HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So taxpayers are subsidiz...

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:17 AM

So taxpayers are subsidizing Big Pharma's TV advertising

I had no idea until I got an email yesterday from my senator, Jeanne Shaheen. It is bad enough that we get bombarded with these annoying and often misleading ads night and day, but apparently we are helping to finance them as well. As if the out of control drug price increases weren't enough! Could they get any greedier?

Have you noticed how it seems like every time you turn on your TV there’s an ad for another prescription drug? Drug companies are spending billions on these ads and inundating the airwaves. This aggressive advertising increases demand so that drug companies can continue to hike up drug prices. Meanwhile, many Granite Staters, particularly seniors, are having to make tough choices, often having to choose between expenses like bills and groceries, and the medications they desperately need.

What’s worse, taxpayers are subsidizing these Big Pharma ad campaigns. Through a loophole in the tax code, drug companies are allowed to deduct the cost of advertising expenses from their federal taxes. This scheme yields an incredible windfall for the drug companies and it needs to end. That’s why today, I introduced legislation, the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Ads Act, to close this egregious loophole in the tax code. It’s long past time that Congress and the Trump administration get serious about addressing prescription drug costs, and this legislation would be a big first step forward. I’ll continue to update you as I rally support for this legislation in Congress.


This is one of many reasons why we need Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, as well as a progressive in the White House.

69 replies, 3084 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply So taxpayers are subsidizing Big Pharma's TV advertising (Original post)
PatSeg Jan 11 OP
volstork Jan 11 #1
PatSeg Jan 11 #5
Bernardo de La Paz Jan 11 #41
malaise Jan 11 #2
EarnestPutz Jan 11 #3
PatSeg Jan 11 #6
Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 11 #7
PatSeg Jan 11 #16
Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 11 #21
PatSeg Jan 11 #40
jberryhill Jan 11 #50
dhill926 Jan 11 #4
Sucha NastyWoman Jan 11 #8
mtngirl47 Jan 11 #20
FiveGoodMen Jan 11 #63
jberryhill Jan 11 #64
pandr32 Jan 11 #9
jberryhill Jan 11 #48
FakeNoose Jan 11 #10
shanti Jan 11 #19
Pantagruel Jan 11 #11
luvtheGWN Jan 11 #12
PatSeg Jan 11 #14
House of Roberts Jan 11 #22
jberryhill Jan 11 #33
PatSeg Jan 11 #44
ancianita Jan 11 #13
TheFarseer Jan 11 #15
PatSeg Jan 11 #42
jberryhill Jan 11 #51
PatSeg Jan 11 #54
jberryhill Jan 11 #57
PatSeg Jan 11 #59
jberryhill Jan 11 #61
PatSeg Jan 11 #65
zaj Jan 11 #17
StatGirl Jan 11 #55
area51 Jan 11 #18
CaptainTruth Jan 11 #23
Bernardo de La Paz Jan 11 #39
PatSeg Jan 11 #46
jberryhill Jan 11 #49
Bernardo de La Paz Jan 11 #56
mountain grammy Jan 11 #24
duforsure Jan 11 #25
CaptainTruth Jan 11 #26
dalton99a Jan 11 #27
mastermind Jan 11 #28
KPN Jan 11 #29
jberryhill Jan 11 #30
KPN Jan 11 #32
fleabiscuit Jan 11 #35
jberryhill Jan 11 #37
fleabiscuit Jan 15 #66
safeinOhio Jan 11 #31
Honeycombe8 Jan 11 #34
jberryhill Jan 11 #47
Honeycombe8 Jan 11 #62
demigoddess Jan 11 #36
Bernardo de La Paz Jan 11 #38
backtoblue Jan 11 #43
sigpooie Jan 11 #45
PoliticAverse Jan 11 #52
sigpooie Jan 11 #53
jberryhill Jan 11 #58
hunter Jan 11 #60
Scurrilous Jan 15 #67
Raine Jan 15 #68
PatSeg Jan 15 #69

Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:31 AM

1. "Could they get any greedier?"

The answer to that question is always, "Yes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to volstork (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:47 AM

5. Yes, sadly it is true

That is the problem with greed, there are no limits unless we impose them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to volstork (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:21 PM

41. Can politicians obfuscate any more?


If companies can legally advertise then they can legally deduct advertising expenses.

If you don't want Pharma to deduct it then you have to legally prohibit them from advertising. How do you expect that to pass constitutional muster?

Fundraising & politicking on a murky shaky foggy basis is not a good long range strategy for political success because the fog will end up being dispersed and if the ground is shaky then any legislation built on it will fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:33 AM

2. This is a very important post

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:33 AM

3. Seventeen drug ads on television in one half hour evening show.

Fifty-six different drugs advertised over a nine month period (I've been
writing them down since last April). And we're paying for them? Give me
a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarnestPutz (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:56 AM

6. Seventeen???

I knew it was outrageous, but I had no idea how bad it was because I grab the remote and hit fast-forward as quickly as I can. I can't stand the commercials as they often seem to be selling disease, not health.

I do find it rather amusing that six to twelve months after a new expensive drug is advertised, we start to see commercials from law firms about class action suits against that drug. The least surprising were the Low-T drugs that were applied like deodorant, but had horrifying side effects.

I am old enough to remember when drugs companies, doctors, hospitals, and health insurance companies were not allowed by law to advertise. This is what happens when corporate money is allowed in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarnestPutz (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:56 AM

7. Most not covered by insurance and are pay out of pocket.

Many of these are "no guarantee" to cure as well. It's relentless. If you aren't sick at 430pm...you may be at 11....and really...you're the ame person you were at 430. Planting seeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crutchez_CuiBono (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:18 PM

16. And you can't blame many insurance companies

for not wanting to pay these ridiculous inflated prices, when there often cheaper alternatives that have been around for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:40 PM

21. I blame insurance companies for what they have created for all of us...

for profit healthcare. No sympathy from me for insurance companies. (The same ones who raised prices themselves after O care and got everyone pissed off as if the whole thing was bad.)
But, i'm not blaming you for bringing it up. It's your OP. Have a good weekend. It's possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crutchez_CuiBono (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:19 PM

40. Oh no, I'm not defending the insurance companies

I just understand their reluctance to pay the high prescription drug prices.

I realize that if we look at the history of healthcare in this country, the existence of private healthcare insurance was the initial cause of the out-of-control costs. At one time, they were quite efficient and paid most expenses, but many hospitals and doctors got greedy and took advantage of the insurance, often performing unnecessary procedures, surgeries, and tests. Sometimes just charging for things they never even provided. For profit insurance companies were equally greedy and fought back, leaving the patient in the middle struggling to survive.

We need to take the profit motive and shareholders out of healthcare, like other developed nations. As for insurance, I think it is necessary for unforeseen disasters like automobile accidents or house fires, but it really has no place in healthcare, as healthcare is an ongoing necessity in people's lives. Not everyone will experience loss from a house fire, but everyone will need medical care in their life.

Having a good weekend these days gets harder all the time, as Trump never sleeps and never shuts up, but I will try!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:47 PM

50. Yes and no


One of the problems with the ACA is that it incentivizes insurance companies to increase costs, since their profit is capped at a percentage of costs.

It's like hiring a broker to buy you something and having them get paid a percentage commission on the sale price, instead of a percentage commission for the difference between a sale price and some higher figure. The incentive is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:45 AM

4. K & R....for visibility.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:59 AM

8. Aren't all types of businesses allowed

To deduct advertising costs as business expenses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sucha NastyWoman (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:33 PM

20. Yes--Advertising is a 100% write off to all businesses.

Madison Avenue will lobby against any changes---and Schumer will support Madison Avenue.

Instead of changing the tax laws the FDA should change laws so that prescription medication cannot be advertised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mtngirl47 (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:16 PM

63. I did not know that

And I sure don't like it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:33 PM

64. It's an expense - like any other expense


Nobody is going to sell much if there is no way to tell the public what they have to sell, as a general proposition.

Are there other categories of business expenses that businesses should not be able to count against revenues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:00 PM

9. K & R

I wonder if insurance companies have the same loop hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pandr32 (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:40 PM

48. EVERY company has this "loophole" because it is a bullshit claim


My company has this "loophole" and so does every other company.

The "loophole" is that expenses are deductible.

By that measure, taxpayers are "subsidizing" the coffee machine at their offices too, along with every other business expense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:02 PM

10. Many (most) of those ads are aimed at senior citizens

The pharmaceutical ads that I see on TV are mostly aired during local and national news shows. They know that seniors are more likely to watch televised news and many people plan their evening activities (dinnertime etc.) around them. Seniors have frequent visits to doctors and are more likely to be covered under Medicare or other insurance. Seniors are more likely to "self-diagnose" by identifying with the actors on the screen, and they're more likely to request the Rx from their doctor by brand name. (That's nirvana for the Big Pharma companies!)

Personally I have always objected to these drug ads masquerading as info-mercials but I've just learned to tune them out. I can't even tell you the brand names of the drugs that are on the current rotation of ads. But it's certain that the news networks LO-O-OVE these spots, and they've worked with Big Pharma to get as much bang for their buck as possible. There is way too much money involved for the networks and the pharmaceuticals to let this be killed off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:24 PM

19. Since cutting the cable cord

and going to streaming content, I no longer have the ability to ff thru the ads, which sucks bigtime. The only thing I can do is mute them.

And don't get me started on how PBS has changed for the worse. The quality of the content is not what it once was, and yes, they also have ads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:06 PM

11. Follow the money

Advertising dollars go directly to the media. And since Citizens United it's worse with political ads than drugs.Neither will stop as long as it benefits media outlets. Any politician that tries to stop the practice will be demonized by media seeking to protect their best revenue sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:08 PM

12. It's not just TV. Leaf through monthly magazines

like Good Housekeeping and check out the number of pages devoted to ads, plus a full page listing possible side effects etc.

Canada halted prescription drug advertising many years ago, although some are allowed (Cialis, Viagra) but the spots are not allowed to say what the drugs are used for (some of them are hilarious, actually!!). OTC drugs ads are allowed.

My late husband, after watching US TV drugs ads that always mention possible side effects, used to add, at the end of that long list "and death".

Big Pharma always talk about research and development as the reason for the high cost of their products in the US. However, I have read that upwards of 80% of their expenses is spent on advertising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luvtheGWN (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:14 PM

14. More like 'research and deveopment'

into marketing tactics and how to get the most money out of any drug. Then they take a drug that has been around for decades, make a slight change, and acquire a new patent so they can jack up the price to compete with the generic version. They have to advertise the "new" drug and push it to doctors and hospitals as well, even though the old drug worked just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luvtheGWN (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:45 PM

22. My favorite ones are when they are tearing through the side effects,

and they put diarrhea just before vomiting, so it sounds like it is one side effect, diarrhea vomiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to House of Roberts (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:22 PM

33. It is

Diarrhea vomiting is where you actually vomit diarrhea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to House of Roberts (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:30 PM

44. Not exactly a pleasant visual!!!

Though I have to say that some of the ads are so ridiculous that I laugh out loud. I never caught the "diarrhea vomiting" one though.
They often come across more like a Saturday Night Live sketch than a real ad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:10 PM

13. No wonder we get a barrage of ads. They spend other people's money. What a PR cash cow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:16 PM

15. Is that really a loophole?

Why would a company not be able to take advertising as an expense reducing net income on their taxes?

I’ll definitely hear arguments that they should not be allowed to advertise in this way but the tax argument is just weird to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:25 PM

42. That did occur to me

but anything related to healthcare often has stricter rules and guidelines. The consumer should not have to pay both increased drug prices and the cost of advertising them both in taxes write-offs AND higher prices.

Of course, the answer is not to allow them to advertise directly to the consumer and reasonable regulation of drug prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:50 PM

51. You could say the same thing about automobiles


Taxpayers bailed out the auto industry and the automakers deduct the cost of their advertising, which is built into the price of cars.

"The consumer should not have to pay both increased drug prices and the cost of advertising them both in taxes write-offs AND higher prices."

To what industry does that same reasoning not apply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:58 PM

54. Healthcare has always been considered

different from other businesses. It is considered a vital and necessary service and historically it often operated under different guidelines and rules.

Not all businesses are the same and regulations vary depending on the nature of the business. Until recently, healthcare was not considered a profit oriented business.

Though I understand your argument, I also understand where Shaheen is coming from and I think it is a baby step in the right direction. Meanwhile, we can agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:47 PM

57. What is it we disagree about?


I'm not even sure what it is we disagree about.

The piece is deceptively written. If someone wants to argue for a special provision under which prescription pharmaceutical advertising is not a deductible business expense, then they should do so honestly, and not act as if it is a "loophole" or special benefit to them of some kind.

Secondly, the pharmaceutical business has never been considered to be anything other than a profit making business. Or do you also have an issue with advertising of over-the-counter medications as well?

But if the issue is "healthcare advertising" more broadly, then I see advertisements for hospitals and medical practices on television all of the time. I see advertisements for cancer treatment centers, and other specialty medical services. Why should they be excluded from the same effort? I also see advertisements for health insurance.

Since your point is about "healthcare", then surely you agree that Shaheen does not go far enough here, and that the elimination of the deductibility of advertising expenses should go for ALL "healthcare" businesses. Correct?

Or are doctors and hospitals not, in your opinion, "vital and necessary services" which operate under heavy regulation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:07 PM

59. Okay, that is where I can agree with you

When you talk about ALL healthcare businesses, but you have to understand that I come from an era where treatment centers, medical practices, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance were not allowed to advertise. They were considered services, not profit oriented businesses and the guidelines were stricter for them than other businesses. The standards were much higher.

Over the counter medications did not fall in the same category, which no one had a problem with.

As for pharmaceuticals, much of the research and development was done by the government or universities. When I was young, no drug company was making obscenely huge profits. They provided a needed service and were compensated accordingly.

I just don't find Shaheen's wording really all that deceptive and like I said, I think this is a first step to much needed change in healthcare in this country. Ideally, someday we will have universal healthcare with pricing limits on drugs and services, pretty much like most developing nations have. That is why in order to survive, I have to buy most of my prescription drugs from overseas. For instance, I can get a $385 inhaler for $35, which is closer to what it sold for here just ten years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:55 PM

61. "I come from an era"

I'm not sure when you were young, but I'm closer to 60 than 50, so I'm not sure where all that is coming from.

Bayer, Sandoz, Merck, Wyeth, Upjohn, Abbot, Lilly, Glaxo, Smith Kline and a host of others since merged (including several of these), were always extremely profitable companies. I have utterly no idea where you could have gotten the impression that they were ever anything but highly profitable. While there has always been government-funded research, these companies have always had large research departments and made enormous profits on the exclusive rights obtained on their patented medications.

This tale you are spinning, on some odd notion that I'm a youngster, is simply not true. They have had aggressive marketing programs for a very long time, and certainly going back to the 1950's.

HUGELY profitable drugs were exclusively marketed by pharma companies during any time you have credibly been alive.

Thalidomide is one of the greatest examples of pharma greed over safety - and that was in the 1960's - by its exclusive US marketer, Smith Kline.

And who can forget the only drug ever advertised by the Rolling Stones - "Mother's Little Helper":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meprobamate

In May 1950, after moving to Carter Products in New Jersey, Berger and a chemist, Bernard John Ludwig, synthesized a chemically related tranquilizing compound, meprobamate, that was able to overcome these three drawbacks.[3] Wallace Laboratories, a subsidiary of Carter Products, bought the license and named their new product "Miltown" after the borough of Milltown, New Jersey. Launched in 1955, it rapidly became the first blockbuster psychotropic drug in American history, becoming popular in Hollywood and gaining notoriety for its seemingly miraculous effects.

You must not have grown up in this country, because pharma companies touting regular new "wonder drugs" (Haldol being another good example) have been a regular feature of the US medical industry since well before WWII.

So, I'm not sure about what "era" you come from. But in my era, G.D. Searle made a mint in the 1960's by introducing this:



It was hugely profitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 07:27 PM

65. Much older than you

and I can assure it was NOTHING like it is now, not even close. I suppose if they had been allowed to advertise, it might have been worse. Yes there were dangerous drugs on the market. That seems to have been with us as long as there have been drug companies. I've been on the receiving end of potentially fatal medications more than once.

"Hugely profitable" in the 1950s and 1960s was nothing compared to "hugely profitable" today. Big Pharma has learned a lot of new tricks since then, they bought more politicians, infiltrated the FDA, compromised hospitals and doctors, AND bombarded us shamelessly with advertisements. Their nature may have not changed, but there was a time when government oversight and regulations were much stricter and believe or not, most people could afford their medications.

I'm certainly not defending drug companies from years ago, I'm defending the government who exerted more control and oversight over them. The same with the financial world. There were actually laws that prevented meltdowns like 2008 and some people really did go to jail when they didn't play by the rules. I was there and lived with the pressure of SEC rules. AND when I went home there were no commercials for drugs, doctors, hospitals, medical centers, medical devices, or medical insurance. It was not perfect, but a far cry from what we are living with today.

I'm getting tired, so I'll wish you a good night and a happy weekend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:21 PM

17. Advertising isn't a special loophole

Right?

It's a standard business expense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zaj (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:32 PM

55. I agree.

I'm having trouble drumming up any outrage over this "loophole".

But I'm fine if the FDA wants to curtail pharmaceutical direct advertising to consumers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:46 PM

23. I thought advertising was a standard business expense that's tax deductible?

I know I've been deducting advertising expenses for my business every year I've been in business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:17 PM

39. Yeah, something's fishy about that quote in OP. Not enough information to make any case. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:37 PM

46. That came from Shaheen's email

Here is her press release and there are numerous other articles from newspapers as well.

(Washington, DC) – This week, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the End Taxpayers Subsidies for Drug Ads Act with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). The bill would eliminate the tax deduction for big pharmaceutical companies’ advertising costs, which is currently subsidized by American taxpayers. Taxpayers fund billions of dollars in television, online, magazine, and other direct-to-consumer advertising that drug companies use to promote their products. Unfortunately, these expenses are fully deductible costs come tax time for pharmaceutical companies, all while those companies continue to raise the cost of prescription drug costs.

“It is completely backward that middle-class families are footing the bill so big pharmaceutical companies can enjoy a tax break,” said Senator Shaheen. “Too many American families struggle to afford necessary medications for chronic conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure, and too many of our first responders on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic worry about having access to live-saving opioid overdose antidotes like Naloxone, which have exploded in price. This is a commonsense bill that will set priorities straight and hold big pharmaceutical companies financially responsible for their own advertising expenditures and relieve American taxpayers of an unnecessary and unfair fiscal burden.”

Shaheen has long fought to combat rising drug prices, which hurt every day Americans struggling to afford the medication they need, as well as first responders in New Hampshire who carry Naloxone, the antidote that reverses opioid overdoses. A package of Evzio, a branded version of Naloxone that is manufactured by Kaleo, cost $690 in 2014 but rocketed to $4,500 in 2017 – a price increase of more than 500 percent. Just last month, Senator Shaheen spoke on the Senate floor and urged her Senate colleagues to vote against confirming Alex Azar as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in part, due to his history as a pharmaceutical executive where he opposed government regulations on drug pricing and saw net prices of pharmaceuticals manufactured by his former company increase by double digit percentages. Shaheen previously backed bipartisan legislation to help reduce the costs of prescription drugs, which was introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John McCain (R-AZ).


https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/shaheen-introduces-bill-to-repeal-tax-break-for-big-pharma-companies-paid-for-by-american-taxpayers


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:43 PM

49. That's really deceptively worded


There is not some special exemption that drug companies have for advertising.

This is advocacy for a special rule making them unable to deduct the cost of that advertising - which is something EVERY and ANY business can do and does.

If she wants to eliminate consumer prescription drug advertising, that's a fine thing for which to argue. But to go around making it seem as if they are getting some kind of special break here is not really honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:46 PM

56. Yup. It is anti-progressive to use dishonestly deceptive wording for progressive causes. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:47 PM

24. K & R

and thank you for this.. it should get much more attention.. I will follow that bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:51 PM

25. Yes we do

And all their lobbying, and their running ads 24/7 on the TV. Why should we pay for all that? It also drives prices higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:51 PM

26. Personally i think direct to consumer advertising of drugs should be prohibited.

The average consumer (without a medical degree) is in no position to decide what prescription drugs are best for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:52 PM

27. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:56 PM

28. All pharma ads should be banned from media. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 12:59 PM

29. Are you f'ing kidding me?! What's the loophole? How didit get there? I wanna know the details.

I know. Google it. I will.

If this is an accurate portrayal:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:10 PM

30. The loophole is that businesses deduct expenses


It's not so much of a "loophole" as "how tax works".

McGaskill, Franken, and Clinton have, in the past, proposed a specific exception to disallow deductibility of advertising expenses for prescription medications.

If one wants to argue that there should be no direct to consumer advertising for prescription meds, that's a fine position to take. But why one industry should be singled out among others on deductibility of an ordinary business expense hasn't really been explained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:17 PM

32. That's exactly what I figured. If we can regulate tobacco tv ads out of existence on the basis of

public health concerns, we should be able to do this as well. Lots of support within the medical community for doing this, i.e., patients demanding and eventually obtaining prescriptions based on tv ads, i.e., self-prescribing controlled medications without the requisite expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:44 PM

35. Because consumers can't buy their products on their own authority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:00 PM

37. I'd bet half the people watching football can't buy beer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2019, 03:07 AM

66. Non Sequitur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:13 PM

31. How Big Pharma buys the government....

In this report, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) examines how the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying activity has responded to the growing possibility that legislators may take action to rein in the cost of prescription drugs. First, we explore the size of the drug pricing lobby by examining lobbying records for mentions of drug pricing and other similar search terms. We found that lobbying on this issue has dramatically increased over the past decade. CREW found 153 different companies and organizations that reported some variation of the term “drug pricing” on their federal lobbying disclosures during the first three quarters of 2017. This number has more than quadrupled over the past five years. Twenty-two of Forbes magazine’s top 25 largest drug and biotech companies in the world were found to have lobbied on some variation of the term “drug pricing.” Collectively, these 22 companies spent more than $80 million on lobbying during this period.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/a-bitter-pill-how-big-pharma-lobbies-to-keep-prescription-drug-prices-high/

Please read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:40 PM

34. Close the loophole!!!! That's outrageous! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:38 PM

47. There is no loophole


Any business deducts advertising as an expense.

This piece is advocating for a special provision singling out the pharmaceutical industry to be unable to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising expenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:02 PM

62. Ahhh. I see. Thx. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:56 PM

36. I think it is interesting that the drugs to give you "clear skin" can lead to

cancer, TB, and death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:15 PM

38. Subsidizing? Like taxpayers subsidize Ford & Momsy's Pie Cafe & TidyBowl advertising?


As I understand it, ALL companies "deduct the cost of advertising expenses from their federal taxes".

1) Shaheen is using weasel-wording, being (deliberately?) ambiguous. She probably means deducted from taxable income before that income figure is used; NOT taxes. The way it is written makes it sound like it is deducted from the taxes payable after calculations as percentages of income.

2) Business expenses include the cost of advertising. Business expenses are deducted from business revenue to determine profit which is what is taxable. Aren't all businesses treated this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:25 PM

43. I get depressed watching antidepressant ads...

"Do you feel tired? Don't wanna get out if bed? Do you want to feel like you're twenty again?...."

And if you take this, you may have anal seepage (smelly jelly), heart problems, kidney problems, liver problems, and of course the dreaded sudden death...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:31 PM

45. the cost has been ahead of inflation for over 40 years

It's time to implement a law that makes all companies keep there price increases inline with what the rest of us make. Based on inflation a doctor visit would be about 800% lower and drugs would cost 2000% less If they do not, we soon will be working without them as our providers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:50 PM

52. If a business deducting the cost of advertising constitutes a "government subsidy"...

why shouldn't it be eliminated for all businesses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 02:58 PM

53. It should be changed

To a more equitable system. Right now it just helps the rich get more ahead of the rest of us. And without it the cost of ads would drop considerably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sigpooie (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:49 PM

58. What?


How does the fact that a business can deduct a business expense help "the rich get more ahead of the rest of us"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 04:07 PM

60. Just another reason to quit television.

I never see these ads. My television plays DVDs and Netflix. That's all it does.

If I was Emperor of Earth, advertising prescription drugs on television would be a felony. Quite a few pharmaceutical corporation execs would be sharing prison cells with guys who who were caught selling dirty heroin and meth on the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2019, 03:08 AM

67. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2019, 05:25 AM

68. It's OBSCENE that they

are getting away with this, they should never have been allowed to advertise on TV..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 15, 2019, 09:54 AM

69. I agree

When I was young, doctors, hospitals, medical insurance, and prescription drugs were not allowed to advertise. They were held to a higher standard and obviously with good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread