[Ip-health] Big Pharma lobby profile: $1.2 million/day

[robert weissman]

  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/will-12-million-a-day-convince.ht=
ml



  Will $1.2 Million a Day Convince Congress to Buy Big Pharma's Rx for
  Change?

Published by Michael Bickel on June 25, 2009
Center for Responsive Politics
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/will-12-million-a-day-convince.htm=
l#comments>

The pharmaceutical and health products industry has long been the top
dog on K Street <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=3Di>.
Since 1998, the industry has spent more than $1.6 billion on federal
lobbying. Last year alone, it spent more than $234 million
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=3D2008&lname=3DH04&i=
d=3D>
=97 a sum that translates into roughly $125,000 every hour that Congress
was actually in session. Furthermore, in the first three months of 2009,
it spent more than $66.5 million on these politicking efforts
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=3DH04&year=3Da> =97=
 or
about $1.2 million a day that Congress has been open for business. And
these figures are just a portion of their overall expenditures. They
also spend big on advertising, research, polling and other efforts that
don't get classified as lobbying.

Within this industry, the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DPharmaceutical+Rsrc=
h+%26+Mfrs+of+America&year=3D2008>
(PhRMA) leads the way on lobbying activities, spending more than $20.2
million last year, or $10,750 an hour that Congress was in session. Only
six other companies
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=3D2008&indexType=3Ds> in
all sectors combined spent more on lobbying last year. Three other drug
companies spent more than $10 million on lobbying in 2008: Eli Lilly
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DEli+Lilly+%26+Co&ye=
ar=3D2009>,
Pfizer
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DPfizer+Inc&year=3D2=
009>
and Amgen
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DAmgen+Inc&year=3D20=
09>.
Two-dozen others spent between $1 million and $7 million. (Download a
list of the top 30 pharmaceutical lobbying clients in 2008 here:
*pharma_2008top30.xls
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pharma_2008top30.xls> Note: If you do
use this data, please be sure to credit CRP
<http://www.opensecrets.org/MyOS/credit.php>.)

Time-crunched lawmakers can only hear from so many constituents and
interest groups before deciding on pressing issues. To compete in this
marketplace of ideas and help promote their policy positions,
pharmaceutical companies employ a legion of lobbyists. In 2008 alone,
they employed some 2,322 lobbyists =97 and 1,641 are on their payrolls
through March. That is, 15 percent of all lobbyists perform work on
behalf of pharmaceutical companies.

Moreover, one in five lobbyists employed by the pharmaceutical industry
have morphed from public servant to private lobbyist through
Washington's "revolving door
<http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/index.php>." Thus, not only do
these individuals bring with them strong advocacy skills, but many also
boast thick Rolodexes, filled with connections from previous employment
in the chambers of government itself. Former chiefs of staff,
legislative directors, counsels, aides and even members of Congress
often make compelling cases to government officials with whom they have
relationships. And these relationships can also be crucial in obtaining
a slice of a policymaker's precious time to begin with.

According to CRP's analysis, pharmaceutical and health product companies
currently employ nearly three-dozen actual former members of Congress.
As of March, here is the list of former Senators- and
Congressmen-turned-lobbyists, as well as the companies that have hired them=
.

*Name*

*Hired By*
Bill Archer =09Schering-Plough Corp
Dick Armey =09Medicines Co
James L. Bacchus =09Generic Pharmaceutical Assn
L.A. "Skip" Bafalis =09XStream Systems
Jim Blanchard =09Medicines Co
Henry Bonilla =09Roche Group
John Breaux =09Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
Bill Brewster =09Astellas Pharma USA, Eli Lilly & Co, Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America,
Purdue Pharma
Dale Bumpers =09Sanofi-Aventis
Daniel R. Coats =09Medicines Co
Alfonse M. D'Amato =09Calspan-Univ of Buffalo Research Center
Jim Davis =09Biotechnology Industry Organization
Dennis Deconcini =09American Assn for Health Freedom, Coalition To
Preserve DSHEA, Apollo Advisors, Plasma Protein Therapeutics Assn,
Research Corporation Technologies Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, Sepracor Inc
Bob Dole =09Celgene Corp
Thomas J. Downey =09Cochlear Corp, Herbalife International
Vic Fazio =09Tyco International, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic Inc
Jack M. Fields Jr =09Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough Corp
Bob Franks =09Healthcare Institute of New Jersey
Richard A. Gephardt =09Medicines Co
Ron Klink =09Anzenna Inc
Tom Loeffler =09Patton Medical Devices
Connie Mack =09Sirtex Medical
Raymond J. McGrath =09Cochlear Corp, Herbalife International
Toby Moffett =09CH Boehringer Sohn
Don Nickles =09Nestle USA, Bristol-Myers Squibb
John Edward Porter =09Sanofi-Aventis
Donald W. Riegle Jr =09Steris Corp
Toby Roth =09Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
Gerry Sikorski =09Biotechnology Industry Organization
Charles W. Stenholm =09Healthcare Distribution Management Assn
Steven D. Symms =09American Assn for Health Freedom, Coalition To Preserve
DSHEA, Apollo Advisors, Novartis AG, Plasma Protein Therapeutics Assn,
Research Corporation Technologies Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, Sepracor Inc
Billy Tauzin =09Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
Jim Turner =09Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals Inc
Vin Weber =09AmerisourceBergen Corp
Alan Wheat =09Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Planet Biotechnology


This year the industry is advocating "reform" that doesn't cut too
deeply into its revenues. PhRMA, for one, opposes a federally
administered public health care option. Instead, it is backing the
expansion of private health insurance and increased federal incentives =97
including subsidies =97 for patients to enroll in existing programs like
Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP), with as much emphasis on private health insurance plans as
possible. The drug companies also want to keep intact incentives for
innovation, research and intellectual property right protections, which
some say inhibits access to generic drugs.

"I do not believe that policymakers have yet arrived at a full and
complete diagnosis of what's wrong and what's right with U.S. health
care," John C. Lechleiter, the head of Eli Lilly and Co, declared last
month in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DUS+Chamber+of+Comme=
rce&year=3D2009>.
"I am very concerned that some of the proposed policies =97 the
treatments, to continue my metaphor =97 will have unintended side-effects
that make our situation worse."

In the past, the industry has used its clout
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/time-line-of-big-pharmas-legis.htm=
l>
to position itself for legislative wins that have brought in billions of
dollars. For instance, since President Reagan signed the Hatch-Waxman
Act in 1984, generic drugs have made their way into the pharmaceutical
market with more ease. But pharmaceutical giants regularly fight to
delay competition with generics. In 2002, some U.S. senators sought to
change that, in the face of nearly $130 million in lobbying expenditures
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=3D2002&lname=3DH04&i=
d=3D>
by pharmaceutical and health product companies. Known as the Greater
Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act, the proposal would have
limited drug companies to one 30-month extension of the right to
exclusive sales of brand name drugs if the Food & Drug Administration
approved a competitor's generic drug patent. The Biotechnology Industry
Organization
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=3DBiotechnology+Indus=
try+Organization&year=3D2009>
decried the measure as "a broadside attack on the U.S. patent system."
While the Senate voted 78-21
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D107&session=3D2&vote=3D00201>
to pass the legislation, the House never passed the bill out of committee.

In another example, in the summer of 2003, then-Speaker of the House
Dennis Hastert
<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=3DN00004781&cycle=
=3D2004>
(R-Ill.) sponsored legislation to extend prescription drug coverage to
Medicare patients, under a new feature known as "Medicare Part D." Some
consumer groups and politicians criticized the bill for being too
friendly to pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. Among the
criticisms: It required senior citizens to pay the full amount for drugs
between the initial coverage limit and the amount at which catastrophic
coverage kicks in =97 commonly referred to as the "donut hole." It also
barred the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower
prices.

This legislation originally passed in the House by just one vote,
216-215
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=3D2003&rollnumber=3D332>. And
when it came time to vote on it again after working out differences
between the House version and the Senate version, the vote in the House
was conducted in the wee hours of the morning. Republican leaders even
held open the voting process for a record three hours to garner enough
votes to pass
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=3D2003&rollnumber=3D669> the
measure. President Bush ultimately signed the bill into law in December.

That year, pharmaceutical and health product companies spent more than
$126 million on lobbying
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=3D2003&lname=3DH04&i=
d=3D>.
And during the entire 2004 election cycle, the pharmaceutical
manufacturers contributed nearly $10 million
<http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cycle=3D2004&ind=3DH4300>
to federal candidates, with 70 percent going to Republicans. The top
recipient
<http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=3D2004&ind=3DH4300>=
:
President Bush
<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/summary.php?cid=3DN00008072>, who
received more than half a million dollars.

Later, legislators attempted to pass measures that would allow the
government to negotiate with the drug companies. The Senate rejected
such bills twice
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D109&session=3D1&vote=3D00060>
in 2005
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D109&session=3D1&vote=3D00302>.
By January 2007, the new Democrat-controlled House passed
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll023.xml> such a bill, but the
Senate failed to overcome a cloture motion
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00132>
to move forward with the proposal as scores of companies lobbied
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lookup.php?type=3Di&lname=3DMedicare+Pres=
cription+Drug+Price+Negotiation+Act&goButt2.x=3D0&goButt2.y=3D0&goButt2=3DS=
ubmit>
regarding the plan.

Similarly, in 2007, in the wake of the outrage =97 and litigation =97
following the numerous strokes and heart attacks caused by painkiller
Vioxx, the Senate took up a measure to increase the FDA's regulatory
powers. That year, pharmaceutical and health product companies spent
more than $224 million on lobbying
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=3D2007&lname=3DH04&i=
d=3D>,
and campaign contributions from the industry began to flow more evenly
to both Democrats and Republicans. By the end of the 2008 election
cycle, the sector contributed
<http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=3DH04> $29 million,
with 50 percent going to Republicans =97 down from two-thirds or more in
other recent cycles.

The industry succeeded in removing language from the proposal that would
have increased the FDA's authority to ban TV ads, tightened rules
regarding conflicts of interest and call for the disclosure of all
clinical studies related to a drug's risks. The legislation also
included language that would have eased individuals' abilities to import
prescription drugs from Canada. But before passage, the Senate voted
49-40
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00151>
on a pharmaceutical industry-backed amendment to add more restrictions
to the importation process. After these votes, the bill eventually
passed on a 93-1 vote
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00157>
=97 and was signed by the president later that fall.

The bill's lone dissenting vote in the Senate came from Vermont
independent Bernie Sanders
<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=3DN00000528&cycle=
=3DCareer>.
Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, lamented the triumph of
special interests and told media at the time that he could not vote for
the watered down bill. "A safe drug doesn't mean anything to somebody
who can't afford it," he said. "Big money has significant influence. Big
money gains you access, access gives you the time to influence people."

Pharmaceutical companies have long thwarted legislative attempts to
allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. PhRMA
<http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=3DC00021972&cycle=3D2010=
>
even hired former U.S. ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin
<http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=3D23869> for six
years to lobby the Canadian government against easing rules governing
Americans' importation of Canadian drugs. But after more than a decade,
the industry's influence on this particular issue may be waning.

After Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, House Republicans led
an unsuccessful effort
<http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=3D14696> to continue
enforcement of the ban. By December, President Bush signed a budget bill
<http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=3D16738>that included
a provision disallowing U.S. Customs & Border Protections from
preventing Americans from importing up to three-months worth of Canadian
prescription drugs. Three months later, the Senate passed
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.c=
fm?congress=3D110&session=3D2&vote=3D00084>
a non-binding resolution in support of legalizing such importation.

The Obama administration itself is hoping to overcome the pull of the
powerful industry to enact an overhaul of the health care system that
dramatically reforms it brings down costs and grants affordable coverage
to all Americans.

"Fixing this broken system will be enormously difficult," Obama recently
wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "Our opposition will be fierce, and
they have been down this road before. To prevail, we must once more
build a coast-to-coast operation ready to knock on doors, deploy
volunteers, get out the facts, and show the world how real change
happens in America."

Whatever operation the Obama team crafts will indeed face challenges,
including the persuasive force of $1.2 million a day in lobbying
expenditures.

/CRP Researchers Matthias Jaime and Greg Gasiewski contributed to this
report./