For nearly two days now the Senate has been debating Sen. Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) amendment, http://c-span.org/pdf/Dorgan_admt120809.pdf, which would give Americans access to prescription drugs from other countries like Canada. The amendment offered has far reaching bi-partisan support, 19 sponsors and co-sponsors, but many on the floor and within the administration are highly critical due to the possibly endangerment to the United States medicine supply as well as being difficult to implement.
In a letter written by Margaret Hamburg, President Barack Obama's FDA commissioner, sent to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) stated that Sen. Dorgan's amendment, "as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. In addition, there were significant safety concerns" (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71307-fda-opposes-senate-drug-importation-amendmen). The same article notes that the Pharmaceutical industry is strongly opposed to the Dorgan Amendment as well, what a shock there as it would mean greater competitive forces thus reducing their bottom line while lowering drug costs to all Americans. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) spent several minutes on the Senate floor to express his concerns about "counterfeit Tamiflu" and other drugs because of how difficult it is to identify them. Sen. Menendez even echoed the concerns of express in the FDA letter.
Sen. Dorgan cited "a report from the Congressional Budget Office saying drug imports would result in savings of $19.4 billion over ten years by prodding manufacturers to lower domestic prices to compete with imported drugs" (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/December/09/Afternoon-Update.aspx). On the surface the amendment makes sense since increase competition, based on economics 101, will drive down costs. Right now drug companies enjoy a protective market in the United States which enables it easier for them recoup research and development costs. The amendment requires importers and exporters to register and submit to random sampling of the drug being sent and on-site inspections of their production facilities. I can see where the inspections could become cumbersome but do we allow that to derail a process that will help lower the cost of prescription drugs?
Well if you are a member of Congress it will depend on who your donors are. Last night HBO re-aired the latest Robin Williams comedy show that was taped, ironically, in Washington D.C. Although I think he had used this joke before, he mentioned that lawmakers should don logos of their donors on their suits much like NASCAR does on their cars and driver suits. Although many laughed, it does make sense. Especially as we go through healthcare reform debate. The Senate will pick back up the debate today on the Dorgan Amendment that if passed would derail any back room deal President Obama and PHARMA ironed out months ago.
Now, if Congress can apply the same logic, being attempting to bring down drug costs through an increase in competition, to the health care reform debate in general we will all benefit. The next step is now for them to increase competition for health care insurance options beyond adding just one option. I called Sen. Klobuchar office yesterday as well to ask why more in the Senate are not applying basic supply/demand to health insurance competition by opening up state borders and removing the anti-trust exemption. It will be interesting today to see how the Dorgan Amendment plays out.
I would be so quick to judge who's in bed with who. look at the historical contributions to the parties: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=h04
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I think you should call out both sides for taking money and historically the Republicans have received far more.
Here's a breakdown of contributions to primary candidates: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/736
That said, I'm not opposed to the amendment.
I am not so worried on who is in bed with you as much as I am with real reform vs perceived reform on health care. The current bills before Congress fall into the later reform as it does not address the core issue that would keep premiums down, force costs savings, and not raise taxes or mortgage the future of America.
ReplyDeleteI just wish that Dorgan and other would apply the same economics to prescription drug supply to health care insurance supply. If they did, we would not have two bills containing a public option; rather we'd see legislation removing the anti-trust exemption, eliminate the pre-existing condition loophole, and open up inter-state commerce of health care insurance.
In order for free market forces to drive down premium prices thus forcing cost saving initiatives within the system and offering affordable options for all Americans that choose to purchase insurance all of the things listed above must take place at the same time.
As for Dorgan's Amendment, it has provided me entertainment to watch those, mainly Dems, in the Senate that are trying to preserve the status quo on prescription drug prices as they claim their own "death panel" assertions. The "death panel" assertions I speak of are the warnings that the Dorgan amendment will open the door for counterfeit, unregulated, and potentially harmful prescription drugs into the "safe" United States prescription drug supply.
The kicker is that some of those that participate in our "safe" drug supply purchase some or all of their ingredients from places, i.e. China, that are unregulated...