Tom Marino might have withdrawn from consideration as Trumps drug czar, but drug fund is coursing through the veins of Congress contributing directly to an epidemic that kills thousands of Americans each year
Donald Trump was not wrong. Hours before his nominee for” medication czar” withdrew from consideration over his part in a statute limiting the Drug Enforcement Administration’s ability to crack down on pharmaceutical distributors feeding the US’s opioid epidemic, the president took a shot at the influence of narcotic companies over Congress.
” They contribute massive amounts of money to political people ,” he told, standing next to Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.
” I don’t know, Mitch, maybe even to you ,” he added.
Trump was right on both counts. Pharmaceutical companies spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians. Drugmakers have poured close to $2.5 bn into lobbying and funding each member of Congress over the past decade.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone to McConnell- although he is hardly alone. Nine out of 10 members of the House of Representatives and all but three of the US’s 100 senators have taken campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies seeking to affect legislation on everything from the cost of drugs to how new medicines are approved.
Trump’s nominee for medication czar, the US congressman Tom Marino, was forced to withdraw after a report by the Washington Post and CBS’s 60 Minutes highlighted his role in forging legislation that hinders the DEA’s ability to move against medication distributors or pharmacies recklessly dispensing the opioid analgesics at the heart of the epidemic, which claims more than 100 lives a day.
Marino’s acceptance of substantial gifts from those same companies compromised his nomination to head the federal agency charged with address the opioid crisis.
But for Congress, the process was nothing unusual. Hundreds of millions of dollars flow to lobbyists and politicians on Capitol hill each year to shape laws and policies that keep medication company profits growing. The pharmaceutical industry, which has about two lobbyists for every member of Congress, expended $152 m on influencing legislation in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Drug companies also contributed more than $20 m immediately to political campaigns last year. About 60% went to Republicans. Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was the single largest beneficiary, with gifts from the industry totaling $228,670.
The impact of so much medication company money coursing through the veins of Congress is often incremental or largely unseen by the American public, such as the industry’s make further efforts to block competitors in India from inducing generic versions of HIV/ Aids medications that are more affordable to developing countries.
But on occasion it has a hugely visible impact.
In his comments alongside McConnell, Trump was vocal in his criticism of what he said were pharmaceutical manufacturers” getting away with murder” by charging much higher costs in the US than other countries. That is the result of a 2003 statute, in fact written by the industry, avoiding all federal departments from attempting bids for the manufacture of drugs and medical devices- a process used in other areas, such as defence spending.
Instead, the pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever price they want for medications bought for the publicly operated Medicare and Medicaid programmes- and the federal government has no choice but to pay up.
Read more: www.theguardian.com