Big, bad Big Pharma
Joyanee Soderhold was among the readers who took note of the graphic on this page last week that showed the pharmaceutical industry was pouring huge dollars into the defeat of Prop. 61, which would tie state agency purchases to prices negotiated by the Veterans Administration. She suggested the graphic implied that voters should support Prop. 61. “Yet The Chronicle recommends a ‘no’ vote,” Soderhold observed. “Can you clarify for me?”
Excellent question. Our editorial board spent more time researching and debating Prop. 61 than any other measure. There seems little doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is worried that passage would inflict a hit on its bottom line, and could lead to similar constraints in other states. I have no sympathy for Big Pharma, which has coopted too many physicians and medical organizations, and intimidated too many elected officials. It’s simply outrageous that the federal government is not allowed by law to use its purchasing power to negotiate drug discounts for Medicare, and that state and local governments are forced to sign confidentiality agreements when they purchase pharmaceuticals.
It is really tempting to support Prop. 61 as the only available remedy to price gouging. Our elected representatives in Washington, and even in the Democratic-controlled California Legislature, have shown their timidity against this special interest. Their continuing deference to Big Pharma is disgusting. But here’s the bottom line: The patient population for the VA is not the same as the women and children primarily served by state programs. And no voter initiative can force an industry to sell a product for less than it wants, which is why many health care advocates who despise Big Pharma’s tactics are opposing Prop. 61 out of their concern about drug availability. It’s not an easy call. If it were simply a referendum on whether to contain the industry’s shameless greed, it would be an emphatic yes. The verdict comes down to whether one is willing to take the risk, with lives at stake, that the measure will work as intended.
It was not, in our editorial board’s view, a risk worth taking.