A License to Confuse
Drug price crusader Anthony Wright wants you to remember, '78, bad - 79, good'
Earlier this summer, the Center for Public Integrity released a report stating that the nation's pharmaceutical companies have spent about $800 million over the past decade lobbying Washing politicians. More people lobby Congress on behalf of big drugs than there are representing districts.
In 2005, the money's come to California, as have the lobbyists. About $60 million is expected to flow into the special election battle between the drug corporations' Proposition 78, and cost reformers' Prop. 79. For every Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, there are a bunch of corporate reps with access to Arnold and a license to confuse. The 18-year-old consumer rights coalition is known for passing the California Patient Bill of Rights, among other consumer protections. Health Access California has its hands full fighting a battery of business interests who have in recent years come close to getting self-regulation bills through the legislature.
Wright, 34, and other supporters of Prop. 79, the Cheaper Drugs Initiative, will through November be working to distinguish their ballot measure from the drug industry's self-regulation play, Prop. 78. If you don't know the difference between the two, you are doing Eli Lilly's bidding.
-Donnell Alexander
CityBeat: How are you dealing with the confusion?
Anthony Wright: Our health care senior organizations put forward Prop. 79 as a solution to the rising cost of prescription drugs. We think it's unfair that Americans pay more than anybody else in the world for needing prescription drugs. We thought that we should do what other countries do, which is have our government negotiate on behalf of its residents for the best possible price. And so we placed Prop. 79 on the ballot this November.
How long after you came up with Prop. 79 did the pharmaceutical industry come up with this?
This depends on when you start the story. We could start the story with the fact that we had legislation pending last year that went to the governor's desk that was ultimately vetoed. And so then the drug companies tried to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to come up with a counter-proposal for what was vetoed, realizing that Gov. Schwarzenegger was not going to support anything that was opposed by the drug companies. You know, our groups, while continuing to work legislatively, also decided to go forward with a ballot measure of statute as well.
Their counter-proposal failed in the Senate, too, right? How much of this resulted from legislative skepticism?
There's obviously a lot of skepticism about whether a proposal that is voluntary by the drug companies could ever work and provide lasting discounts for people who are now having to pay more than anybody else in the entire world.
Can you be explicit in telling me why self-regulation wouldn't work?
California tried a voluntary approach to prescription drug discounts before, the Golden Bear State Pharmacy, that was a voluntary program that ultimately was disbanded because it didn't get the participation from the drug companies. Our experience shows it doesn't work, that if the drug companies wanted to provide discounts voluntarily, they can do so now. They don't need an initiative. We feel that it's appropriate to have the state of California use its purchasing power to get the best price for its residents.
Are you doing anything specifically to set them apart? This is a campaign that's going to be about these two measures and distinguishing the drug companies' Prop. 78 versus the consumers and seniors groups' Prop 79.
Do you see this as a test case for the rest of the nation? And if you do, how might it be?
The drug companies clearly think that this vote has national implications. The fact that they have raised over $60 million, which is on pace to be the most expensive initiative race in the history of the state of California, suggests they're most concerned about this because of the national precedent it may serve moving forward.
What is it that they see?
They have said that one of their top priorities this year is to stop this measure ´´08 in California. They're concerned that there are over 20 other states that have initiative processes. They've been able to be remarkably successful at stopping these proposals, you know, through the Congress and state legislatures given their remarkable political muscle. When a proposal like this was in Ohio, they actually sued in 41 different counties in Ohio and basically overwhelmed the opposition with lawsuits in order to have them relent and not have them place a measure like this on the ballot.
The drug companies are going to talk about Ohio a lot because they're going to talk about a voluntary program that's in place in Ohio. The real story behind it is that Ohio was set to do this proposal, which was also partially based on what was done in Maine, where legislature passed a discount-card program that does provide meaningful discounts to many Maine residents. Ohio was going to place that on their ballot. And what the drug companies did was flood the courts. And the groups in Ohio didn't have the resources to compete with that
The money spent in Ohio, and what's been spent in California so far, is just so vast. Why the huge investment?
It's very simple. They're trying to protect their profits. While other countries negotiate to get the best price for their citizens, they have been able to prevent the United States or individual states from doing the same. They've been able to get large profits as a result. There's nothing wrong with profits, with a company selling a product and making a profit off of it. But because these products are so literally life and death, there's no way an individual can negotiate for a better price. However, there is a potential for a whole state to negotiate. In 2002, the top 10 drug companies on the Fortune 500 had more profits than the other 490 companies combined. The Pfizers, the Mercks, the GlaxoSmithKlines.
Talk about your relationship with the Alliance for a Better California. We share part of the [same] agenda. We're very concerned about Gov. Schwarzenegger's spending cap proposal. The governor is seeking to get unilateral power to make cuts to education, health care, and other vital services. As a health care advocacy group, we're very concerned about [whether] Gov. Schwarzenegger or any future governor has this power, and would be able to do to decimate programs that health care consumers rely on.
How do you get the pharmaceutical companies to back off?
If they're planning on spending that much money, they recognize that there is a real voter anger out there about the cost of prescription drugs. And they're scared about it and are prepared to spend big money to try to defuse it or to confuse voters enough to vote against the consumer group measure and/or for their smokescreen Prop. 78.
However, if voters actually stand up to the drug companies and their unfair prices this November, maybe that will bring them back to the drawing table in a more sensible way.
Published: 08/11/2005
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
