[Ip-health] NYT Letters re Biotech Drug Industry, Health Care & Congress

[Sarah Rimmington]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/l29drugs.html?ref=3Dopinion
The New York Times
Sunday November 29, 2009
Letters
The Drug Industry, Health Care and Congress

To the Editor:

Re =93Puppets in Congress=94 (editorial, Nov. 17):

You find it =93disturbing=94 that several Congressional representatives
entered comments into the Congressional Record that were favorable to
positions of the biotechnology company Genentech, and that some of these
comments appeared to be taken verbatim from Genentech=92s own talking point=
s.

It is not clear why this should be objectionable as, in our democratic
system, every person or organization has the right to express concerns
to Congress and to educate legislators regarding these areas of concern.
If a legislator agrees with these positions, the fact that some
sentences may be entered verbatim seems a trivial consideration.

As you admit, this material sought not to change the contents of the
health care reform bill, but rather to highlight areas where there was
bipartisan support for the biotechnology industry. You say a provision
in the bill for 12 years of exclusivity for biotech drugs is =93a generous
period by anyone=92s standards.=94

As a physician and founder of a small biotechnology company, I have
worked with my colleagues for almost 14 years to develop an innovative
drug to help treat people with multiple sclerosis, at a cost of hundreds
of millions of investor dollars and substantial risk. By this standard,
12 years of exclusivity is a minimum period in which to recoup
investment costs and generate new investment dollars to develop the next
generation of medical therapies.

Ron Cohen
Hawthorne, N.Y., Nov. 17, 2009

The writer is president and chief executive of Acorda Therapeutics.

=95

To the Editor:

The fact that statements ghostwritten for lawmakers by drug company
lobbyists were not aimed at changing the contents of the House health
care bill should provide no comfort to the public.

The pharmaceutical industry had already gotten the additional
protections it wanted for biologic drugs added to the legislation months
before the vote. It grants brand-name biologics a 12-year marketing
monopoly, more than double what conventional drugs receive, even though
the industry=92s own numbers show that they cost about the same to develop.

Even worse, the bill also includes a loophole that would allow companies
to make minor modifications to the drugs just before the protection
period ends and receive a new monopoly. This could block price-lowering
generic competition indefinitely.

The Obama administration, a bipartisan group in Congress, the Federal
Trade Commission and most consumer groups opposed extended monopolies
for biologics. This raises the question of why they are in the bill.
Could it have to do with the more than $110 million pharmaceutical
companies spent lobbying Congress so far this year?

Sarah Rimmington
Washington, Nov. 18, 2009

The writer is an attorney with the Access to Medicines Project of
Essential Action.

=95

To the Editor:

Why should we be surprised or outraged that the drug companies and their
lobbyists were able to put their statements in the Congressional Record?
Aren=92t these the same people who helped write the legislation for
Medicare Part D that prohibited the government from negotiating better
drug prices?

Maybe we should elect the lobbyists directly to Congress and skip the
charade.

Stuart Davis
Merrick, N.Y., Nov. 17, 2009




--
Sarah Rimmington
Attorney
Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
Washington, DC
Tel: +1 (202) 387-8030
Cell: +1 (202) 422-2687
www.essentialaction.org/access/

Follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/sarahrimmington