Comments on: How the White House’s Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy

By: Frank A. Lornitzo

Frank A. Lornitzo — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:48:28 +0000

This is a good discussion. Keeping Obama’s
having said that he loves capitalism let us consider the reality of what that implies. For anything to happen that is a commodity, someone must see a market and also have capital available. Now for “pure capitalism” in the sense of Friedman, lobbyists are also a commodity that leverages legislation which is another commodity. Obama said “He is keeping lobbyists out of the White House” which is probably what he is doing because according to the game, in the Senate is where they belong.
How does this lead to Pharma? Well the most important life saving medicines such as Metropolol for blood pressure I have been getting have already been bargained down to small change by the Insurance companies and by Medicare. To be honest with the situation
they have these huge plants but now such much more is known about “food as medicine” teaching people to use food from plants rather than food made in plants. For upkeep and overhead they have to make their bust by trying out the new experimentals just passed by the FDA and continue to hope the FDA is not yet seen as a commodity.

By: Chicago City Govt Closed Monday - Page 2

Chicago City Govt Closed Monday - Page 2 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:13:48 +0000

[...] Read the story [...]

By: Moe Lane » I wonder whether PhRMA cut those ad checks yet?

Moe Lane » I wonder whether PhRMA cut those ad checks yet? — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:17:10 +0000

[...] Read the story [...]

By: 4genPatF

4genPatF — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:36:58 +0000

The above commentators are carrying on the best debate I have seen so far.
There are both sides to the information Robert Reich presented in his editorial.
It is important that the pharmaceutical companies are aboard but also that they
not be allowed to play like the cat that keeps checking to see if it can get more.
Is there extortion in the sense of an implied threat? Perhaps it is more of a matter of the memory of the role played by the pharmaceutical industry in the Clinton administration. But I am sure that if Obama didn’t make this deal the industry would keep coming back, coming back.

By: C.C.

C.C. — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:55:52 +0000

No, in actuality he’s right – the Bayh-Dole agreements essentially have allowed the pharma industry to outsource a lot of basic R&D to public & private university research departments, and this is only possible because Bayh-Dole allows for exclusive licensing of federally-financed patents to private industry.

Imagine instead if the university patents were non-exclusive and available to all U.S. companies for a smallish licensing fee. Essentially, that would mean that the drugs would be generics from day one – and this would push pharma companies to start spending less money on advertising and more on in-house research aimed at lowering their manufacturing costs, improving synthesis yields, etc.

The concern here is that R&D for manufacturing works best when the researchers are near the manufacturers – but so much pharma manufacturing has been offshored to India etc. that it seems more likely that R&D centers would be set up in India, not the U.S.

In other words, the biotech sector in the U.S. might start to end up in the same shape as other manufacturing sectors – and that would be a further disaster for the U.S. economy.

P.S. AZT was indeed a publicly financed drug that was taken over by a private corporation – for a good history of the overall issue see:

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/05/bayh-dole-and-t.html

“This may seem hard to imagine today, but before Bayh-Dole, there was no such collaboration between those who invented a drug and for-profit companies. Federally-funded research was considered a public good, owned by everybody and nobody. If, say, Doctor A created a breakthrough cancer drug at Harvard, Doctor B at Stanford had free reign to experiment with it as needed to improve it—as did other academics. There were no significant legal hurdles to open, ongoing collaboration and little profit attached to research.”

“Bayh-Dole changed all this, by granting academic researchers who created new medications proprietary rights to their breakthroughs…”

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:39:02 +0000

Your description of the development of Viagra is a far cry different than Wikipedia’s history: “Sildenafil (compound UK-92,480) was synthesized by a group of pharmaceutical chemists working at Pfizer’s Sandwich, Kent, research facility in England.” Wiki’s description of AZT’s development is also far more complex and elaborate than you describe. I see little objection to using publicly-funded research as a stepping stone to better mankind via a commercial product (Big Pharma). If “basic research” were so expensive, as you say, I would think the NIH’s budget would be high on a lot of political radars. It isn’t. Point me to any successful government-manufactured product if you think government could do it better/cheaper. They can’t even distribute a billion dollars without knowing where any of it went (the infamous Clunker Program). I’m no scientist, but I get the sense you’re more interested in punishing Big Drugs, and probably any other for-profit venture that has benefitted so many.

By: jaydee

jaydee — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:25:04 +0000

How exactly is another massive handout to Big Pharma going to “bend the cost curve”?

Talk about completely undermining the basis of your argument for reform.

By: headhunt23

headhunt23 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:13:34 +0000

Jeezes…Bush never extorted an industry in exchange for support on a piece of legislation. He also never turned a blind eye as demonstrators were killed in the streets just because he needed to negotiatw with the regime.

Obama has been more amoral than Bush ever was.

And if the left wasn’t such a bunch of hypocritical sheep you’d understand that.

By: headehunt23

headehunt23 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:09:01 +0000

Why the F— are you blaming the pharma companies?

They are just doing what they need to do to survive in the face of a hostile government.

The blame weighs 98.3% on the people who are using their office and their public trust to force an industry to bend to their will for their political purposes.

You know, we heard so much from the left about GWB’s “gift” to big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D. Now, with a market 3-4x as large, Obama is going to extend the same “gift” in a blatant quid pro quo and we won’t hear a peep from the f—— hypocrites on the left.

(and no, it is not hypocritical to condem Obama for making a deal Bush did because Obama and the Dems slammed that aspect of Medicare Part D ruthlessly, and Obama campaigned on negotiating lower drug policies. Also, Republicans at least pretend to be friends of big business, so a sop to them should be expected).

By: Whoop3400

Whoop3400 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:50:08 +0000

Robert, your camparison to Big Pharma’s tv advertising budget to McCains expenditure on tv advertising shows the enormous sum that Nig Pharma is investing. But let’s be fair. Obama outspent McCain 4:1 on tv advertising. Using this comparison makes Big Pharmas investment look paltry.
What us more telling here is taking a trip down memory lane and watching the people who worked for the health industry and Goldman Sachs pour money into Obamas campaign.
Of all the candidates he was they knew would play ball.
This is payback time to the health industry and Wall street.
Some things don’t change.
Who were the candidates these people did not donate to?
They are the ones who don’t play ball.