[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1975]]



  PHRMA'S CAMPAIGN TO KILL MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG LEGISLATION FOR 
                           AMERICA'S SENIORS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 27, 1999

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, poll after poll shows the American public 
strongly supports adding a drug benefit to Medicare. Unfortunately, the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America has mounted a 
silly, sleazy $20-$30 million campaign featuring an actress named Flo 
to oppose comprehensive prescription drug coverage for America's 
seniors. They use a phony front name, Citizens for Better Medicare.
  Perhaps a better name for this campaign-to-deceive-seniors would be: 
Corporations for Beaucoup Money . . . or Companies for Bundling Money 
(to trick the public into thinking that the Rx debate is about big 
government instead of comprehensive Medicare drug coverage) . . . or 
Corporations for Bigger (Profit) Margins.
  PhRMA is apparently convinced that if Congress adds a prescription 
drug benefit to Medicare, their member companies won't be able to 
continue pricing drugs at the stratospheric levels many do today. Those 
pricing strategies are so distorted that Medicare beneficiaries who 
have no drug insurance are being charged more than twice as much, on 
average, as prices paid by enrollees of large group health plans. And 
for the limited number of drugs that Medicare currently covers--
generally those administered by physicians--Medicare is being 
overcharged by billions of dollars. This was made painfully clear in a 
report issued last year by the HHS Inspector General, which found that 
Medicare paid $1 billion more in 1997 than the VA did for the same 34 
drugs.
  Individual seniors are being harmed by artificially inflated drug 
prices, too. Last year's stunning 18% growth in drug spending means 
that fewer elderly people--who need and use pharmaceutical medications 
more than any other age cohort--will be able to fill the prescriptions 
their doctors order this year. After all, the median annual income of 
seniors in this country was about $21,000 in 1997.
  In contrast, the average compensation for CEOs among PhRMA's top 12 
companies last year was nearly $28 million. Stock options for U.S. 
pharmaceutical pharaohs were worth far more: $103 million on average in 
1998.
  Major drug companies also spend billions every year on campaigns to 
influence which drugs doctors prescribe. This spring, a Florida 
physician mailed me a sample of the invitations he received from 
pharmaceutical companies for the week of April 25. Here they are:
  Sunday: The doctor and his colleagues are invited to a Niaspan-
sponsored Afternoon-at-the-Races event at Tampa Day Downs, which 
includes use of a private suite, plus an expensive lunch and open bar 
from noon to 3 p.m.;
  Wednesday: The doctor and his colleagues are invited to a Pfizer-
sponsored complementary dinner at Landry's Seafood, an upscale 
restaurant where no entree is under $25 per person;
  Thursday: It's a tough choice: Hoechst Marion Roussel is picking up 
dinner at Charley's Steak House . . . but across town, Pfizer is paying 
for dinner at Alfano's;
  Friday: What a bonanza! Free tickets for the docs, their spouses and 
children to watch the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play the Seattle Mariners.
  That's not all. ``In addition to these free meals,'' the physician 
writes, ``I have been invited to a second baseball game at Tropicana 
Field, plus our office has been served three lunches for 25 people this 
week by the pharmaceutical companies.''
  In 1998, pharmaceutical companies spent an amazing $7 billion in 
these and other promotions designed to influence which drugs doctors 
prescribe to their patients. Advertising to consumers is climbing too: 
spending on direct-to-consumer advertising last year rose to $1.3 
billion.
  It is important to remember that ``Flo'' is just another advertising 
gimmick created by PhRMA. Her ads oppose big government when it comes 
to discussion of a Medicare drug benefit. What they don't say is that 
PhRMA vigorously supports big government R&D tax credits, barriers 
against cheap imports, patent extensions and generous funding of 
medical research.
  The fictitious ``Flo'' will soon fade from the public's memory. But 
the plight of real seniors in America who desperately need access to 
prescription drug coverage will not. It is those seniors we are trying 
to help by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

                          ____________________