Drug Prices Surge Despite Criticisms On Campaign Trail

[kbv]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120355185318681367-lMyQjAxMDI4MDIzMTUyNTExWj.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MountainPharmD]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120355185318681367-lMyQjAxMDI4MDIzMTUyNTExWj.html

This will continue to be the case until a President has the balls to stand up to the drug company lobby. The only way to solve the issue is to stop giving drug companies an unregulated monopoly on new drugs. There has to be some kind of price control regulation passed.

 

[Priapism321]

Too bad most of the criticism comes from Hillary and Obama, who simultaneously accept the most money [by far] out of all potential nominees (from the start of the campaign) from Pharma.

 

[BMBiology]

Too bad most of the criticism comes from Hillary and Obama, who simultaneously accept the most money [by far] out of all potential nominees (from the start of the campaign) from Pharma.

Not sure about Hillary but you are wrong about Obama. Like Hillary, he has also raised millions but a lot of the money come from small donors (almost 1,000,000 donors) so I don't think it is fair to lump Obama with Hillary. If you are saying he has accepted the most money from Big Pharma, then I think a source is warranted.

 

[Priapism321]

Not sure about Hillary but you are wrong about Obama. Like Hillary, he has also raised millions but a lot of the money come from smaller donors (almost 1,000,000 donors) so I don't think it is fair to lump Obama with Hillary. If you are saying he has accepted the most money from Big Pharma, then I think a source is warranted.

Here you are sir.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04 (more up to date).

You may be right about Obama receiving support from smaller donors, and I am not sure this source's methodologies are sensitive enough to fully account for this; but all of the contributions considered above were from individuals who identified themselves as being associated with Pharma and were greater than $200...

One more piece commenting on this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/06/big-pharma-not-fond-of-mccains-big-mo/

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Politicians are all idiots. What do you expect.

The main impetus behind this is the fact that several blockbusters are going off patent and the pharma pipeline right now is ****ty....from a stockholder/economics standpoint. They gotta earn that cheese somehow.

When the anti-labor, robot-driven Marxist revolution comes around in 40 or so years this won't be a problem anymore. Rather than drugs being unaffordable, they will be cheap....and people in drug discovery will be too lazy to make new ones. Or at least that's what being a child of the 80s born during Reagan's first term has brainwashed me into thinking....

 

[BMBiology]

Here you are sir.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04 (more up to date).

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/06/big-pharma-not-fond-of-mccains-big-mo/

You sited 3 sources with 3 different numbers for Obama ($342,015, $154,710 dated Feb. 6, $261,784 dated Jan 8). Obama raised $36 million in Jan alone so these numbers are rather pale in comparison. In addition, these numbers also include people who not only work for Big Pharma, but also people who work in the healthcare and health product sector. For example, a pharmacist who works for CVS and donated more than $200 is included in the numbers you presented.

 

[Priapism321]

You sited 3 sources with 3 different numbers for Obama ($342,015, $154,710 dated Feb. 6, $261,784 dated Jan 8). Obama raised $36 million in Jan alone so these numbers are rather pale in comparison. In addition, these numbers also include people who not only work for Big Pharma, but also people who work in the healthcare and health product sector. For example, a pharmacist who works for CVS and donated more than $200 is included in the numbers you presented.

They all come from different time points over the previous three months; all have one consistency, Obama at the top of the list relative to almost every other candidate.

I don't think a Pharmacist would be included in these numbers, unless he worked for Pfizer. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products does not include healthcare professionals, which are represented by a unique category, titled "Health Professionals."

 

[WVUPharm2007]

 

[BMBiology]

They all come from different time points over the previous three months; all have one consistency, Obama at the top of the list relative to almost every other candidate.

I don't think a Pharmacist would be included in these numbers, unless he worked for Pfizer. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products does not include healthcare professionals, which are represented by a unique category, titled "Health Professionals."

...but this site you cited does: http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

"Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784"

I let the numbers (ironically your numbers ) to speak for themselves.

 

[Priapism321]

...but this site you cited does: http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

"Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784"

I let the numbers (ironically your numbers ) to speak for themselves.

Well, however Ed from Pharmalot phrased it, he was reporting on the contributions from Pharmaceutical/Health Products according to the link and chart that accompanied the post.

My initial post stated that Hillary AND Obama take more than all other candidates, while also spouting off rhetoric during debates about "taking on the industry." This is the truth; I think it is disheartening and fairly shady.

 

[BMBiology]

My initial post stated that Hillary AND Obama take more than all other candidates. This is the truth.

But poorly supported. You are implying Big Pharma are trying to influence these candiates with their money but you didn't mention the money did not exactly come from Big Pharma but rather, employees of Big Pharma and healthcare professionals - physicians, pharmacists, nurses, just to name a few.

Clinton and Obama have far outraised any republican candidates so it is only understandable that they are on top of list.

 

[Priapism321]

But poorly supported. You are implying Big Pharma are trying to influence these candiates with their money but you didn't mention the money did not exactly come from Big Pharma but rather, employees of Big Pharma and healthcare professionals - physicians, pharmacists, nurses, just to name a few.

Clinton and Obama have far outraised any republican candidates so it is only understandable that they are on top of list.

So employees of big pharma are not representative of the industry and what they support? Once again, the numbers I linked to did not include healthcare professionals, you just loosely interpreted one sentence from one of the blogs reporting.

And, you'd never be able to quantify exactly what the big pharmaceutical manufacturers actually give, just like we could never figure out precisely what they spend on marketing (although we know it's probably at least twice what they spend on research). They probably funnel their campaign contributions through phantom public interest groups making it where the money would never even show up under contributions made by Pharma. Actually, I would expect nothing more from such a pervasive industry.

 

[Priapism321]

Small digression...

 

[BMBiology]

So employees of big pharma are not representative of the industry and what they support? Once again, the numbers I linked to did not include healthcare professionals, you just loosely interpreted one sentence from one of the blogs reporting.

I did not loosely interpret any sentence. The first sentence of the article you cited states, "These are the figures as compiled by OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784." This sentence directly says the money came from pharma AND healthcare sector. So tell me how did i misinterpret this sentence?

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

If an employee for CVS donated money to Clinton or Obama, does that mean this person is trying to influence these candidates on the behalf of CVS? Of course not. That does not make much sense. Many good people donate money to these candidates because they believe in them and want to contribute to the political process, not because they are secretly trying to represent Big Pharma with a mere $500 donation.

 

[Priapism321]

I did not loosely interpret any sentence. The first sentence of the article you cited states, "These are the figures as compiled by OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784." This sentence directly says the money came from pharma AND healthcare sector. So tell me how did i misinterpret this sentence?

Because I told you several posts ago that Pharmalot's source (the people who do the compiling of data) actually distinctly separate the two groups (Pharmaceuticals versus Health Professionals).

 

[acetyl]

Amid weak pipelines for new drugs, "I think drug companies, by and large, are in a survival mode."

What does survival mode mean for a large drug company. I mean Pfizer sells $13 billion from Lipitor alone....their frame of reference has got to different. Does this mean they might have to give up the vacation mansions on the coast of Maine?

 

[BMBiology]

Don't you think you are trying to read too much from this? It seems like you have something against the pharmaceutical industry but I don't follow your logic. Again, just because you work for CVS or Pfizer and you contribute, that does not mean you are representing your employer.

How can these candidates discriminate against a someone because he works for a certain industry? Don't they have the rights to be a part of the political process like everyone?

 

[Priapism321]

Don't you think you are trying to read too much from this? It seems like you have something against the pharmaceutical industry but I don't follow your logic. Again, just because you work for CVS or Pfizer and you contribute, that does not mean you are representing your employer.

How can these candidates discriminate against a someone because he works for a certain industry? Don't they have the rights to be a part of the political process like everyone?

I agree with you to an extent. But when looking closer, the numbers I presented also include contributions from Political Action Committees (Pfizer has one of these, Amgen has one, you get it). However, the numbers seem far too low to be all inclusive; I am trying to figure out where the rest of the money is.

But I still stand by my theory that much of the money contributed by "Big Pharma" is given indirectly, and would fail to show up on the public record.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

I did not loosely interpret any sentence. The first sentence of the article you cited states, "These are the figures as compiled by OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784." This sentence directly says the money came from pharma AND healthcare sector. So tell me how did i misinterpret this sentence?

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

If an employee for CVS donated money to Clinton or Obama, does that mean this person is trying to influence these candidates on the behalf of CVS? Of course not. That does not make much sense. Many good people donate money to these candidates because they believe in them and want to contribute to the political process, not because they are secretly trying to represent Big Pharma with a mere $500 donation.

To be fair, the employee donating 500 dollars to the candidates is representing CVS to a certain extend. After all, whatever is best for your employer is best for you in most cases.

I believe big pharm. has a deep pocket into both canadidates. I mean for anyone to believe otherwise is just kidding themselves. The huge sums of money that they spend on advertising dont exactly all go to free pens or tv ads late at night. It goes to lobbying. . via lobbist or public interest groups. The pharmaceutical industry has a deep history of meddling with politics.

 

[BMBiology]

The pharmaceutical industry has a deep history of meddling with politics.

I agree they do but to say they support Clinton and Obama the most is not well supported and I don't believe it is accurate.

 

[bigdogc]

investors want a return, they pressure the people at the top for making profit, new drugs become insanely expensive, people suffer.

if we take out drug companies and have funded drug-discovery government programs:

people pay more taxes, we hire lots of scientists to come up with new drugs for curing diseases (no viagra, etc), drugs are given to people at cost, people save money 1000s of dollars, we sell our US-government drugs to other countries for a profit.

the only way i see things actually working. drug companies are only going to develop drugs that make them profit, and if cancer drugs ever become unprofitable, we will never improve. See dichloroacetate (DCA)

 

[Avelox]

You think a government bureaucracy can speeden drug discovery vs. the profit driven companies? I don't think so... I mean there are things that need to be done but I don't think handing the job to the govt solely is the right solution.

 

[bananaface]

I did not loosely interpret any sentence. The first sentence of the article you cited states, "These are the figures as compiled by OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784." This sentence directly says the money came from pharma AND healthcare sector. So tell me how did i misinterpret this sentence?

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/

I think the problem is that pharmalot.com misrepresented the data compiled by OpenSecrets. (uh... red flag anyone?) The OpenSecrets data is actually labeled as "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products". The $342,015 in that category includes money donated by individual employees who happen to be employed in that sector. ("The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.") They don't break down the $342,015 into individual vs company contributions, but given that 99% of the donations are from individuals, 0% from political action committees, and 1% from "other", I'm with you in not buying that PhRMA is putting money into the Obama campaign in a direct way, at least not based on this data.

 

[AngelaCL]

I'm pretty sure that Obama is not taking *any* money from PACs. It's all from individuals.

 

[bananaface]

It says $25 on that website.