Baird calls prescription drug ads a 'scare tactic'
Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:27 AM PDT
By Eric Apalategui and M.L. Madison
Printable version
E-mail this articleCongress will vote next week on a bill that would allow importation of prescription drugs, a move that supporters say could save Americans billions of dollars in prescription drug costs, but opponents say it will put unsafe drugs on the market.
In addition to Bush administration officials, one of the bill's most vocal opponents is The Seniors Coalition. The Virginia-based non-partisan group has mounted a national campaign -- including a large ad in The Daily News -- urging constituents to tell their U.S. representatives to vote against the bill.
"We've had two administrations of health officials saying they can't certify the safety of these (imported) medications," said Chris Butler, a spokesman for the group told The Daily News Tuesday. "As an answer to seniors not being able to afford prescriptions, we're going to lower FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) standards? It's just not acceptable."
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, said the opposition to the measure is mainly coming from the pharmaceutical industry, which he called "an industry that is essentially gouging consumers."
In the United States, consumers pay as much as 1,000 percent more for the same drugs sold in Canada and Europe, according to a legislative summary of the bill. Sponsors estimate that the legislation could save American consumers $635 billion each year.
The House of Representatives will likely vote next week on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn. Baird said he will probably vote for it.
Baird denounced the newspaper ads as "scare ads." He said drug manufacturers are mostly concerned that the bill will decrease profits.
Kristen Michal, previously a health-care advisor for former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton and now director of federal policy and advocacy for the Washington State Hospital Association, said her group hasn't taken a stand on the proposal. But she has.
Michal believes that allowing importation of drugs -- including pharmaceuticals made by American companies but sold for less elsewhere -- would drive down drug costs and increase access for patients.
"We're one of the only countries that doesn't have any form of price control," she said.
Nevertheless, she said, "The law is not going to happen" because President Bush and too many lawmakers will line up against it or dilute it with provisions that render it ineffective.
Dr. Rich Kirkpatrick, an independent Longview physician, said he also is cynical that lawmakers truly will solve the problem of spiraling drug costs. Drug companies have too much money and power, he said.
Kirkpatrick fears that even if the bill gathers enough steam to pass, it will be so watered down that politicians will claim victory but patients will be "hoodwinked" instead of getting better drug prices.
"I just can't imagine that (pharmaceutical companies) would let anything through that is going to hurt them," Kirkpatrick said.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents many major drug companies in the U.S., is opposed to the bill. In 2001, the PhRMA spent $11.3 million lobbying Congress, according to a report by Public Citizen's Congress Watch. Overall, drug companies spent $78.1 million on lobbying efforts in 2001, according to the report.
In an online letter to members, PhRMA president Alan Holmer said the legislation "says, in effect, 'safety doesn't matter.' "
Addressing the profitability issue, the letter states that the legislation "would import foreign government price controls into the U.S., "which would "stifle the much-needed innovations that create new and better medicines."
"What they're very afraid of is the logical question that Americans will ask: Why don't we get that price break?" Baird said.
He said drug safety wouldn't be compromised.
"We're talking about developed nations with high-quality standards in place already," he said, noting that any imported prescriptions would be required to come in tamper-proof packages and would be tested for safety.
Butler, of The Seniors Coalition, countered that extensive safety testing would cancel out any potential savings for consumers.
"There's not going to be any cost-saving if you need to create this Byzantine regime to enforce" safety standards, he said.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories