Time for A Congressional Caucus to support Congress moves on Personal Importation

Publisher’s Note:  In this post, we applaud the introduction of bills in Congress in support of personal importation, while questioning the breadth of Congressional knowledge of the extent of the harmful consequences of protecting the safe haven provided in the US for the highest prescription prices in the Industrial World.  We continue our call for an Rx Bill of Rights for Americans, and urge that Congress form a Congressional caucus for Personal Importation as a first step to ensure that the vast numbers of Americans adversely affected by Pharma pricing have a voice in shaping health policies and continue to utilize the health and fiscal benefits made possible by personal importation.

Some simple questions for Congress:

• Has it finally realized that rising prescription medicine costs have created a national awareness by Americans of the harmful impact of the predatory pricing practices of Pharma upon their finances, their health and well-being?
•  Is it finally willing to accept the responsibility and opportunity created by a Maine Circuit Court ruling earlier this year that set aside a state legislature action that would have merely extended a practice of Maine Citizens for years—personally importing safe, affordable prescription medicines from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and The United Kingdom—a decision made not because the medicines were unsafe or even that personal importation was illegal, but because it is Congress’ responsibility and is within its authority to determine how personal importation should be implemented, an issue that it has favorably considered many times by members acting on the ‘reservoir of good will’ towards personal importation?
•  Is it finally convinced that Pharma will stop at nothing to justify price increases for specialty medicines that, while admittedly creating much-needed cures, threaten the very stability of our financial system, the health care system, and present the specter of rationing?
         o   Pay and Delay to protect generics from entering the market?
• o   Purchasing products from other companies and then raising the prices?
  o   Claiming extraordinary R&D investments when in reality a high percentage of the ‘new’ medicines are created through grants to University laboratories from the National Institute of Health, a governmental and tax-payer-funded entity?
  
  
• Is it finally convinced that prescription drug prices are indeed a major driver of health care costs, despite what some so-called experts have pooh-poohed as not possible because the ‘price’ of medications is ‘small’ and there would be no benefit from a major reduction of prescription medicine prices?
• Is it finally convinced that a medicine that is ‘unaffordable’ is equally indeed ‘unavailable’, and that this is the reason that as many as 55 million Americans fail to adhere to their prescribed regimen of taking their medicines simply because they cannot afford them, and does it accept responsibility for the likely harmful consequences of this?
•   Is it even vaguely aware of the potential for abuse of Section 708 of the Food Drug Administration Safety Innovation Act (FDASIA) which says a drug may be considered ‘illegal’ by the FDA because of a slight difference in labeling even though it is a perfectly safe, valid brand-name medicine that is the same as the medicine sold in the US at prices at prices as much as 60 percent higher, and will be subject to seizure and destruction?         

• Is it prepared for the spectacle of an agency ostensibly designed to protect the health and well-being of Americans—the FDA—seizing Americans’ medicines, holding them for an individual to ‘appeal’ the seizure (a complete sacrilege of the rights of Americans to due process by making their personal property subject to what are invalid seizures of their personal property, i.e., safe, valid medicines) and then, the eventual possible destruction of those medicines?                                                                       

Now, Congress has once again introduced two bills—S.122, co-sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and HR 2228, sponsored by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME 1)  Dana Rohranbacher (R-CA 48)

The bills are designed to allow the personal importation of safe, affordable medicines from Canadian pharmacies.

The chances of passage are slim to none according to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2228 which gives each bill a less than four percent chance of passage, leading us to our list above of questions for Congress.

We are recommending something more--that the sponsors of the bills send ‘Dear Colleague’ letters and engage in colloquies with their fellow members. Most importantly, we believe it is time for the formation of a Congressional Caucus comprised of Senate and House members to act in support of personal importation legislation, and to also allow Americans a place at the table thereby generating additional awareness of what the consequences will be of Pharma unchecked.  This will, thereby provide the basis for an Rx Bill of Rights for Americans, which could also act as a strategy map for lowering the outrageous pricing practices of Pharma.

Importation bill has chance to offer example of concern for ALL U.S. citizens, leadership, innovation

The news hit with the suddenness of a surprise attack early Saturday, June 20—the Pharmaceutical industry had made a late night call to Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) to tell him that is was willing to cooperate by pledging $80 billion over the next decade in resolving one of the biggest problems (and resulting criticisms) of Medicare Part D, The Infamous Doughnut Hole.

The facts surfaced by Monday afternoon however, as it became evident that pharma’s move really was nothing more than a carefully crafted and possibly successful attempt to circumvent several challenges facing it—the possibility of price negotiation for Part D medicines, and the potential contribution that could be provided by allowing personal importation of safe, affordable medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One designated countries.
The Doughnut Hole should have been called ‘The Black Hole.’ Seniors were forced to continue paying their premiums, but their coverage was ‘suspended’ when drug costs reached $2250. They had entered The Doughnut Hole, where they would pay 100 percent of their prescriptions for the next $3600—even though they still had to pay for their premiums (a windfall for insurance companies). After paying the $3600, the ‘catastrophic’ level was reached, and the seniors who had survived The Doughnut Hole, were eligible for renewed coverage with low cost co-pays.

The fiscal and medical hit upon the elderly was immediate. Many seniors simply quit taking their medicines or began ‘splitting’ pills. Either action not only derailed the claimed hoped-for goals of Medicare Part D, it caused untold numbers of elderly to gamble their health, well-being and perhaps even their lives by the self-denial of vital medicines that had been forced on them by a pharmaceutical-influenced Congress that enacted Part D. Billy Tauzin, the former Congressman from New Orleans who was instrumental for many of the 11th hour (and 59 minute) changes that shaped Part D was rewarded with a multi-million-dollar position by PhRMA, the influential and well-heeled trade group for the drug companies.

A proposed solution to relieving the burden of The Doughnut Hole dilemma—price negotiation for drugs-- soon became a favorite of politicians, and repeated calls were made from untold numbers of stumps, town hall meetings, and locales where the pols could promise the elderly that help was on the way.

With the election of President Barack Obama, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, negotiation seemed ready to be moved from stump speeches to reality.

But, it is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. And, the push for healthcare reform soon created a lot of odd sleeping arrangements. Many of us winced when PhRMA joined with FamiliesUSA, a leading progressive, hard-working and well-respected advocacy group, to work for ‘healthcare reform.’ What, we asked, was the industry looking for? Images of the Fox in the Henhouse, the camel with his nose under the tent, flashed though our minds.

Added to this was the White House meeting President Obama arranged with industry groups representing insurance companies, PhRMA, hospitals, and other healthcare industry groups. Our concerns were quickly validated when a White House statement about pledges to cut the growth of health care costs was actually nothing more than a pledge to reduce the rate of growth by not increasing prices as much as before. The President needs to remember what John Kennedy said about big business special interest groups and what a bunch of SOBs they were.

The fact is that the ‘pledge’ was actually not a true savings. It would be a bit like buying your groceries at a store that has raised its prices 20 percent for the past few years. But, to ‘save money’, it says it will raise its prices only 10 percent next year, so instead of groceries that cost $100 per week in year one, the next year they would cost $110 instead of $120. The store owner could then tell consumers that each had saved $10 in year two, even though they were paying more for the same groceries. Only the rate of the increase was less than in previous years.

This type of math should have been the tip-off that the pharma ‘commitment’ to aiding seniors in The Doughnut Hole isn’t what it at first seemed to be.

On Sunday, President Obama issued the following statement about the agreement with the drug companies:

"I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation’s pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America’s seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year. The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors. This deal will provide significant relief from that burden for millions of American seniors.

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade. We are at a turning point in America’s journey toward health care reform. Key sectors of the health care industry acknowledge what American families and businesses already know - that the status quo is no longer sustainable. The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in October. I want to commend House chairmen Henry Waxman, George Miller and Charles Rangel for addressing this issue in the health reform legislation they unveiled this week. This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American."
It was to be Monday before the facts began to surface. Simply put, PhRMA had negotiated an arrangement that would become law only if Congress enacted comprehensive healthcare reform, a part of which would include expanded coverage for more Americans, creating new, additional and profitable markets for the pharmaceutical industry. It is distressing to once again witness the ability of pharma to define issues to its advantage. Perhaps I need a refresher course in civics, but why does the industry have to ‘agree’ to cuts that are intended to be a part of the governing legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress? What option do they have?

Also, why is the Obama Administration so ready to heap praises upon the drug companies, all of which have reaped whirlwind, virtually ensured profits at the expense of the American public that has been denied access to the health benefits provided by access to vital medicines because it must pay the highest cost in the world for its prescription medicines?

But, it is an ill-wind that blows no good. Last Fall, before the elections, a group of advocates for senior advocacy groups from areas across the country, met in Washington, DC to shape support for personal importation of prescription medicines from Tier One countries. At that time, the participants reached a consensus that the importation concept should be included as a part of discussion about comprehensive healthcare reform, a ‘third-leg’ of the stool, because such access to vital medicines is essential to the health and well-being of Americans. It also urged consideration of the beneficial budgetary impact that could be provided though the inclusion of personal importation of prescription medicines into Part D thereby remedying plan shortcomings while saving money for the elderly, protecting their health and creating real savings for the Plan.

Sources tell us that moves have made recently by supporters of importation to define a stronger argument for importation of prescription medicines within the framework of the healthcare debate. We applaud such action. Now, there is an additional opportunity to address the benefits of improved health and savings by fine-tuning the healthcare debate to explore other opportunities for personal importation and defining a role for personal importation in Medicare Part D. Senators Dorgan and Snowe, the two legislators most identified with importation, have issued a statement that reflects their realization that the pharma 'offer' really does not address the challenge of lowering prescription drug prices. And, already, there is a growing realization that the pharmaceutical industry's motives are self-serving.

It is time to call out the pharmaceutical industry. There are legitimate questions that deserve answers about the motives of pharma. It has reaped the benefits of guaranteed pricing for Part D that has led to windfall profits. The claimed or hoped-for savings,while beneficial to individuals, is too little-too late for many elderly. As to the claimed savings to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, there is a growing realization that possible trade-offs to gain pharma support might actually lead to increased--and virtually guaranteed--sales and earnings.

There is a role for personal importation in helping provide a solution to providing safe, affordable prescription medicines for all Americans. We believe the pharma moves should lead to increased discussion of creating such access, free of what we believe to be unnecessary delays by empowering Secretary Sebelius to designate Tier One countries whose standards of oversight, safety, and efficacy meet of exceed those of the U.S.

Patients buying fewer Prescription Drugs

Posted by Daniel Hines,
Publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

Proof of the failure of Medicare Part D and the growing number of all Americans not having access to the health benefits of prescription medicines has come forth in a Wall Street Journal story describing how more and more U.S. citizens are unable to afford prescription medicines.

While it is still too early to measure what the harmful effects of this upon Americans' health might be, it is only logical that many people will suffer poorer health. This should end once and for all the approach by many groups and organizations who attempt to divide debate and discussion about comprehensive health care reform into segments based upon the "pet issue" or that particular groups, organizations or policy-makers.

Such an approach virtually guarantees that without including defining how to make safe, affordable prescription medicines more widely available into discussions about healthcare, we are risking the health and well-being of a growing number of Americans. The growth in costs, the decline in consumption and the potential health effects make it imperative that true competition be introduced into the U.S. pharmaceutical market by allowing U.S citizens to exercise their freedom of choice and purchase safe, affordable medicines from identifiable legitimate pharmacies outside the U.S.

Consider: The growth in prescriptions filled by U.S. pharmacies is at its slowest in at least ten years, as increasing health care costs and a slowing economy are making medication harder to afford.

According to the Wall Street Journal article, the drug industry usually remains stable in economic downturns, because patients still require medicine.
However, the number of prescriptions filled in the second quarter of 2008 may have actually decreased, due to higher numbers of Americans without health insurance and “skyrocketing out-of-pocket drug costs” putting the cost of some medications out of reach.

Patients are facing additional burdens as the health care industry has forced consumers to shoulder larger percentages of many costs.
A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that for a “preferred drug” through a tiered insurance plan, average co-payments rose 67 percent from $15 in 2000 to $25 in 2007.

In fact, 23 percent of respondents to a Kaiser foundation poll failed to fill a prescription in the last year for cost reasons, up from 20 percent in 2005.
Additionally, 19 percent either skipped doses or split pills, an increase from 16 percent in 2005.

Prescription Meds from outside U.S. offer lifeline to Part D

Posted by Daniel Hines
Publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

(Part One of how and why safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered phamacies from outside the U.S. can benefit not only American's health, but can relieve the strained budgets of governmental services at the local, state and Federal levels. Part Two will deal with how local governments can generate vast savings for employee benefits, savings that can then be applied to other local services.)

As the U.S. economy continues to reel, the increasing cost of Medicare Part D threatens the very essence of a program that was claimed to be designed to address the prescription medicine needs of the country's aging population.

Increasingly, abuses of the system are apparent. Most recently, the Center for Medicare Services says that private plans that are woven in the fiber of Part D, have 'misinterpreted' the intent of CMS when the Part D was launched by developing a practice of 'locking in' a price structure in which PBMs charge a higher rate to insurers with whom they have contracted to administer their drug benefit than what they pay pharmacies to dispense the drugs to beneficiaries. The PBMs then keep the difference, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Ironically, a CMS administrator says that the agency thought it had a "clear policy"
prohibiting lock-in pricing when Part D launched. "We learned that there are different ways of interpreting a policy statement," she adds in a classic understatment.

Actually, since its inception, Medicare Part D has been flawed. It did not allow price negotiation to guarantee the lowest prices thereby generating savings for the Federal government and the intended beneficaries. The abomination of the 'Doughnut Hole' virtually eliminated hundreds of thousands of seniors who would receive little or no benefit unless they had staggering out-of-pocket costs which increase each year. And, the pharmaceutical industry continues to raise prices on brand name drugs, which makes Part D increasingly costly, although a "PR Spin" has been attempted to make it look as though savings have occured since the amount expended is lower than earlier estimates. The fact is that a large part of this claimed savings is due to lower than anticipated enrollment in plans.

In what can only be described as an American Tragedy, many policy-makers attack the claimed original intent of Part D, to help seniors enjoy the health benefits provided by prescription medicines, by labeling Part D (and Social Security and Medicare generally) as 'entitlement' programs that are burdensome to the country. One author even suggests that there is no alternative other than to cut Part D to 'save Medicare':
"In sum, Part D costs are soaring, and they could harm Medicare's core mission and the elderly. Because a tax increase is out of the question, one obvious solution is to amend the law and limit the drug benefit to save Medicare..." Quote from Spyros Andreopoulos is director emeritus of the Office of Communication and Public Affairs at Stanford University Medical Center.

Another approach comes from The Medicare Rights Center, on whose Citizens' Advisory Board I serve (Midwest Region). MRC advocates support of the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, introduced by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) along with U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) and Marion Berry (AR-01). The bill creates a Medicare administered prescription drug plan to provide seniors an alternative to the privately administered prescription drug plans currently offered under Part D.

The problem is that both of the above approaches suffer from the blinders that too often are worn by policy-makers and advocacy groups, blinders that prevent them from looking at the totality of the factors that can favorably influence a solution to challenges such as the increasing costs of Medicare plans.

The fact is that access to safe, affordable prescription medicines from outside the U.S. must be included in the discussion to the complete (debate) (discussion)on healthcare reform in this country. Such access not only offers a potential benefit to improved health for all Americans, but can almost instantly create savings that will favorably impact Medicare administration by allowing access to lower-cost, but safe medications.

Unfortunately, a Washington-based staff member of MRC says that she is interested only in the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, on initiatives of the MRC, and has no interest in even exploring the potential contribution of providing savings and choice by allowing access to prescription medicines from outside the U.S.

Also, a highly informative source in Washington has told us that he fears that in the next Congress in 2009, there will be such a rush to enact 'comprehensive health care reform' that it will be nothing more than a 'trading bloc' for a number of individual Senators, Congressmen, pharmaceutical industry and insurance company reps, each with their own particular agenda, be it liberal, conservative, or even anti- or pro-pharmaceutical and insurance industry oriented. He said he fears that pharma particularly will offer its support for some form of 'comprehensive health care reform' in return for the role of providing continued access to safe, affordable medicines from outside this country to U.S. citizens being discarded.

That's like throwing the baby out with the washwater. It is time for Congress to take action to provide such access to all Americans, and to do so in a fashion in which the role of prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries not only can maintain or even enhance the quality of healthcare in the U.S., but can provide fiscal savings that can actually help pay for other initiatives that will finally get this country on the road to an improved national health care policy.

It’s time to set the record straight on what really are 'Bad Meds'...

Posted by Daniel Hines, publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

Ever since increasing numbers of U.S. citizens started turning to legitimate pharmacies from outside the United States to purchase safe, affordable prescriptions via mail order and the Internet nearly seven years ago, the major charges against their use by those who fear such sales will lead to lower prescription medicine prices in this country have been based on trumped-up charges of legitimacy, safety and whether or not the prescriptions being purchased were counterfeit.

These charges have taken a variety of forms over the years, as ‘spokespersons’ for the pharmaceutical industry joined in a chorus of false charges about safety and efficacy. It was—and remains—a clumsy attempt by the pharmaceutical industry, to confuse the American public in an attempt to scare it away from what was its only opportunity to purchase safe, affordable and vital prescription medicines.

Backed by a seemingly unlimited bankroll, the pharmaceutical industry had no trouble in finding persons and ‘groups’ ready to engage in such scare tactics, ranging from college professors who raised the specter of counterfeit medicines being used to fund terrorist tactics ; to ‘Grandma’ Green, who toured the country in a John Madden-type bus talking about the dangers of Canadian pharmacies courtesy of funding from a misnamed ‘senior’ group which, some have charged, lacked any senior membership; to even media that used misstatements and stories lacking any basis in facts under the cover of claimed ‘investigative reporting.’

It did not matter to those making the charges that the prescriptions being purchased by countless numbers of Americans were in fact medicines manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies that were ironically claiming their own medicines were unsafe. It did not matter that the pharmacies supplying the prescriptions were subject to oversight and standards that met or exceeded those of the United States. It did not matter that our country’s Food and Drug Administration itself had stated that individual American citizens could purchase medical devices or prescription medicines from other countries if they were not available in this country. It did not matter that many argued that if a medicine was not affordable, it was not available in this country. It did not matter that the U.S. Congress has three times passed legislation to facilitate access to medicines from outside the U.S, only to watch as the pharmaceutical industry got the payback for its extensive political contributions and lobbying efforts with ‘poison pill’ amendments that effectively negated the will and intent of the U.S. Congress to the detriment of the American public it had been elected to serve.

Now, a new report from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University has clearly identified characteristics of bogus pharmacies. In so doing, it has laid out the differences between bogus pharmacies and legitimate, licensed and registered pharmacies in other countries. These important guidelines can help the public—and hopefully the media and policy-makers—put an end to the attempts at confusion and misdirection.


Here are some of the major points from the report followed by a description of the difference on each point between bogus pharmacies and legitimate ones from outside the U.S.:

• Bad Meds: Of the Web sites advertising or selling controlled prescription drugs, like OxyContin and Valium, Xanax and Vicodin, and Ritalin and Adderall, in the past year, 85 percent of Web sites selling such drugs do not require a prescription

Legitimate Pharmacy: No legitimate mail-order pharmacy from outside the U.S. advertises or sells controlled prescription drugs. No legitimate mail-order pharmacy will sell any medicine without a prescription from a physician.

• Bad Meds: The report found sites selling online "medical consultations" which enable Internet users to get controlled drugs online without a proper prescription.

Legitimate Pharmacy: No legitimate mail-order pharmacy from outside the U.S. will engage in schemes that remove the requirement that all medicines sold must have a prescription from the client’s doctor.

• Bad Meds: Of the few sites that require prescriptions, half permit the
Prescription to be faxed, allowing significant opportunity for fraud.

Legitimate Pharmacy: All legitimate pharmacies and services verify the validity of the prescription.

• Bad Meds: There are no controls blocking access to these sites by children and teens.

Legitimate Pharmacy: There would be virtually no chance of a teen or child to order from a mail-order, Internet-based pharmacy outside the U.S. because in addition to the oversight of authorities in its own country, almost all mail-order pharmacies have instituted rigorous controls of their own. Add to this the requirements that all client orders have a physician-ordered prescription, and the possibility of teens or children ordering medicines of any type from legitimate, professional sources are virtually nil.

The report notes that “last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), held hearings on "’The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008’ to control Internet trafficking of controlled prescription drugs which was introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). The Senate passed the bill in April of 2008. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the topic last month.”

It is important to note that according to highly placed sources of Rx for American Health, the Bill in no way was intended by the sponsors or those who voted for it to be a reflection upon the benefit of legitimate on-line, mail-order pharmacies and related services, such as provided by the Dorgan-Snowe bill.

It is obvious that it is time to end this subterfuge about the safety and efficacy of prescription medicines from such pharmacies and to deal with the facts.

Senator Brown gets to point...drug companies use cheaper foreign, unsafe materials to save money

In what is a delightful piece of irony, United States Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has taken action that has to cause anyone who has followed the campaign of false charges, misdirection and scare tactics by pharma and its allies against access by Americans to safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies outside the United States to recognize that pharma has been caught in a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

For years, proponents of such access have battled to arm the American public with the facts--that pharmacies in other countries must meet rigid standards that meet and often exceed those of the oversight in the U.S. Added to this is the fact that these reputable pharmacies and services exhibit the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.

Still, in an attempt to protect its predatory pricing practices, the pharmaceutical industry has conducted a vicious campaign enlisting allies as diverse as a bus-riding Grandma Green who has toured the country in a John Madden-style bus to spread the pharma gospel of fear and mis-statements by college professors such as Dr. Marv Shepherd, who heads up something called the Pharmacoeconomic Studies Center at the University of Texas, but who resorts to subterfuge when called out about their pharma industry links and support, building a speaking career talking about 'counterfeit' medicines via the Internet.

Added to this is the disregard for traditional journalistic standards of media that misuse standards of free speech, hiding behind their right to make inaccurate charges, and then claim a special privilege of protection from having to report factually and accurately. One of the more recent examples is the totally false charges made by an investigative team of WISH-TV in Indianapolis against CanaRx Services, Inc., a leading international pharmacy benefits manager based in Canada. Even though CanaRx has created additional oversight practices to guarantee the safety and efficacy of prescription medicines purchased through voluntary programs with employees of local governments and has generated millions of dollars in savings for hard-pressed local governments, an 'investigative' reporter made unfounded charges of 'counterfeit drugs' in her report. When faced with demands--even the opportunity--to rectify its mistake and to correct a statement that the reporter had attempted to give CanaRx the opportunity to respond, the station instead chose to hide behind Indiana law designed supposedly to promote free discussion and debate, rather than meeting its resposibility to set the record straight.

And therein lies the basis of what makes Senator Brown's letter to Pfizer so special. It is the first time that anyone has called out the web that pharma has spun. The Senator is calling for an investigation based on earlier Pfizer testimony that it outsources 17 percent of its pharmaceutical manufacturing and acknowledgement by the FDA of the pharma trend of outsourcing to avoid drug safety regulations.

What a spectacle! Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world that has spent untold millions of dollars to prevent Americans from purchasing prescription medicines claiming concerns about safety, is using substandard ingredients to avoid oversight. Remember, we're not talking about just the manufacturing of the majority of prescription medicnes outside the U.S. (Lipitor is from Ireland,, for example), but a conscious decision by Pfizer--and others--to cut corners with no regard for the safety and efficacy of its products.

There's an old saying that when you point a finger at someone, you have three pointing back at yourself. Pfizer proves that it's still true.

Let's hope Senator Brown's call for an investigation is heeded. As part of that process, it would be appropriate to expand the scope to look at the pattern of abuse of the truth by pharma and its allies against the legitimate operations of a host of legitimate pharmacies and businesses that have dedicated themselves to providing Amerians with access to safe, affordable prescription medicines only to be victimized by reckless and false charges about their adherence to the highest standards of safety, all the while providing vast numbers of individual Americans, groups and local governments relief from the highest drug prices in the world.

To read Senator Brown's letter, click here.
Posted by Daniel Hines, publisher, TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com