Newspapers, Opinion Piece React to Senate Action on Prescription Drugs

The Senate on July 31 voted down compromise legislation on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare but passed a bill that would provide greater access to generic drugs and another that would allow drug reimportation from Canada (see related story on Senate action). The following are summaries of editorials and an opinion piece addressing the Senate's action on the prescription drug issue:

• Baltimore Sun: Although "[n]early everyone" expected the Senate debate over a prescription drug benefit to end in failure, that "doesn't make it less disappointing," a Baltimore Sun editorial states. The Senate approval of a measure is "a worthwhile but small gesture," but voting for another reimportation bill -- a similar measure was approved but not implemented in 2000 -- is "an empty gesture" because the Bush administration has vowed to not enforce the law due to the question of drug safety. The Sun concludes that seniors "are apt to focus their ire on all incumbents. That's where it belongs" (Sun, 8/1).
• New York Times: Although the vote will surely induce "finger-pointing" between Democrats and Republicans at election time, the "truth is that this was a bipartisan failure," a New York Times editorial states. The defeat of the proposal "greatly diminishes" Congress' ability to pass a drug benefit before the end of this legislative session. In the "off chance" that the Senate approves a bill after the August recess, there will be "scant time" to reconcile the bill with the House version. The "main difference" during the entire drug benefit debate "was ideological," the Times says. Republicans wanted a plan using private insurers, while Democrats favored a Medicare-run program. The Times concludes, "These distinctions will be difficult to explain to voters who had every reason to expect a prescription drug program by now" (New York Times, 8/1).
• Raleigh News & Observer: The Senate's debate over prescription drug help for seniors was an "embarrassment to ... representative democracy," according to a Raleigh News & Observer editorial. Congress is "supposed to listen to the people" and "balance their needs" against the government's ability to pay for those needs. If members of Congress had been listening, they would have heard that "prescription drug benefits are at the top of a list of concerns" about the country's health care system. According to the News & Observer, a "responsible Congress" would have seen the prescription drug issue as a "challenge to be met," and not a "tiresome partisan political battle." The News & Observer concludes, "It is long past time for something substantial to be done, for lawmakers to demonstrate that they really aren't out of touch. And if they fail, one hopes that come election day, their constituents will be them back in touch -- the hard way" (Raleigh News & Observer, 8/1).
• USA Today: Almost two decades after Congress passed legislation intended to foster easier access to generic drugs, major drugmakers "need to be stopped" from continuing to "exploi[t] exceptions in the law," according to a USA Today editorial. By "stringing together" 30-month patent extensions, cutting "lucrative deals" with generic drugmakers to keep generics off the market, employing "hundreds" of lobbyists and spending "millions of dollars" in campaign contributions, major drug makers have been markedly successful in "hang[ing] onto their exclusive markets." Meanwhile, spending on prescription drugs "jumped" 16% last year as large drug makers continued to charge "monopoly prices." Although some patent extensions "make sense," such as those for drugs with new formulas that enhance performance, for the rest, the 20 years of patent protection currently granted is "plenty of time" to make a "handsome return" on research and development costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Senate reforms ending "patent-law abuses" could save $60 billion in health care spending over the next 10 years. The editorial concludes, "Ending patent-law abuses would curb price gouging by an industry that enjoyed sales of $142 billion in 2001" (USA Today, 7/31).
• Alan Holmer, USA Today: In trying to reform the current patent laws, "Congress is trying to 'fix' something that 'ain't broke,'" Alan Holmer, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, writes in an opposing view in USA Today. According to Holmer, it takes an average of $800 million and 15 years to discover, develop and bring to market a new medicine. Furthermore, an analysis of the current drug market by the Federal Trade Commission found "no significant barrier" to generic drugs entering the market in the current system, Holmer contends. Changing the current patent laws would only interfere with development of new drugs, costing future patients. In addition, any savings resulting from patent law reform would be an "illusion," Holmer says. An analysis found that in 2005, the savings that would result would total only about 0.5% per person. Holmer writes that instead of changing the patent laws, Congress should be focused on passing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, which would "cut [seniors'] drug costs in half." Holmer concludes, "Let's help seniors today with Medicare drug coverage. And let's not fiddle with a patent system that is working for patients" (Holmer, USA Today, 7/31).