Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSebastian Jones catches some under-the-radar shenanigans from two house Democrats and a Republican on behalf of Big Pharma:
At a North Carolina town hall yesterday, the President went out of his way to mention a brewing legislative battle on Capitol Hill: the fight over how long to grant drug manufacturers monopolies on a new class of drugs called biologics and when to allow cheaper, generic alternatives.
The current proposed legislation--HR 1427 introduced by Representatives Waxman (D-CA) and Deal (R-GA)-- would grant biologics the same 5-year period of exclusivity traditional pharmaceuticals receive now and would limit a manufacturer's ability to get an extension of that monopoly, requiring, for example, a "significant therapeutic advance."
However, Representatives Eshoo (D-CA), Inslee (D-WA) and Barton (R-TX) are planning to introduce an amendment which tows the brand-name industry line that a 12-year monopoly is needed and waters down the criteria for a given biologic's period of exclusivity to be extended. The practice of getting extensions for small tweaks to the original product--things like shifting the delivery method from a pill to an injection or changing the dosage from twice a day to once a day--has been labeled "evergreening" by consumer groups. This month, the European Union's antitrust regulator said she would begin to monitor the practice closely.
In a copy of the amendment obtained by The Nation, the conditions under which a drug's exclusivity may be renewed are numerous and strikingly vague:
"A change…that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength; or a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency."This essentially grants big drug manufacturers the ability to wait until the 11th hour to make slight adjustments and receive a substantial extension.
These prolonged monopolies, preventing the production of generics and keeping drug prices high in a healthcare system fraught with increasing costs, might explain why the President has expressed concern about the issue.
--Full text of the Eshoo, Inslee and Barton Amendment is below. Also, for more information on the biologics issue, check out this recent editorial from the Post.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
great work...keep the spotlight on...
dems can lose primaries...
Posted by dexter666 at 07/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
Agreed. Keep the spotlight on them.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/30/2009 @ 6:35pm
I think however long writers get for copyright protection....is how long any drug, and any follow-on drugs with minor tweaking, should have!
By the way, I don't really know how long copyrights last.....just being Fair and Balanced w/this opinion!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:35pm
Having said the above, I am pessimistic on Pharma's ability to reap the profits for any length of time....which is why I sold ALL of my big pharma stocks and made a bundle with TEVA, one of the top two generic makers.....those Israelis (and Indians with Ranbaxy Pharma) sure know how to make me-too drugs!
The Chinese are trying but quality contro is a huge issue. A friend of ours, an ex-Pfizer research PhD, is a consultant to Chinese generic makers.
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:39pm
why not just pool resources and make drugs publicly?
oh, that's right.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 7:07pm
We are witnessing the birth of a health care cartel, similar to the banking cartel we know as the Federal Reserve.
Study your history. The Wall Street banks went to great lengths to appear as if they were steadfastly against the creation of the Fed. When indeed, they were behind it all along.
We are witnessing the same ruse from insurance companies and big pharma. They would love nothing more than having their cartel created through and protected by the force of the Federal Government. No more competition, control over the pace of innovation and, the best for last, mandatory customer enrollment.
Get used to the word mandatory.
All brought to you just like the Fed... By the useful idiots on the left.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/30/2009 @ 8:07pm
We are witnessing the birth of a health care cartel,
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/30/2009 @ 8:07pm
haha!
canadians do it better!
(don't worry, karma; just trying to make a point)
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 8:18pm
speaking of big pharma:
President Barack Obama has called the war on drugs "an utter failure." The drug czar he appointed, Seattle police chief R. Gil Kerlikowske, has pledged to "change the conversation on our drug problem" and abandon the "drug war" metaphor.
OBAMA'S 2010 BUDGET, HOWEVER, WOULD ALLOCATE $15.1 BILLION TO FUND THE O.N.D.C.P.--$1 BILLION MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FINAL BUDGET REQUEST.
$1 BILLION MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FINAL BUDGET REQUEST.
$1 BILLION MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FINAL BUDGET REQUEST.
$1 BILLION MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FINAL BUDGET REQUEST.
THE PLAN CALLS FOR AN INCREASE IN EVERY ASPECT OF DRUG-WAR FUNDING EXCEPT DRUG-USE PREVENTION (WHICH DECREASES BY 11 PERCENT),
DRUG-USE PREVENTION (WHICH DECREASES BY 11 PERCENT),
DRUG-USE PREVENTION (WHICH DECREASES BY 11 PERCENT),
DRUG-USE PREVENTION (WHICH DECREASES BY 11 PERCENT),
and again the largest share of resources would go to domestic law enforcement.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/ 07/drug-czars-slideshow200907?slide=8#globalNav
•• speaking of utter failures.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 9:10pm
"This dysfunction has been malignant and spreading for a long time; in the last 8 years it metastasized, so to speak. Now we have either; an impotent president, a corrupt president, a complicit president, a liar of a president or a just plain incompetent president."
http://agonist.org/numerian/20090729/health_care_and_the_profit_motive
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 9:29pm
•• speaking of utter failures.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 9:10pm
What's to bitch about?
An extra Billion for cops is just another `Stimulous'! BHO, and Biden especially, keeps telling us the juicy Pork is keeping police, firefighters, school teachers employed......get with the The One Program!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 11:01pm
Yet another example of the corrupting influence of money on public policy. Pharma spenda more on lobbying than any other industry --- including the financial industry and banks --- and does it ever show.
Posted by sarah_dc at 07/30/2009 @ 11:16pm
Gotta hand it to the Obmanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats, if anyone can successfully STIFLE innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, and the zeal for scientific advancements THEY are the ones that "Can Do" it!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:23pm
happy, rio.........
your "side" is just as bad, if not worse.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 11:40pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 9:10pm
The War on Drugs is over. Its lost. More than $100 billion has been wasted on it. The US imprisons more of its population than any other country on the planet because of it. The people who want the drugs get them anyway and all the money goes to criminals who sell it unregulated and unsafe when it could be taxed and regulated and could help turn our deficit around with additional revenue. The murder rate rose 70% during Prohibition, but went down significantly when it ended to what it was before it began. America's murder rate has doubled since the war on drugs began. It is estimated that nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. We could double our law enforcement resources WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME if drugs were taxed and legalized. Drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prison over-crowding leads to rapists and murderers going free to make room for those imprisoned for non-violent drug-related offenses. Fewer than one out of every four violent felons serves more than four years. Nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Better results would be obtained if you declare a year long "open season" on illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users! Then, all that would be left is to root out the unethical legal dealers and their users who leave a "paper trail" anyone could follow!
You just have to know how to hunt and make a kill shot!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:39am
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:39pm |
"Having said the above, I am pessimistic on Pharma's ability to reap the profits for any length of time"
Oh no,...someone's put a kink in HAPPY'S death-be-gone profits hose (like most drug dealers, he doesn't deal with product himself).
"The Chinese are trying but quality contro is a huge issue. A friend of ours, an ex-Pfizer research PhD, is a consultant to Chinese generic makers."
And now we know why they're so HAPPY to tout tort reform; watch your step as you're getting off, kids.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/31/2009 @ 06:41am
You just have to know how to hunt and make a kill shot! Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:39am |
And then, ya gotta find a bell-tower!
Posted by snowball777 at 07/31/2009 @ 06:47am
If Congress wishes to extend the time of the patent or claims to products, then in fairness to the American patients, Congress should also propose a bill to allow Americans to purchase their medications from other countries and cheaper sources.
Our government has allowed unsafe products to be shipped into this country which in turn put the American consumer at risk. Why should medications be any different?
If cheaper labor can make cheaper products, then cheaper labor can make cheaper drugs too, right? Why does the government allow these monopolies to exist in the health care industry?
As it stands, we are paying more for our pharmaceuticals in this country than pretty much anywhere else in the world. This is just one more example of the hypocritical right wing zealots preaching about free markets, bitching about import tariffs while at the same time staving off competition in the healthcare industry. The GOP is synonymous the following: Pseudologia fantastica, mythomania, or pathological lying.
When the facts don't fit their tales, they make them up and attempt scare tactics to frighten their cowardly base into submission.....and that includes many "bluedog democrats".
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/31/2009 @ 08:13am
Wolfgang - you've got that right!
It's hard to stomach all these blue dog dems claiming they need to cut costs from the health reform plan out of one side of their mouths, and then out of the other side they team up with republicans to vote for a big pharma/biotech giveaway on the other. Frustrating. Disgusting. Hypocritical.
And American consumers, taxpayers, businesses (who pay for health care for many) and even the federal and state govts (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP) will keep paying for the most expensive drugs in the world.
And before someone says - oh but pharma needs that money b/c it costs alot to develop/make drugs - hear this:
It does cost a lot to develop drugs. But it is well documented by many independent, non-industry funded studies that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the prices pharma charges for drugs and their research costs. Industry spends 3 times or more on MARKETING drugs then they do on R&D. Plus, pharma and biotech are one of the top 3 most profitable industries as a whole every damn year (see the stats on Forbes' lists if you don't believe me). So pharma could just cut their MARKETING budgets a little and not their R&D budgets, to get prices down. And they'd still be VERY profitable. (see Harvard Dr. Marcia Angell's research, among studies by many others)
Pharma's price gouging of Americans must stop.
Luckily, we can try to fix the entire biogenerics mess in the senate (though it will be tough) and then when the bills conference at the end, assuming both house and senate end up passing health care reform at all.
Posted by sarah_dc at 07/31/2009 @ 09:47am
Wolfgang - you've got that right!
It's hard to stomach all these blue dog dems claiming they need to cut costs from the health reform plan out of one side of their mouths, and then out of the other side they team up with republicans to vote for a big pharma/biotech giveaway on the other. Frustrating. Disgusting. Hypocritical.
And American consumers, taxpayers, businesses (who pay for health care for many) and even the federal and state govts (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP) will keep paying for the most expensive drugs in the world.
And before someone says - oh but pharma needs that money b/c it costs alot to develop/make drugs - hear this:
It does cost a lot to develop drugs. But it is well documented by many independent, non-industry funded studies that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the prices pharma charges for drugs and their research costs. Industry spends 3 times or more on MARKETING drugs then they do on R&D. Plus, pharma and biotech are one of the top 3 most profitable industries as a whole every damn year (see the stats on Forbes' lists if you don't believe me). So pharma could just cut their MARKETING budgets a little and not their R&D budgets, to get prices down. And they'd still be VERY profitable. (see Harvard Dr. Marcia Angell's research, among studies by many others)
Pharma's price gouging of Americans must stop.
Luckily, we can try to fix the entire biogenerics mess in the senate (though it will be tough) and then when the bills conference at the end, assuming both house and senate end up passing health care reform at all.
Posted by sarah_dc at 07/31/2009 @ 09:47am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm
the drug "war" was lost before it was ever started.
cats use catnip.
goats like rotten apples.
humans like peyote.
etc.
pot is hard to tax; anybody can grow it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/31/2009 @ 11:32am
You just have to know how to hunt and make a kill shot!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:39am
what the hell is that?
you gonna kill cindy mccain, too? after all, she is a drug dealer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/31/2009 @ 11:34am
RIO just declared open season on...
Rush Limbaugh!??!??!?!!?
"Better results would be obtained if you declare a year long "open season" on illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users! ....You just have to know how to hunt and make a kill shot!"----Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:39am
Oh, I gotta save that!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 11:53am
SOUTH CAROLINA - A stunning new poll by William K. Wolfrum & Associates shows that nearly 80 percent of all Americans would stop breathing right now if a major corporation gave that order.
The poll - which was based on looking into how Americans will gladly vote against their own self interests - made several other discoveries, including:
•78 percent of Americans would rather die a terrible death that leaves their families bankrupt than have the elite pay higher taxes for government health care.
•67 percent of Americans would saw off their left foot to have a Wal-Mart built next door to them;
•62 percent of Americans would shoot themselves in the head if it meant the richest Americans would receive a tax break, and;
•59 percent of Americans would rather see tax money given to banks, or used to kill Middle Easterners than have the same money used on health care in the U.S.
Noted sociologist Tim Johnson of Tupelo, Miss., said that the poll is in line with how many Americans feel.
"In the U.S., it's all about striving to be rich," said Johnson. "And if you fail, you're out. So better let the successful amongst us thrive than worry about the vast majority of Americans, who are abject failures at getting rich."
Republicans were quick to jump on the poll numbers.
"Americans are selfless people. So selfless, they'll always vote against their own interests," said Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. "At the GOP, we're aware of that and confident it will again lead us to power. The people have spoken, and they've told us they don't want to be heard anymore. We can do that."
More than 1,000 people took the poll, though many refused to accept the free pencils given out to fill out the poll, claiming it was a "socialist act." http://tinyurl.com/nn6xzf
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 11:57am
Make sure that the 57 progressives stand firm in their opposition to any legislation that comes out of the conference process that does not contain a strong, robust public option.
It's going to be a huge battle for the progressives in August to stick to that letter they signed, let alone the Pledge that we have some of them on. Our phone calls, in-district visits, and e-mails are going to be a main part of this effort to keep the spines of our progressives in Congress from collapsing under the huge PR onslaught.
Also, during the August recess is when deals will be struck to reconcile the three different versions of the House Tri-Committee bill, and we'll be paying attention to make sure that the Blue Dog compromises aren't in the final bill version slated for full floor passage.
http://tinyurl.com/kp6sy5
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:01pm
The GOP's new "Empower Patients First Act," sponsored by Republican House Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, is a $700 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry and its introduction creates a huge opening for the White House and congressional Democrats in the health reform debate. It has three main elements:
1.Health insurance deregulation, dismantling state-level consumer protections and allowing insurance giants to sell their plans nationwide without fear of oversight. (Edit, 9:41AM: The problem here is that the GOP plan creates an unregulated national market, unlike the Democratic proposal for a national insurance exchange, which would create a national market, but with consumer protections.)
2.Subsidizing private health insurance, for lower-income individuals and families. This sounds good at first, but subsidies in the absence of other reforms will simply increase the cost of health insurance for everybody else, leading to another inflationary spiral in health care.
3.No comprehensive plan to pay for plan. In order to fund subsidies, the bill calls for a 1% annual cut in Federal discretionary spending each year for the next decade, yielding about $120 billion. Although this would result in major across-the-board cuts in federal spending, it still leaves nearly $600 billion unfunded.
The Republican health bill would be a disaster for ordinary Americans, but it's the health insurance industry's dream. It slashes consumer-protection regulations, it increases health care costs by subsidizing private insurance while simultaneously deregulating it, and it would create another explosion of federal debt.
http://tinyurl.com/myznsp
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:08pm
Republican Health Bill Would Jeopardize Coverage for Many, While Failing To Reduce the Number of Uninsured Significantly
•From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, evaluating a GOP health care alternative:
The Patients' Choice Act, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), would likely fail to make major progress in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. It also would make affordable, comprehensive coverage less available for many who currently have coverage.
http://tinyurl.com/mk6y22
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:26pm
•The interesting thing about health care opposition groups is how willing they are to lie. Why anyone therefore treats them as a credible source, only the media can explain:
One of the several emerging misleading arguments against health insurance reform is that the reform legislation will allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Now, the Family Research Council has released an ad that implies that Planned Parenthood's funding of reproductive services will somehow prevent another individual from undergoing surgery
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200907290002
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:28pm
Rockefeller Rebelling?
Sen. Jay Rockefeller has made no bones about letting Max Baucus and the world know that he's unhappy that he and all but five of the other members of the Finance Committee have been shut out of the process of negotiating what is supposed to be the committee's healthcare reform bill. Earlier in the week, he blasted Baucus's proposal in the New York Times because the bill, unbelievably, would do away with SCHIP.
Last night on the Ed Show, Rockefeller took on another bad aspect of the proposal, the substitution of a strong public option with Kent Conrad's goofy co-op idea.
SCHULTZ: ...Would you sign onto a co-op? Or is that unacceptable?
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: That`s unacceptable, and I can almost prove it.
We`ve been in touch with the folks that oversee all the -- represent all the co-ops in the country on all subjects, and they point out that there are probably less than 20 health co-ops in the country. There are only two that really work that well, one in Puget Sound, one in Minnesota.
Except for those two, they`re all unlicensed. All present health co-ops are unlicensed, they`re unregulated, nobody knows anything about them, nobody has any control over them. And nobody`s ever, they said, which is a stunning thing to me, no government organization or private organization has ever done a study on what effect they might have in terms of bringing down insurance prices.
SCHULTZ: Well, Senator, they`re talking about, if I have this correctly, putting $6 billion in start-up money.
ROCKEFELLER: Well, that ought to tell you something. In other words, put $6 billion out on the table in 50 states, and then hope that somebody comes in and picks it up to start it. http://tinyurl.com/m4y2f9
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:41pm
It's been a fundraising frenzy for the Blue Dogs
No wonder Blue Dog Rep. Herseth Sandlin was so ecstatic when the Blue Dogs delayed passage of health insurance reform. The delay bought the Blue Dogs another couple months of obscene fundraising. The Blue Dogs have been sucking up money from the industries impacted by the legislation: The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.
At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.
A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.
Is anyone surprised? http://tinyurl.com/np7z39
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:47pm
Oh, I gotta save that!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
Question is how is making a total fool of yourself a professional choice for you mAsK?
Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 1:01pm
BREAKING: Sounds Like Waxman Closed the Deal Via Politico:
"Liberal and conservative Demorats on the House Energy and Commerce panel struck a late-night deal Friday that will allow the to move a sweeping health care bill out of the committee...
The Blue Dog Democrats, the linchpin in the House health care debate, have agreed to find billions in additional cuts that will allow their liberal colleagues to restore $50 billion to $65 billion in subsidies set aside to help middle-income families purchase health care. ...
Moderates and liberals on the committee will offer a package during committee consideration that will make changes the Blue Dogs secured in a deal with Waxman earlier this week. The amendment will also include a liberal priority: reducing the premiums on households making between $77,000 to $88,000 to pay for required insurance coverage. Waxman did not give details about the additional cuts. ...
The Blue Dogs preserved one of their main objectives: de-coupling the so-called public plans from Medicare, giving health care providers the right to negotiate payments with the government."
For which they should be ashamed. http://tinyurl.com/lvplns
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 1:05pm
Is GOP using race to block Obama agenda? Ya think?
"There has to be a reason that the US, of all the industrialized nations, the richest country in the world, is so hostile to social welfare programs... one of the fundamental reasons America is so resistant to programs that provide for the common good is that there is a long tradition of rejecting any proposal that taxes white people to pay for programs that benefit non-whites.
...the GOP was using race to block Obama's agenda... that's fairly obvious. When you have the fatuous gasbag leadership all calling Obama a reverse racist (the new black in conservative circles) and even questioning his American identity, it's pretty clear that they are yanking the racist American id pretty hard.
But it really goes to their essential philosophy which says that the government is taking away "what's yours" and giving it to the undeserving (blacks and browns.) The fact that Obama himself is black only adds to the atmospherics, it doesn't create them. This tribalism is so deeply entrenched in American culture that its racial nature has long since been disguised in less obvious terms such as "liberalism." Obama's race simply makes it impossible for the hard core wingnuts to hide their real intent. (And they are in such deep trouble that they can't afford to be subtle anymore.)
...when Matthews and other wealthy people obsess over race in the broader sense, and encourage this nonsense about reverse discrimination out of some absurd self-identification as a white working class dude, they do the work of the ruling class as well by reinforcing the All American racial divide --- and its resultant antipathy toward any kind of social welfare....It's a scam. http://tinyurl.com/n2oqfr
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 1:19pm
BREAKING: MORE ON HOUSE HEALTHCARE DEAL
"WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are taking steps to limit annual price increases for insurance policies sold under a sweeping bill to extend health care to nearly all the 50 million uninsured Americans, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The legislation taking shape in the Energy and Commerce Committee also would permit the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on drugs under Medicare, the officials said.
These provisions are part of a series of trade-offs negotiated overnight as Democratic leaders struggled to push the health care bill through the committee, the third of three panels to debate the health care issue. The committee was the final obstacle on the way to the House floor and passage would give momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to discuss private discussions.
On Friday, Democrats on the committee moved methodically through the complex legislation.
"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives negotiated late into the night Thursday to reach a deal that would restore some subsidies to help low-to-middle income people pay their health insurance premiums, would preserve a strong public insurance option, and would cut drug costs more deeply, lawmakers said."
http://tinyurl.com/mjdqt8
Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 1:01pm
You said it, RIO....don't want to stand by it?
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:53pm
I think however long writers get for copyright protection....is how long any drug, and any follow-on drugs with minor tweaking, should have!
By the way, I don't really know how long copyrights last.....just being Fair and Balanced w/this opinion!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--yeah, patents and copyrights have the same effect on society. educate yourself on the policies on why they aren't the same thing and you'll understand the difference in how long they last.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/31/2009 @ 2:24pm
I think that saying how much protection writers get for copyright is what drug makers should get in data exclusivity is misguided and wrong.
First of all, there is a public interest in not allowing ANY protection or patents for products that save lives. MANY countries, including the US didn't even give drugmakers patents until relatively recently (the 60s, 70s or 80s) because of this. And pharma lobbied for a change.
Moreover, what this article talks about is an ADDITIONAL monopoly -- called data exclusivity or a marketing monopoly. This is ADDITIONAL to the 20 year patents all inventors get (drugmakers or otherwise). Data exclusivity - a marketing monopoly - is something drug makers can get when the FDA approves the drug for sale. This is later in the process than the patents. Again, it is additional. Traditional drugs get 5 or 3 years data exclusivity under the 25 year old Hatch-Waxman Act. Pharma is getting 12 years for these biotech drugs if today's amendment passes, which it looks like it will.
And what this article really focuses on is the language in this bill that will allow the 12 year period to be renewed an unlimited # of times if you make tiny, cheap and easy changes to the drugs just before the original period expires, EVEN if they aren't important changes therapeutically.
We are talking about NEAR perpetual monopolies for many drugs. This means NO COMPETITION and no price cuts. This means the consumer gets price gouged forever. This is NOT a free market. But conservative dems and republicans like protected markets for big businesses like pharma. Shame on them.
Posted by sarah_dc at 07/31/2009 @ 3:04pm
It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 07/31/2009 @ 4:45pm
Posted by reg373 at 07/31/2009 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are so funny, even the Obamanation that makes desolation was lieing when he said 47 million since he forgot to take out the 9 million illegal aliens or anyone refusing to pay for health insurance making over $75,000. or more. But, he likes high numbers to help sell socialized medicine to create unimagenable deficits for decades!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 7:55pm
Yes, there goes Jay Inslee again, serving corporate interests. The man is a disgrace.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/01/2009 @ 10:38am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 9:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Kerlikowske is another great, big disgrace. The man was a ridiculous police chief. Here in Seattle, he was widely seen as a politician who mainly used Seattle PD as a stepping stone to higher places, and his tenure saw:
* Repeated obstruction of investigations into dirty and illegal police activity in SPD,
* A rise in police violence,
* Rising violent crime rates in the city, gang-related and otherwise, which SPD has not responded to.
It's a shame that he moved up, but many people in Seattle are glad he's gone.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/01/2009 @ 10:42am
Good sluething. Keep up the raking.
Posted by marcusaurelius at 08/01/2009 @ 6:15pm
Those reps are just doing the job they're paid to do.
Tip o' the hat to The Nation for doing its job too.
Posted by Citizen54 at 08/01/2009 @ 6:35pm
BigPasture is the reason God invented the Ignore button.
Posted by Citizen54 at 08/02/2009 @ 11:31am
SINGLE PAYER (ALREADY) WORKS IN USA
"Half the elderly in America had no health insurance when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965. One third lived in poverty. Medicare helped alleviate both those problems.
Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security -- but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began...
Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare's cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare's cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per-capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.
So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn't have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?
Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance "cooperative" that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate."
http://tinyurl.com/lrxakv
Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 1:13pm
Funny how people still seem to think that Republicans won't be so beholden to drug companies. Sure there are Democrats with their hands in the pot, but Republicans are the worst of two evils because they dupe the people with demagoguery. Neither party will change until the people stand up to both parties. And no, that does not mean supporting hokey characters like Sarah Palin. That means thinking about this country outside of the box, and not just repeating tag lines from the mainstream media. None of this should be surprising, because even when most Americans think they are "questioning" elite opinion or "voicing" their opinions, really they are just repeating the same platitudes told to them by their respective parties. And no, I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I choose to think.
Posted by Jetfly83 at 08/03/2009 @ 08:38am