LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

Roberts helped preserve drug company advertising

Posted by Joel Mathis
September 21, 2007 at 9:29 a.m.

Advertisement

Here are today's headlines from the Kansas congressional delegation:Sen. Pat Roberts (R)![][1][(Wall Street Journal) Media Industry Helped Drug Firms Fight Ad Restraints:][2] When the Democratic-led Congress started debating a big Food and Drug Administration bill earlier this year, pharmaceutical companies worried that it would sharply restrict one of their most powerful sales-boosting tools -- drug ads. But in the final bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly on Wednesday and the Senate last night, such marketing is largely spared. One major reason: the drug industry found powerful allies among media and advertising firms who were determined to protect one of their biggest and fastest-growing advertising categories. ... The lobby solicited letters from legal scholars and groups across the political spectrum testifying that the moratorium would violate the First Amendment and would likely be struck down by courts. In the Senate, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts fought against the moratorium and won when his amendment was added to the bill. In the House, a subcommittee voted to kill the moratorium by adopting an amendment co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York.Rep. Dennis Moore (D) ![][3][(Government Technology) County Lobbying Effort Stalls 'HAVA II':][4] H.R. 811, the so-called "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act," would make sweeping amendments to the Help America Vote Act. Jurisdictions in 12 states: Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- and statewide in five states: Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina -- would need to eliminate all use of electronic voting equipment that does not print out a paper record of every vote before the presidential election in 2008. ... Reps. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) and Tom Petri (R-Wis.) are rallying members of Congress around an amendment to bar the bill's requirements from taking effect until Congress pays the full tab and certifies that new voting equipment will meet the requirements of the bill. They presented House leaders with a letter on Sept. 4 signed by 21 members of Congress -- most of whom are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and cosponsors of H.R. 811 -- citing "deep concerns" about the cost and feasibility of H.R. 811 in its current form and seeking the opportunity to offer amendments to address its "unfunded mandates and unreasonable deadlines." [1]: http://roberts.senate.gov/Roberts-020405-18060-080-CFFflipped.jpg [2]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119033330771134605.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [3]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/moore.jpg [4]: http://www.govtech.com/gt/146143?topic=117671

Comments

jasonc_22 9 years, 11 months ago

thanks so much, senator- you actually fought to ensure all of your constituents will continue paying more than they should for prescription drugs. Who's senator are you, sir, mine or big pharma's?

0

BigDog 9 years, 11 months ago

jason So let me get this right ..... you believe the government should put restrictions on pharmaceutical companies ability to advertise? If so why?

0

jayhaitch 9 years, 11 months ago

The question is, "Why did they REMOVE the existing restrictions in the first place?"

Your DOCTOR should be the one to tell you what drugs to take. If the ads are ok, why don't they just let us write our own prescriptions?

I actually wrote to Pat Roberts and asked him to vote the other way. Thanks, Pat. Next time I'll vote the other way when your name is on the ballot.

0

BigDog 9 years, 11 months ago

No pharmaceutical does not mean drug ..... it relates to medical treatment ....... tobacco and alcohol do not. Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated but are not pharmaceutical.

pharmaceutical

adjective 1. of or relating to pharmacy or pharmacists; "the pharmaceutical industry"
2. of or relating to drugs used in medical treatment

noun 1. drug or medicine that is prepared or dispensed in pharmacies and used in medical treatment

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

0

jasonc_22 9 years, 11 months ago

Direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals has been largely responsible for the huge spike in costs felt at the drug store- that, and, of course, R&D. So, yes, I believe there should be a blanket ban on such advertising. My doctor needs advertised to...i certainly don't.

0

kshiker 9 years, 11 months ago

Why don't we ban advertising for automobiles? Hasn't that contributed to an extraordinary rise in the cost of new cars in this country? Why not Cheetos or Bud Light too while we are at it?

Perhaps we should place restrictions on all commercial advertising . . . wait a minute, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. That is why Senator Roberts opposed these restrictions, unlike many people who frequent this site, he supports the Constitution.

0

Godot 9 years, 11 months ago

"jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says:

Direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals has been largely responsible for the huge spike in costs felt at the drug store- that, and, of course, R&D. So, yes, I believe there should be a blanket ban on such advertising. My doctor needs advertised to:i certainly don't."

Actually, the reason drugs cost so much and pharmaceutical companies make designer drugs and advertise them like crazy is because of stupid "level the playing field" laws created by a socialist Congress. Thanks to Congress, pharmas have only three years after bringing a new drug to market before the formula for the drug is made available, for free, to their competitors to manufacture and sell as a generic drug.

If pharmaceutical companies had the same patent or copyright protection as every other industry, they would be able to spread the cost of research and development of the new drug over 26 years, and would not need to advertise in order to sell as much volume as possible to make a profit in the first three years. They would also be able to afford to research and manufacture drugs for diseases and disorders that affect fewer people, and that might be used only a few times.

Congress has already done as much as possible to screw up the supply of pharmaceuticals; if they deprive them of their freedom to advertise their product, my guess is the pharmas will just move to another country.

0

Godot 9 years, 11 months ago

Senator Roberts would do all of us a favor if he would sponsor a bill to give pharmaceuticals the same protection over their inventions and intellectual property as other industries have.

0

Godot 9 years, 11 months ago

And Rep. Moore can claim credit for stalling the bill to bring accountability to electronic voting until after the 2008 elections. Good democrat, good boy, blue dog.

0

Pug 9 years, 11 months ago

do people not find it odd that Pat fought for this and that his chief of staff is a former PhRMA executive?

0

mick 9 years, 11 months ago

Big Pharma owns Pat Roberts. He is the one who, last year, killed the proposal to have big Pharma negotiate better prices.

0

Godot 9 years, 11 months ago

I do not understand the thinking of those who support scientific Big Research in Big Education while simultaneously seeking to destroy Big Pharma. Is it that academia sees Big Pharma as a threat because private business is conducting research, as well?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Reply

loading...