[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4412-S4413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ASTHMA INHALERS
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, today, as you may be aware, is
Asthma Awareness Day. I rise to discuss the issue of CFC-propelled
asthma inhalers.
CFC-propelled inhalers are a necessary tool for proper management of
asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Over 30 million Americans
depend on these inhalers in order to function normally in their daily
lives. In many cases, they are literally the difference between life
and death.
I recently joined my colleague, Senator DeWine, in introducing S.
2026, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. This bill is a revised version
of legislation that I introduced last year in response to the Food and
Drug Administration's announcement of its plans to issue a rule that
will phase out the production of CFC-propelled inhalers.
The FDA's announcement to phase-out metered-dose inhalers was
prompted by the Montreal Protocol agreement to eliminate ozone
depleting chemicals, including CFCs. In the U.S., the manufacture of
CFCs was discontinued in January of 1996. CFCs may still be used,
however, as long as their use qualifies as an ``essential use.''
Currently, inhalers are considered as ``essential use'' and are exempt
from the CFC ban.
As the United States contemplates total elimination of CFCs and
removal of the essential use designation for inhalers, we face several
issues.
First of all, how fast should we phase out CFC inhalers and will
patients' health be jeopardized? It is my understanding that the amount
of CFCs released by metered-dose inhalers accounts for less than 1.5
percent of the total amount emitted into the atmosphere. Is the
environmental benefit of phasing out inhalers without taking into
account the full needs of patients worth placing lives in danger?
As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and
the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I support the goal of
ridding our environment of ozone depleting chemicals.
However, from a patient perspective, any transition to CFC-free
alternatives that does not take into account the needs of all patients
will do more harm than good.
Under the FDA's initial proposal, a whole class of inhalers could be
removed from the market if only three alternatives exist. The method by
which the FDA has grouped inhaler medications into classes assumes that
they are medically and therapeutically equivalent. I suggest to my
colleagues this is FALSE.
Inhalers vary in terms of formulation, dosage strength, delivery of
medication, and their effectiveness for patients. Patients frequently
test several inhalers under physician supervision before they find the
inhaler that works best for them. To deny patients their inhaler
without a suitable range of alternatives could potentially put their
lives at risk.
Another concern that cannot be overlooked is how the removal of
existing products and their generic counterparts will influence the
marketplace. A decrease in competition has obvious consequences in
terms of cost and the availability of drugs on the shelf.
Finally, the FDA should take into account other countries' strategies
for phasing out CFCs in inhalers in order to ensure that the U.S. takes
the best and most responsible approach. I know that Canada, for
example, has rejected the class approach taken by the FDA and proposed
a policy that will require a proper range of alternatives to exist for
each medication type. It also provides for a transition period so
patients can ease off of their current medication and make sure that
there is a new product that accommodates their needs.
The Asthma Inhaler Protection Act addresses all of these issues by
including three requirements. First, before any further rulemaking, the
FDA must conduct assessments and report to Congress on the health and
environmental risks associated with its initial proposal. It must also
consider whether any measures adopted by the meeting of the Montreal
Protocol this November will facilitate the United States' transition
away from CFC inhalers.
Second, the FDA is required to develop criteria by which ``essential
use'' allowances for CFC-propelled inhalers will be removed. These
criteria shall require that a range of alternatives are available for
each medication type, and that they are comparable in terms of dosage
strength, delivery systems and safety and efficacy. Furthermore, the
alternatives must be available in sufficient numbers to meet consumer
demand.
Finally, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act includes steps to ensure
that manufacturers will begin to transition away from inhalers that
employ CFCs. Under the bill, no new applications for products
containing CFCs will be considered by the FDA after 1998 unless they
represent a significant advance in technology. Any new approvals,
however, will be subject to the same criteria as I described earlier.
Madam President, the transition to non-CFC propelled inhalers in the
United States must be well-planned and take into account both patient
and environmental concerns. It is clear that the FDA needs to rethink
its approach. We knew this last year after the FDA published its
proposal and was flooded by more than 10,000 comments from concerned
patients, providers, state medical boards, and advocacy groups. These
concerns were again raised last month during a Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee hearing which Chairman Jeffords held at my request.
The Asthma Inhaler Protection Act will ensure that the FDA balances
patients needs with environmental concerns, and above all, does not
jeopardize the lives of millions of Americans who depend on CFC
metered-dose inhalers.
It is simply a matter of ensuring that the 30 million Americans
currently dependent upon these inhalers--and all of us have seen them;
these little canisters that asthmatics carry with them every day
everywhere they go--we simply must ensure that as the FDA moves forward
that they will do so in a way that ensures that patients all across
this country are not allowed to go without medical care that they so
desperately need; and that the policy of the FDA will be such that
these patients will know that they are not going to have less choice
than they have now; that the particular peculiar medical needs that
asthmatics and others of respiratory diseases have will be met; that
they will be assured that the needs that they have can be addressed;
and, that the FDA will take those concerns into account as they move
forward.
I believe the FDA will be responsive. This legislation, though, is
there, and I am looking forward to working with Senator DeWine,
Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Congressman Mark Foley on the House
side to ensure that as the FDA moves forward with its rulemaking that
it will do so in a way that is going to ensure that 30 million
[[Page S4413]]
Americans are cared for and are not left in the lurch worried that
their very lives might be in danger.
I hope all of us on this day, the first Asthma Awareness Day, will do
our part to educate the American people about the serious health
impact, particularly upon our children, that asthma is having, and the
dramatic increase that we have seen in asthma in this country, and that
the FDA in their, I think, well-motivated goal of removing these
chemicals from our environment will do so in a way that the health and
safety of the American people is protected.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes
to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their
graciousness, and I especially thank Senator Gramm of Texas. I
appreciate it.
____________________