Comments on: Why is the drug industry praising Hagan?

By: T. Hill

T. Hill — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:13:10 +0000

Senator Hagan knows the devil is in the details, and she sweats them each and every one. That may not be enough of a knee jerk for the far left or the far right, but I believe she has the best interests of NC in mind as she dutifully keeps crafting away toward a working plan that protects Americans without destroying our economy.

For example: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/hagan_excludes_migrants_from_health_care_bill

It’s just common sense, but that’s the hardest thing to get out of a committee full of politicians.

If you’re going to praise anyone in this debate, Kay Hagan certainly deserves it.

By: gregflynn

gregflynn — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:08:44 +0000

Interesting exchange in 2006 in response to 2005 article by Donald W Light and Joel Lexchin in British Journal of Medicine. Foreign free riders and the high price of US medicines

It is the drug companies that make people think that their huge R&D budgets are devoted to “innovation,” when most of it goes to developing or testing new molecules discovered by others. An example of such claims is found on the PhRMA website: “America's research-based biopharmaceutical companies are committed to continuing and expanding innovative research and developing new and better medicines and treatments.” Such statements create quite a different and misleading impression than can be supported by the facts we cite including our analysis which shows that the pharmaceutical industry devotes a net of about 1.3 cents per dollar of sales to basic research. NIH basic research contributes much more to discovering valuable new drugs than Reilly and Smith indicate, because that research identifies the most promising biological targets. Without them, drug companies are like someone in the dark with a large ring of keys (the millions of molecules in their data banks) but unable to find the keyhole.

By: AdamL

AdamL — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:51:34 +0000

That makes sense. So basically they are trying to suck up to her for support on things like patent protection. And they are probably hoping that she will at least stick to the Senate version of the public option.

By: gregflynn

gregflynn — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:44:10 +0000

It does not specifically use the phrase “public option”. It praises her for action on reform using general language, segues into the coded patient/doctor language and asks people to call to “thank” her.

By: AdamL

AdamL — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:21:28 +0000

Thanks Greg — Does it specifically praise Hagan for supporting the public option?

By: gregflynn

gregflynn — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:18:40 +0000

I don’t have the video but I have seen the ads and captured some stills posted at BlueNC

Ostensibly an ad thanking Hagan for actions on healthcare reform the ad contains the same coded language about doctors and patients that is the nod and wink to signal PhRMA’s opposition to a public option as part of healthcare reform.

From everything I have seen PhRMA likes the Senate proposals only to the extent that they are malleable and can be shaped in PhRMA’s favor. While “praising” Senate moderates they’ll be attacking less pharma-friendly House proposals.

By: AdamL

AdamL — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:50:43 +0000

Thanks for comments — I didn’t realize she was on the 12 years of patent protection amendment. I’m still not sure why that would make drug companies praise her specifically for supporting a public option. Maybe they want the patent protection more than they want to kill the public option.

Good point Lou. It wouldn’t provide real competition b/c it’s not open to everyone. That’s why I would prefer the House plan.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:28:47 +0000

It’s because she co-sponsored an amendment to keep patent protection for biologics at 12 years. It’s the same amendment that Ted Kennedy has been sponsoring for years. You’ve gotta admire Hagan’s ability to get her name on an established amendment like that!

By: Lou Meyers

Lou Meyers — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:16:26 +0000

How can a “public option” that is only available to the uninsured be a true public option? Call it what it is——an option for the uninsured —-or more precisely, a stealth windfall for the health insurance companies.

Those of us that feel we are getting ripped off should be allowed to opt out of our existing plan. This will shore up the public plan and increase it’s chance of success.