Merck's Frank Clyborn, who runs the company's Womens' Health businesses (including the family planning and birth control products lines) will present in New York on Monday at 10. I wonder whether Amy Ridenour (a former Jack Abramoff associate, and funds conduit, apparently) will show up to complain about how Merck destroys life (in her rather convoluted view, anyway). I mean, he is the guy she really wants to talk to -- at Merck -- not Ken Frazier. But I digress -- again. Back to it, then. . . .
In any event, I'll live-blog if she does show up -- and here's the Jefferies presser, then:
. . . .Jefferies. . . will host its 2012 Global Healthcare Conference June 4-7 in New York City. The four-day conference and global gathering of over 2,000 institutional investors, private equity investors, VCs and leading executives will highlight over 300 leading public and private healthcare companies across the biopharmaceuticals, life sciences, healthcare services, healthcare IT and medical technology sectors. Additionally, the conference will feature concurrent tracks of informative presentations, as well as the opportunity to participate in business to business meetings, thematic panel discussions and exclusive Q&A breakout sessions. . . .
In sum -- I don't expect any real news.
5 comments:
This will appear only in comments, as Ms. Ridenour -- and her various delusions -- are at best a tangential footnote to the topic of this blog. This blog is about Merck's fortunes -- post the Schering-Plough wipe out; and occasionally about health care reimbursement-related issues more generally (which affect Merck's fortunes).
Do go read this latest one, from CPPR's Amy Ridenour, for "her take" on the above post.
Okay -- CPPR generally opposes federal subsidies for birth control. Merck sells birth control. Merck advocates for full reimbursement of its birth control product lines. Those product lines are part of Merck's Womens' Health businesses.
I suggested that Ms. Ridenour talk to Frank Clyborn because he might address her opposiiton to this form of federal reimbursement -- not because she (herself) is a. . .
W O M A N.
Well, at least she recognizes -- by her lack of a coherent defense of the topic -- that putting in a shareholder proposal at Merck may not be the best way to advocate for (whatever stripe of) social change she feels we need. Afterall, Merck is charged with making money for its shareholders; nothing more.
Getting reimbursement for its products helps acheive that end. Endo of story (for me, but apparently not so for Ms. Ridenour).
So be it.
Namaste -- to all of you whose skills include reading the language for comprhension -- and to all others of good will.
~~~~~~~~~~~
End, marginally-related footnote material.
When did I ever address federal subsidies for birth control?
I now realize that Mr. Ridenour is a genuinely pedantic attention-seeker.
She has addressed federal HSS programs on birth control repeatedly in 2012, and earlier -- but I think this one from February 10, 2012 best sums up her position.
[Like shooting fish in a barrel, that.]
OR. . . . Wait a sec -- hold the phone.
I suppose the other explanation for her obtuse post above. . . would be that she just reprints other peoples' "Astro-turfed" far right talking points, without bothering to read or comprehend the position(s) the original authors take, and she endorses -- on her blog.
In either case, this may be the end of the line for my responses -- at least to someone who can't recall what she authored -- just this past February. [BTW, in that post, she claims that NCPPR is a non-partisan organization. Hilarious.]
I gather you have no idea that the HHS mandate is not a federal reimbursement program, but a requirement that private employers, including religious employers, pay for birth control for employees. Had you read the blog post of mine you linked to, you would have realized this is a First Amendment religious freedom issue, not a taxpayer's money/federal reimbursement issue.
It is odd that you, the purveyor of a blog dedicated to health & drug issues, did not already know this, or know that no one at Merck has the power to change the HHS mandate, even if it lobbied really, really hard. The drug companies can neither take credit nor blame for this one.
BTW, we did not put in a shareholder proposal at Merck. We asked a question at a meeting about ObamaCare, which led you to strongly imply that we are racist. And then to say we should have asked an entirely different question of an entirely different person.
This will likely be the end (from my end):
The fact that you wing-nuts claim that Mr. Obama's "compromise measure" is only a freedom of religion issue is telling.
It is telling that you claim federal money isn't the issue -- and it is telling that you wing-nuts have conflated this into a "mandate requiring birth control". All of that is likewise telling.
The good news is that you don't undersatnd enough about HHS (or any of this, actually!) to know that companies like Pfizer and Merck can -- and do -- influence policy here.
It is a wise policy to provide birth control to those most in need of it -- and hopefully break the cycles of generational poverty. But we will obviously disagree there, too I am certain.
So feel free to move along, Amy -- there's nothing for you to rail against here.
Namaste, to all the rest of you (those of good will).
Post a Comment