Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Merck Lobbying Spend Actually Decreased Slightly, In Q1 2013, Compared To Q1 2012

While it has generally been true that Merck spends more in the middle of the year, on lobbying, than it does in the first quarter, in the past few years -- this could be a sign that Merck will spend less than $10 million in all of 2013, on lobbying and lobbyists.

We will have to wait and see -- but these are the preliminary Q1 2013 figures, and Merck's spend is just about $300,000 lighter than it was in Q1 2012. Do recall though, that in Q1 2012, we did not yet know whether the ACA of 2010 -- or "Obamacare" -- would pass constitutional muster, so there was a lot of scurrying going on, to handle the what-if scenarios. That is all over -- now it is all about implementation of Obamacare -- in ways that best benefit Merck.

Here are the specific items Merck lobbied on or about, per its public filing for the quarter:

. . . .▲ Patent settlements (no specific bill).

Non-interference in Medicare Part D (no specific bill); Medicaid-style rebates in Medicare Part D (no specific bill); Independent Payment Advisory Board (S. 351, H.R. 351).

▲ Alzheimer's education (no specific bill); 340b (no specific bill); hepatitis C education (no specific bill).

▲ Comprehensive tax reform (no specific bill); transfer pricing of intangibles (no specific bill); territorial tax system (no specific bill); deferral of taxation of foreign earned income (no specific bill); tax base erosion (no specific bill).

Trans-Pacific Partnership (no specific bill); biologic data exclusivity (no specific bill); US-EU trade agreement (no specific bill); trade promotion authority (no specific bill).

▲ Supply chain safety (no specific bills).

▲ Access to over-the-counter medications (no specific bill); compounding (no specific bill).

▲ Deficit reduction (no specific bill); ADAP funding (no specific bill).

▲ Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA). . . .

There you have it -- the lobbying against limits on drug patent "pay for delay" is particularly interesting, in my opinion.

No comments: