WASHINGTON, April 1, 2007 — Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and other health products spent nearly $182 million on federal lobbying from January 2005 through June 2006, a Center for Public Integrity study of disclosure records shows. 

Of that total, drug companies and their trade groups spent most of it, or $155 million, lobbying on a variety of issues ranging from protecting lucrative drug patents to keeping lower-priced Canadian drugs from being imported to the United States Drug interests employed about 1,100 lobbyists to do their bidding in each of the past two years.

Many of the bills targeted by lobbyists for drug interests last year were largely the result of public concerns over high drug prices and safety issues. Drug companies "have been facing an increasingly furious Congress and an increasingly disgruntled public," said Amy Allina, program director at the National Women's Health Network, a women's health advocacy group.

The drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent more than $18 million on lobbying last year, more than any single drug company and the most the group spent in one year since 1998, the earliest year of this analysis. In all, PhRMA has spent $104 million since 1998.

Among drug manufacturers, Pfizer, the world's largest drug firm, spent the most on lobbying last year — $12 million — bringing its total to more than $62 million since 1998. Merck spent about $48 million and Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers and GlaxoSmithKline each spent around $40 million in the same period.

One effort by lawmakers that drew heavy drug industry lobbying was to undo a provision of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. The legislation, which was passed after a huge lobbying blitz, guarantees that the nation's seniors and the disabled who receive Medicare are eligible for some form of prescription drug benefit starting in January 2006.

The law, often cited as a poster child for the industry's influence in Washington, bars the federal government from negotiating on prices of drugs supplied through Medicare. Many other bulk purchasers, including private insurers and federal departments such as the Veterans Health Administration, negotiate with companies for discounts.

A House bill sponsored in 2005 by Oregon Democrat David Wu would have allowed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs. A spokeswoman for Wu said the bill never made it out of committee. All similar bills met the same fate.

This session, the new Democratic House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which requires price negotiation, and the Senate is considering a companion bill. But the White House has issued a statement that President Bush would veto any push to require drug price negotiations in the Medicare program.

Nearly all major drug companies lobbied heavily to influence how the Medicare prescription drug program would be set up and administered.

The drug industry also lobbied aggressively to stall legislation that would have allowed drugs to be imported from other countries and sold in the United States. For years seniors, health activists and even state government officials have been demanding laws that make it easier to import drugs from Canada and other countries, where prices are significantly lower.

At least half a dozen measures supporting such a move were introduced in the House and the Senate during the last Congress, but none prevailed. According to a bill introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in January 2005, allowing "open pharmaceutical markets" could save American consumers at least $38 billion each year.

2. Beware of drug ads. They are done for the purpose of brainwashing. Meaningless and excessive drug advertising is designed to create an image of respectability for the pharmaceutical industry.
Just a reminder, and thanks to our elected officials, drug ads are illegal in nearly every country in the world except the US.

3. In the United States as a whole, drug companies shell out $4 billion to advertise directly to consumers on the television and print media. But that is small potatoes when it comes to what they spend on marketing to physicians to spread their message that drugs are the answer to all health care problems.

They spend 400 percent more, or $16 billion each year, to directly influence doctors. That is $10,000 for every single physician in the United States. In reality, the average amount is even somewhat higher, since they don't bother to spend much money on doctors who practice natural medicine and won't prescribe their toxic drugs.

I can assure you they haven't spent a wooden nickel on me this century, as I stopped seeing drug reps in the last century.

Why do they spend so much?

Please understand that drug companies are not stupid. Like any smart corporation they invest in this marketing because it works.

They make far more money as a result of their $16-billion investment in physician marketing. A Harvard Business School professional quoted in the Times echoed my exact sentiments about the all-too-cozy relationship between the drug companies and practitioners of conventional medicine:

"A doctor who represents a pharmaceutical company will tend to see the data in a slightly more positive light and as a result will overprescribe that company's drugs. When honest human beings have a vested stake in seeing the world in a particular way, they're incapable of objectivity and independence."

The same rationale also applies, unfortunately, to the sad state of drug safety in America, often trumped by ridiculous marketing ploys like giveaways and, when all else fails, the low art of disease mongering.

Meanwhile, the sad fact of the matter is, most of the drugs being prescribed by these compromised doctors are useless at best and outright dangerous at worst. And don't expect the hobbled, seriously compromised FDA to ever take on the drug companies. Remember, as it's currently configured, the FDA works in the best interests of the multi-national drug manufacturers, and not you! Dr. Mercola Mar. 21, 2007

4. As Doctors Write Prescription, Drug Company Writes a Check
By Gardiner Harris, New York Times, June 27, 2004 (excerpts)

The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail unsolicited. The doctor who received it from the drug maker Schering-Plough said it was made out to him personally in exchange for an attached "consulting" agreement that required nothing other than his commitment to prescribe the company's medicines. Two other physicians said in separate interviews that they, too, received checks unbidden from Schering-Plough, one of the world's biggest drug companies.

Those checks and others, some of them said to be for six-figure sums were investigated by federal prosecutors in Boston. Schering-Plough says that these activites occurred before it's new chief executive arrived, and that it has overhauled it's marketing to eliminate inducements.

5. Since 1997, when the Minnesota law required drug companies to disclose how much they've spent on the marketing efforts, drug companies have paid more than 5,500 health care workers in the state at least $57 million; more than 20 percent of the state's physicians received money, and over 100 people received more than $100,000. Ten doctors and one dentist received more than $500,000. Another $40 million was paid to clinics, research centers and other organizations.
Studies have shown that doctors who have close financial ties to drug companies tend to prescribe newer, pricier drugs...

(Excerpts)
New York Times March 21, 2007 (Registration Required)

6. Drug companies spend $4 billion every year to market their drugs to you.
They spend $16 billion to influence physicians.

7. The pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $800 million in lobbying and campaign contributions since 1998, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group.

8. GlaxoSmithKline gave Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina more than $31,000 for his Senate campaign last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. The company, which is developing a pandemic flu vaccine, gave more than $10,000 to Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., in 2002. Pfizer, Merck and other drug companies gave Gregg nearly $190,000 for his re-election bid last year, according to the center.

9. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seen by many Americans as a group of neutral government experts who set out to provide the public with honest, reliable, unbiased health information. And as the group is supported by taxpayers at a cost of $28 billion a year, this is exactly what one would expect.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that NIH members, some who travel the world encouraging doctors to prescribe certain medications, advise federal regulators and write articles for well-known medical journals, are not the unbiased resource they claim to be.

According to records, at least 530 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock options from biomedical companies in the last five years.

10. The pharmaceutical industry is raking in unheard of profits -- more than three times the average of other Fortune 500 industries -- even after including all research and development costs. Much of this is done under the guise that it's for the greater good. However, the facts bear out the system has become replete with research bias and conflicts of interest.

In an article titled Selling Sickness: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering, the British Medical Journal traveled to the depths of the health care system crisis created by what they called the medicalisation of society.

Medicalisation is the medical industry's practice of turning commonly found symptoms into a "disease" so its members can prescribe a medication for it. In addition, the medical industry works to increase the awareness of its drugs and treatment to get more customers, i.e. lots of TV commercials, ads, bowl sponsorships and the like.

11. Minnesota Law Sheds More Light on Drug Companies
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/24/minnesota-law-sheds-more-light-on-drug-companies.aspx

12. Beware of the Bird Flu hoax and all other hoaxes being used by the government in order to promote pharmaceutical products. When a handfl of people die after being diagonsed with the so called “Bird flu,” death is attributed to the Bird Flu. When thousands die after receiving the flu shot, death is attributed to “heart failure” or  “a pre-existing condition”. BobCatalano

13. Drug and health products industries invest $182 million to influence legislation.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/

14....A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers....
http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/06/08/us/08conflict.html?em&ex=1213070400&en=9971013dfd33290a&ei=5087%0A\