Okay -- to the specifics, then: Pfizer spent $3.57 million in Q2 2016 (compared to $2.45 million in Q2 2015). And that in turn, compares to its $4.2 million in Q1 2016. Down only 12 per cent, compared to Merck's cutting lobby-spend in half, in the same time frames.
In any event, I would hope that Mr. Read's lobby spend decreases more significantly in Q3 2016 -- to become more closely proportional to Pfizer's size relative to Merck's -- as it is clearly a tumor, at this point in the year. With very little happening in the way of actual legislation, until the new President is elected, the whole operation ought to be essentially moth-balled, until January 2017. But that's just my $0.02 -- for Pfizer's institutional investors, to communicate/advocate with Mr. Read. Here's some of what he spent on, in Q2 2016 -- I've bolded the bits that Merck likely also spent on (albeit much smaller sums):
. . . .Trans Pacific Partnership Negotiations, Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB), Trans-Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP,) Canada IP/Trade Issues, South Africa IP Issues, China IP, Saudia Arabia Pricing Issues, United Nations Health Panel [likely along with Merck], Thermacare EU, Privacy Shield, G7/G20, APEC, OECD. . . .
21st Century Cures Initiative, Senate Innovation Project, Drug Pricing, Biosimilars Reimbursement Policy. . . .
Patent Troll Legislation, Defend Trade Secrets Act, Medicare Rebates/Medicare Part D, Non-Interference, Medicare Part B Reimbursement, Medicare Part B CMMI Demo. . . .
Deferral, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Territorial Systems, Patent Innovation Box, Cadillac Tax, Inversions, Section 385 Proposed Regulations. . . .
Omnibus Appropriations Bill, LHHA Appropriations, 2017 FDA & Labor/HHS Appropriation Bills. . . .
Now you know -- off to mountain-bike, a workout, and then a longish swim in the cool clear lake waters, then lie on the white sandy beaches, here. . . smile. I love summer Saturdays. . .
4 comments:
Speaking of upcoming legislation, I found an interesting piece on the FDA website last week regarding procedural matters for withdrawing certain generic drugs from market [1]. This was nicely referenced by another site as well for background [2].
[1] Updating ANDA Labeling After the Marketing Application for the Reference Listed Drug Has Been Withdrawn Guidance for Industry: Draft Guidance. July 2016.
[2]Jaap Charles [Internet] When to Change Drug Labeling. Accessd on July 22, 2016.(http://www.pharmdevgroup.com/when-to-change-drug-labeling/
And here is a direct link to the FDA guidance concept letter -- appearing in footnote [1] above, which remains open for public comment:
http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm510240.pdf
Thanks, Anon.!
Namaste
I apologize for the tangent thread above (and continued here) but I feel it pertinent to note how this guidance letter potentially dovetails with what 'struck [you] as news-worthy' in your June 1st, 2016 posting (Merck GC-An Interview...). In your referenced Bloomberg Law article Merck position on first amendment speech appears, at first glance, that pharmaceutical companies can say whatever they want about their products. However, taken at face value I do not feel that what Holston is implying should be afforded if recent history may serve as a guide.
In a 2005 article appearing in the New York Times, Dr. Sandra Kweder, acting director of the FDA's center for Drug Enforcement and Research, was quoted within the context of lessons learned from negotiating labeling with Merck for their blockbuster selective COX-1 inhibitor, Vioxx. In this article Kweder said that the power to change a label "would be very helpful." [1].
I hope what we are witnessing here is the FDA attempting to re-gain some 'teeth' in carrying out basic duties with which we as a public have continuously expected from this Public Health Service Division.
[1] Harris Gardiner (2005) FDA Official Admits 'Lapses' on Vioxx. New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/politics/fda-official-admits-lapses-on-vioxx.html?_r=0
I agree Anon. -- and no worries, about tangents here.
This entire website is one seven and a half year tangent, decrying some abuses of FDA (and SEC) rules, by one Fred Hassan -- the ex-CEO of legaacy Schering-Plough. Smile.
As to Merck's GC (as noted on June 1) -- I've long felt that a delicate balance need be struck, between drug makers' commercial speech rights (which under long standing US Supreme Court precedents may be limited as to "time, place and manner(s)"), and the generally broad language of our first amendment.
Certainly, safety and accuracy should come first -- be paramount-- when a merchant speaks about "inherently dangerous" drugs and biologics (if mis-used).
I will go out on a limb and predict that when our 45th President [a woman and a Democrat who orchestrated proposals (in 1992) for the series of reforms that ultimately became the ACA of 2010] is sworn in come January 2017 -- and then she, in fairly short order, fills at least two Supreme Court seats -- we will see the High Court's support for "renewed vigor" in enforcing the FDA's rules limiting manufacturers' off-label touting, and other promotional notions.
I now think FDA may see expanded, as opposed to contracted authority, here. And thanks to you, I'll make a new post of it, in a moment.
Do stop back by -- thanks for the thoughts -- travel well; but travel light.
Namaste
Post a Comment