enough to identify researchers "whose practices or conduct may compromise" trial data.

- see the item at Pharmalot

Related Articles:
Are researchers facing FDA crackdown on trial fraud? Report
Report: FDA lax in clinical trial oversight. Report
FDA reviews new rules for clinical trials. Report

Republicans scold Leavitt for stonewalling

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:59:55 -0500

When HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt first refused to give a Congressional committee some requested documents, the Democrats on that committee raised Cain. Now, the Republicans are hopping mad, too. They wrote Leavitt last night, threatening to hold him in contempt for refusing to hand over the info.

At issue is a briefing document that discussed Ketek, the antibiotic whose initial FDA approval is under investigation. "[T]he types of records requested by the subpoena have been provided for years by both Democrat and Republican secretaries," the lawmakers wrote. They also dissed Leavitt's claim of a "chilling effect" should he give up the documents, saying that courts haven't recognized that as an excuse for violating a subpoena.

For his part, Leavitt says he'll negotiate a compromise, perhaps by making FDA staffers available for interviews instead. We'll keep you posted.

- read the item at Pharmalot

Related Articles.
FDA official: Ketek data obviously fake. Report
FDA criticizes Aventis for Ketek study failures. Report
Senator makes dramatic demand in Ketek probe. Report

Dems 'hit nerve' with pharma probes

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:59:54 -0500

It's not personal, it's political. When the Republicans were in charge on Capitol Hill, drugmakers were in favor--or so it appeared to the minority party. "There was the perception that certain industries, including pharmaceuticals, were getting away with a lot," one pharma lobbyist says.

Now that the Dems run Congress, they're turning the tables. The Energy and Commerce Committee has sent out 39 requests for info from drug makers, plus two rounds of subpoenas. And that has drug makers nervous. As another lobbyist told Politico, "Once they start asking for things, you don't know where it will go."

Billy Tauzin, who runs the industry association PhRMA, is taking a "conciliatory tone," saying that his ex-colleagues are acting in the public interest. But other lobbyists contend the Dems are simply acting out of "pent-up hatred ..for the [industry's] long-standing bankrolling of the Republicans." Of course, the Democrats say it's all about substance. "The whole safety net...has been shredded," says Rep. Bart Stupak, who's been at the forefront of several investigations. But he couldn't help boasting a bit, too: "You know you're hitting a nerve when the halls are flooded with their lobbyists."

- read the piece at Politico

Related Articles:
The 2008 Election: What does it mean for drugmakers? Report
Drug makers give big to candidates. Report
Democratic win could be bad news for pharma industry. Report

Medicare boosted 2006 drug spending

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:59:55 -0500

Thank you, Medicare. Prescription drug spending surged in 2006 as the government's benefits for the elderly kicked in, according to a federal study. Some $216 billion was spent on prescriptions in 2006, up 8.5 percent from 2005. And the government footed the bill for more than a third of that, through Medicare, Medicaid, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and local and state hospital subsidies. In 2005, before the Medicare drug benefit took effect, government spending only covered 24 percent of prescription purchases.

Incidentally, the report quashed suspicions that rising drug prices are fueling the steady increase in healthcare costs. It's increased use of expensive drugs that's causing it. Increased drug consumption caused the spending hike, not rising prices, the researchers found. A slight but important difference.

- see the study abstract in Health Affairs
- read the article from the Washington Post

Related Articles:
Critics question Democrats' Part D plans. Report
Insurers tapped for new Part D drug benefit. Report
CMS approves Part D e-prescribing standards. Report

Drug makers give big to candidates

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:59:56 -0400

Drug makers already are forking over the bucks for the 2008 election. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the top 10 health-sector contributors to presidential candidates, Pfizer is the only Big Pharma representative, with more than $75,000 in contributions, more to Democrats than to Republicans, and more to Hilary Clinton than to any other candidate (though, hedging its bets, it's given around $9,000 to Rudy Giuliani).

Big Biotech company Amgen also made the top 10 with around $50,000 in contributions, more to Republicans than to Democrats, and favoring Mitt Romney more than any other candidate. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the health sector overall gave $1.7 million to Clinton, its No. 1 Democrat, and almost $1.4 million to Romney, its No. 1 Republican. Barack Obama toted up about $1.25 million as well.

- read the report from The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.)

Related Article:
Amgen ups lobbying efforts. Report