TPMDC
Reid: I'm Not Bound By White House/PhRMA Deal
Share
Send to a friend!
During a Friday tele-town hall with constituents, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he's not bound by a controversial deal, reportedly reached between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry, to cap drug manufacturers' contributions to the cost of health care reform.
"I have not agreed with anybody to do that," Reid said. "I'm a Democrat in the Senate, and I haven't agreed."
PhRMA was the first major industry group to support the president's health care reform initiative, and even agreed to contribute $80 billion to the upstart cost of overhauling the system. But its support was reportedly linked to a deal, agreed to by the White House, that limits the contribution to $80 billion, and that rewards drug manufacturers with White House support for a number of their key policy preferences. The White House and PhRMA have each tried to walk back reports of the deal, though at times in conflicting ways.
Reid is the latest in a growing list of key members of Congress to insist they weren't party to the deal and aren't bound by it.
Comments (4) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
par4
August 31, 2009 9:39 AM
Talk is cheap. He reminds me of Arlen Specter during the Bush/Cheney years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stiggs
August 31, 2009 10:16 AM
Oh god. He's planning on striking a more favorable deal with big pharma. I'm guessing either a ban on generics or a mandatory 10% minimum year-over-year price hikes for all prescription drugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
August 31, 2009 11:56 AM
C'mon this is a deal Baucus made that the administration alternatively applauded and decried. Under the Baucus plan we'd save $80 billion over 10 years. With direct government negotiation of drug prices like they do in Canada, (and is favored by Pelosi and Waxman) we'd save $120 to $140 over 10 years. That's a difference of $4 to $6 billion a year.
There's more to it of course, 12 years max of patent protection in HR 3200, whether or not to force publication of clinical studies so competitors don't have to reverse engineer or reinvent the wheel when developing variations of drugs.
Anything that increases competition and lowers costs is fine by me. I don't buy the argument that US citizens need to subsidize drug development for the rest of the world or the nonsense that the drug companies will pull up stakes and do all their research and manufacturing elsewhere. They still do a lot of it in socialist old Europe and if they decide to go to China we ought to make them pay royalties to the NIH which funds most of their basic research at our universities anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
August 31, 2009 3:59 PM
No one is bound by the agreement--it was just to get them to the table.. You can not negotiate with someone unless they are at the table and make 'public' their intention to compromise!The Pharma cos and the Hc Insurance Cos. are scared to death of real reform or any regulation!
We do not have to subsidize drug companies..they are not going anywhere...they are already many places manufactoring the drugs..Mexico/ the Carib, and eastern Europe! They buy up the private research firms who are really doing the work! And they roll over the FDA with minor changes in the formulas to extend there monopolies..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?