General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders takes another swing at big pharma with bill to allow drug imports
Excerpt:
Opening a new front in the war against big pharma, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and a slew of Democratic colleagues introduced a bill Tuesday to allow commercial importation of drugs from Canada.
The appeal is obvious; through cheap imported drugs, the U.S. would be able to take advantage of the government levers and regulation that other countries have used to bring down pharmaceutical prices. It's a far more politically palatable way to attack the problem of soaring drug prices than opening up an even more contentious fight over whether the U.S. government should meddle directly in pricing -- and it has had wide popular and bipartisan support, including from Hillary Clinton and President Trump during the presidential campaign.
A drug importation amendment was previously advanced during the budget resolution vote in the Senate in January. It was rejected, with 13 Democrats voting against the measure. Four of those who voted against the amendment signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.
In an afternoon press conference unveiling the bill, Democratic and independent lawmakers threw down the gauntlet, calling on President Trump -- who has repeatedly said that he will do something to reign in rising drug prices -- to support their effort.
"I want to finally say about our President, who has said a lot of talk about health care, and has recently confessed how 'complicated he thinks it is. He has made promises to the American people about prescription drug prices; he has made promises to the American people, and now it's time for him to put up or shut up," said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who joined as a co-sponsor after earlier voting against drug importation when it was an amendment. "Its time for him to join with us, or, in my opinion, to confess his lies to the American people."
The bill was immediately criticized by pharmaceutical industry's trade group, arguing that the policy could cause patient harm if bogus and possibly unsafe drugs make it into the market.
"The bill lacks sufficient safety controls, would exacerbate threats to public health from counterfeit, adulterated or diverted medicines, and increase the burden on law enforcement to prevent unregulated medicines and other dangerous products from harming consumers," said Nicole Longo, a spokeswoman for PhRMA, the trade group for the drug industry. "An importation scheme would open new avenues for unscrupulous organizations and individuals to take advantage of American patients."
Partnership for Safe Medicines, a coalition that includes PhRMA and many public health groups, said in a letter that the proposal would "undermine nearly two decades of drug safety and policy."
But supporters of the law argue that the specter of patient harm is a boogeyman, trotted out by an industry trying to protect its business model. The bill has safety protections embedded in it, some of which were what convinced Democrats who voted against a previous importation proposal, to sign on in support. For example, it requires exporters to be certified and requires the drugs sold to have been manufactured in facilities inspected by the FDA. The proposed law includes penalties, of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine against people who sell counterfeit or adulterated products.
"There is no argument. The drugs that come into this country must be 100 percent safe, and we will do that. We will not tolerate rogue outfits," Sanders said at the press conference.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/28/bernie-sanders-takes-another-swing-at-big-pharma-with-bill-to-allow-drug-imports
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2017, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Glad it is being planned out in advance.
As I pointed out several times already, according to Open Secrets, 89% of the money Booker received during his last campaign was from individual donors. Since New Jersey has somewhere around 115,000 in the pharmaceutical industry, no doubt some of that money was from persons working in that industry. Of the 11% of his donations that were from PACs, the largest by far was in the category "Lawyers/Law Firms" and "Big Pharma" was not in the top 5.
So, if Booker was really bought off by Big Pharma, his price was really, really cheap.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)This bill is better and there was no reason to rush the flawed amendment through.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)that bill would have been used to kill Obamacare in reconciliation and claim it was done in a bipartisan fashion.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)YEAs ---46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Collins (R-ME)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cruz (R-TX)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Based on WA state's experience with fake drugs imported through online pharmacies purporting to be in Canada.
They voted against the hastily written amendment in the knowledge that Bernie could write a better stand-alone bill. And he did.
From the OP:
dancePop
(54 posts)Just like the ACA. Imagine if the Democrats didn't vote for it 2009 when it was there only chance. How many people wouldn't have healthcare insurance now if a few Democrats decided that it the ACA wasn't good enough at bringing down premiums?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)had voted for it.
Quixote1818
(28,955 posts)It lost by a narrow 52-46 and had all 13 plus Feinstein who didn't vote they would have had 60 votes.
46 + 13 + 1 = 60
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)The Dems who voted for it were free to do so because the nays protected them. They could go on record in favor of lowering drug costs without helping the R's with their bill.
Quixote1818
(28,955 posts)dancePop
(54 posts)Which means the Republicans will kill it somehow.