New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg typifies meaning of dis-in-gen-u-ous with misnamed Internet Pharmacy Safety Bill…Continues role of setting up obstructionist techniques to prevent Senate from doing its job

by Daniel Hines
Publisher
America’s Seniors at www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com

dis·in·gen·u·ous  Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness :

Added to that definition of disingenuous from Webster’s, an example should be added—Senator Judd Gregg, Republican, New Hampshire.  That’s because with his introduction of the terribly misnamed Safe Internet Pharmacy Act of 2007, he on the one hand claims support for the record of those licensed, registered pharmacies from outside the U.S. that have made access to safe, affordable prescriptions to untold numbers of American citizens with the ensuing health benefits a reality, he places burdensome restrictions upon not only those pharmacies, but upon U.S. citizens, physicians, and even the media with whom those pharmacies advertise.

For the record, so as not to leave ourselves open to charges of adopting the duplicity of Senator Gregg, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com has long been a supporter of prescription medicines from legitimate sources such as licensed registered pharmacies from other countries—most of whom must undergo more scrutiny than their American counterparts—and we have received sponsorship for our site from them through the placement of advertisements.

The top industries supporting Judd Gregg are:  (New Hampshire has 1.4 million residents…total funds raised by Senator Judd 2001-2006 were $3.4 million…these are the top four categories of supporters): 1. Health Professionals $207,450 2. Insurance $201,550 3. Lobbyists $198,511 4. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $198,000 From Mother Jones (1998)  A long-standing interest in pharma for Senator Judd Big contributions aren't the only way money can sway members of Congress. Consider the member who owns substantial stock in a company but sits on a subcommittee that oversees that corporation's business practices. How is a constituent to know whose interests the member puts first? Take Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, for example, a tall, flinty Yankee and the former governor of New Hampshire. As of his last financial disclosure statement, in 1995, Gregg owned between $100,000 and $250,000 of stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. To date, the pharmaceutical company's chairman emeritus, Richard L. Gelb (#400), has not given Gregg a penny for his upcoming 1998 Senate race, and Bristol-Myers' PAC has given him only $1,000. But Gregg's ownership of so much Bristol-Myers stock means legislation that benefits the company also benefits Gregg. Gregg proved himself a strong advocate for the pharmaceutical industry in the 104th Congress. A case in point is the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1995. The failed legislation would have enabled pharmaceutical firms -- including Bristol-Myers -- to sell drugs lacking FDA approval in other countries. (Incidentally, at least two of the bill's co-sponsors in the House also owned significant stock in pharmaceutical companies.) The fate of the bill in the Senate, however, rested largely on Gregg, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Aging, which had jurisdiction over the measure. What's more, Gregg was the Senate's chief deputy whip, the No. 3 man in control of Republican votes. But although he held hearings on the bill, Gregg could not drive the measure to the Senate floor for a vote. Undaunted, he used his seat on an appropriations subcommittee to attach an amendment onto last year's appropriations bill that served the same purpose as the failed bill, enabling drugmakers to export products that have yet to pass FDA muster. The amendment carried without debate and became law in April 1996. Over the next 10 months, Bristol-Myers stock soared 65 percent, from $82 a share to $136 a share. Although Gregg has not yet disclosed his 1996 stock holdings, his staff has given no indication that he sold any of his Bristol-Myers stock. If he has kept it, his stock increased in value by between $60,000 and $150,000 during those 10 months. From New Hampshire Public Radio: Senator Judd Gregg today strongly defended the pharmaceutical industry as lawmakers move to rein in prescription drug costs. The issue: allowing states to use their buying power to bring down drug prices. From Washington, NHPR correspondent Don Rush has this report. » login or register to post comments | 631 reads IT WAS, PERHAPS, THE MOST VIGOROUS DEFENSE OF THE DRUG INDUSTRY HEARD ON THE SENATE FLOOR. SENATOR JUDD GREGG LASHED OUT AT CRITICS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY?AS THE SENATE CONSIDERS MEASURES?TO BRING DOWN PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. THE NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN BRISTLED? AT THE DEMONIZING OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: July 20, 2006 in News | Permalink Senator Judd Gregg "If I were a creative terrorist, I would say to myself, 'Hey, listen, all I've got to do is produce a can here that says 'Lipitor' on it, make it look like the original Lipitor bottle, which isn't too hard to do, fill it with anthrax.'" Senator Judd Gregg said the proposal to let Canadian drugs into the US was "...creating a massive hole on our capacity to secure our borders and protect ourselves."   Even After Vioxx, Judd Gregg Remains Big PharMa's  by Steve Soto I’m sure you have been reading lately about the testimony from the FDA’s Dr. David Graham, who candidly told Congress last week that the FDA was "virtually incapable of protecting America" from unsafe drugs. The issue of drug safety came to a boil in recent weeks when the FDA pulled Vioxx off of the market in late September, and it was revealed that the drug’s producer Merck knew for several years that usage of the drug for treatment of arthritis, colon, and intestinal problems led to a higher than normal incidence of heart attacks. Dr. Graham’s testimony spurred GOP Senator Charles Grassley to call for legislation creating a new and more independent drug safety function within the FDA. Well, the creation of a new drug safety office within the FDA, something that sounds warranted after Graham’s testimony, has already gotten a ‘thumbs down’ from New Hampshire GOP Senator Judd Gregg, who believes that creation of the new office would only add another layer of bureaucracy to the FDA. Never mind that this layer of bureaucracy would assist consumer safety, Gregg is against it. But there is another possible reason why Gregg would be against the creation of a Drug Safety Office that would make it more difficult for drug companies to peddle dangerous drugs: Gregg gets a decent share of his campaign contributions from, you guessed it, those same drug companies that would be inconvenienced from the creation of this new office. In fact, in just 2003-2004 alone, Gregg got $136,500 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, nearly 10% of the total he got from all PACs. I'm sure this money came in handy in his recent re-election. Here's some of what Gregg got just in the last two years from big drug companies, just in time for his campaign this year: GlaxoSmithKline: $10,000 Johnson & Johnson: $10,000 Pfizer: $9,000 Merck (makers of Vioxx): $7,000 Amgen: $7,500 Abbott Labs: $6,500 And why would big drug companies want to buy off Senator Gregg? Because he sits on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, which, as you guessed has oversight over the FDA. Even after word of the increased incidents of heart attacks with the use of Vioxx was documented, Merck’s footdragging was discovered, and its threats against critics came to light, Gregg has dismissed calls for an independent drug safety office as an overreaction and not emblematic of a widespread problem. In fact, Gregg says the real issue is the need for more resources so that more drugs can be approved quicker, something that sounds like the industry’s own words.

Senator Gregg claims that he is interested only in stopping the flow of counterfeit prescriptions from ‘rouge’ pharmacies, a goal supported by all supporters of access to prescriptions from outside the U.S. 

The concept sounds simple enough:  Let all pharmacies be licensed with the FDA.  That’s fair enough.  It is only when one looks beyond the flack of the news release issued by Senator Gregg’s office that the real significance of his proposal becomes obvious:  To restrict the rights of American citizens to purchase prescription drugs by requiring a series of actions, many of which are already undertaken by the pharmacies to comply with their own regulatory agencies, with many of those reporting, packaging and handling requirements being unique to Internet pharmacies and which will be ignored anyway by rogue operations claiming to be pharmacies.

Senator Gregg is gaining a reputation in the 110^th Congress as the obstructionist of the U.S. Senate.  It is somewhat amusing to see Republicans who for years insisted on a quick ‘up-down’ vote on so many issues, suddenly rush to worship at the altar of the ’60 vote’ requirement to invoke cloture to allow votes and to allow the U.S. Senate to do its job. 

It might be compared to a Foxhole Conversion, but it works.

It was the New Hampshire Senator who proposed a ‘resolution’ calling for ‘support’ of our troops caught in the Civil War in Iraq, and was able to use the disingenuous  language from allowing an overwhelming majority of the Senate to vote because to vote ‘no’ would make it appear that one did not support the  troops.

Based on information we have received from well-placed sources, with his “Safe Internet Pharmacy Act,” Senator Gregg likely will repeat those tactics.  We have been told that he is not expecting it to be introduced as stand-alone legislation, but as an ‘amendment’ to    other legislation.

That undoubtedly has to be the latest reincarnation of the Dorgan-Snowe legislation calling for the ‘legalization’ allowing U.S. citizens to purchase prescriptions from legitimate pharmacies outside the U.S., thereby allowing them to enjoy the health benefits that those medicines can provide—medicines that otherwise would be unaffordable because of the predatory pricing practices of large pharmaceutical companies.

One can only believe that the Senator realizes the new found power he has in the Senate thanks to the magic number of 60, and that even though there is proposed legislation that has bi-partisan support complete with provisions to establish oversight, his role will be to once again be the obstructionist. 

Senator Gregg claims to want to have this bill because he doesn't believe states can handle the issue, but then calls for not only a Federal oversight, but for requiring the pharmacies to comply with state regulations in any state where it dispenses prescriptions.  Which is it Senator Gregg?  Federal oversight or state regulation?  And, will there be provisions for reciprocity, or will the pharmacies be required to file 50 applications.  If there is reciprocity, this should not be an unsurmountable problem.

He claims to support the benefits internet pharmacies can provide, but fails to support as a co-sponsor any bi-partisan legislation that would make access to safe, affordable prescriptions a reality.

He wants each internet pharmacy to identify itself with labels and markings on containers to identify company and source.  But his bill doesn’t provide protection for those legitimate licensed pharmacies from pharmaceutical companies claiming exclusive rights of distribution who would undoubtedly attempt to turn this information to its advantage by launching precipitous and expensive law suits.

The bill requires that the pharmacy identify anyone with whom it advertises.  One can only hope that Google and others will mount stiff opposition to this intrusive provision since there are no safeguards that truly protect the freedom of speech of those media.

Senator Gregg would require  a tamper-proof seal to 'ensure' that the pharmacy is licensed, although this is a classic non sequitur (it just doesn’t follow’ that such a seal ensures that the licensing requirement is met.)  It seems as though the Senator  is saying that the real problem lies with the U.S. Postal service and that prescriptions will be tampered with after leaving the pharmacy.

This bill requires that the pharmacist must provide consultation with the patient/client/caregiver before and after the dispensing of the medication and must provide a written report of the counseling/discussion, and requires a rigid verification process with the physician that if not completed within a designated time (it looks like 3 days), will lead to cause the pharmacy to be forbidden to dispense prescriptions.  Fortunately, I get my medication from the Veterans’ Administration, but I am hard pressed to recall any time that a pharmacist at our local pharmacies in St. Louis consults with me and/or my wife before, during or after the pickup of a prescription.

Also, why not place some of this on the shoulders of the pharmaceutical companies.  It would seem that a simple identification of the point of origin or manufacture for all prescriptions with some sort of labeling would be a good start.  But, that means that pharma and its spokespersons would have to admit that the majority of prescriptions that Americans consume are not manufactured in this country, thereby refuting the claims that prescriptions from countries such as Canada are somehow unsafe even when they come from a plant approved by the FDA.

The point is that the language of the proposed bill from Senator Gregg (and, of course, Senator Smith) is such that in certain areas it seemingly reflects that of the far superior Dogan-Snowe bill of past Congresses but in reality has restrictions and has no purpose of safety that will benefit the American public that is not already covered in existing proposals. 

Senator Gregg would serve all of us better if he were to drop his proposal and work within the framework of the structure of the Senate to help it achieve its true purpose—improving the well-being, health, safety and security of Americans, free of disingenuous duplicity.