Blogger and breast cancer survivor Jane Hamsher rightfully and righteously laments the 12-year patent protection on biologics – miracle drugs made from living matter – folded into the current health insurance reform bill. Conversely, Big Pharma must be clinking its Martini glasses, passing the Sherry, and luxuriating in guaranteed profits.

While it’s clear, as Rep. Eshoo points out in her counter-blog, that the Eshoo amendment, limits for the first time patent protection for exorbitant cancer and HIV drugs, it’s also true that a minimum 12-year monopoly that allows Roche-Genentech to charge cancer patients with breast or brain tumors $185,000 per year for Avastin or Abbot Labs to suddenly increase its prices five-fold for Norvir, a key ingredient in the AIDS-HIV cocktail, constitutes an excessive stranglehold on access to medicine desperately needed, not only here but worldwide where AIDS leaves a trail of tears throughout Africa.

CALPERS, California’s 1.4 million employee pension plan, and AARP, the senior insurance group, both opposed the 12-year protection as unsustainable.

Congressman Waxman (D-Santa Monica), Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee wanted a five-year patent; President Obama supported a seven-year compromise exclusivity on biologics.

[...]

Shortly after the committee vote to extend the patents 12 years, Air America broadcast commercials in Los Angeles thanking Jane Harman for her support of drug research. Friends called me to complain. Why is Air America airing these commercials? My question was – Why is Big Pharma thanking Harman?

Now I know.

I apologize for jumping on you. I understand what you’re trying to do, and appreciate your patience with me.

Thank you for this, Jane. And thank you, too, wmd1961, for your commendable calm under pressure.

I probably didn’t pay the closest of attention in reading, nor pursue every link, etc., but I did read both Jane’s compelling post and Eshoo’s well-written response, to try to better understand the issue, and I ended up uncertain about the core problems Jane raised, without doing further research of my own.

Whether or not Rep. Eshoo is familiar with Jane’s work, she clearly went out of her way to denigrate Jane’s motives, implying bad faith (or petty politics) on her part, without cause or justification, rather than simply attempting to rebut Jane’s arguments. And Teddy is absolutely right that Eshoo repeatedly shielded her arguments behind Kennedy’s legacy in a contemptible and telling ‘pulling rank’ fashion. Perhaps in a way, though, there is an illustrative parallel in how Eshoo responded to Jane, and how Jane originally responded to wmd1961 here – both Jane and Eshoo are obviously deeply personally invested in this issue (no pun intended) for different reasons.

Like wmd1961, I await Jane’s response to Eshoo’s post (rather than doing my own homework) – which I think his comments here may help improve – in order to better understand Eshoo’s amendment (about which, I think the endorsements of groups fighting for a cure for AIDS and ALS, etc., carry significant weight with me – unless they likewise endorsed Waxman’s version and similar Senate language, indiscriminately).

This is debate – the kind of democratic debate that should be taking place on the House floor, or in committee meetings – where we have argument, counter-argument, rebuttal, until the issue is clear-cut, and uninformed observers can make up their own minds with comfort. It’s telling, indeed, that instead of the custom-designed forum for debate that is our federal legislature – where all the participants are known and identified and given equal opportunity in a defined period of time – we must resort to the internet, and its interrupted interaction of varying visibility, to obtain any kind of democratic debate on the most important issues of the day.

Two drawbacks of an intermittent internet debate in lieu of regular-order Congressional debate, are that on-line participating commenters can indeed be suspected due to their anonymity, and elected officials like Eshoo still feel the need to hurl insults simply because someone – who she doesn’t deign to acknowledge in the normal course of events, because not also an elected elite – dared to challenge her actions in office. Eshoo should take such obviously good-faith criticism in stride – it comes with the territory, as do the perks and the privileges. And she should urge her pal Speaker Pelosi to re-open the House floor to genuine debate and amendment, so that vital, life-altering policies and decisions like those under development in the pending health care legislation are fully aired in public, and debated, amended and made understandable to all who wish to be informed, however complex the issues may be.

So if a generic is chemically and bio-identical there should be no need for a repeat set of testing. It simply increases costs and delays the marketting. The Pharmaceutical industry is using this to simply create an additional extension of pension term.

Given that universities (and students are recruited) are used to do most of these tests there is already State and Federal contribution to these initial tests. And the public itself, when the drug is placed on the market, act as a further – larger – statistical test for any corrections.

]Suzanne hosted a late late night that left me feeling that down home FDL feeling I treasure.

I’m +2 now, so time to sleep. Thanks Jane.

And I totally respect you going out and being there with the Med students. And with the Hippy Gourmet. That rocks.

Eshoo SHOULD hire you — you’re a good online supporter, and she’s gonna need a few.

;)

Eshoo’s legislation isn’t good. My take on her attack on you is that is is defensible, and rising to defend yourself wasn’t a wise move.

Accepting her implicit ceding that evergreening is bad policy and helping strengthen her “prohibition on evergreening” makes a lot more sense. I’m going to be engaged with her staff to try and push for clearer anti evergreening language, and I’m thankful for the pointer to Schumer’s biosimilar bill.

I apologize for any offense you took from me.

I eagerly await Mz. Hamsher’s next piece in reply to Eshoo’s mistaken and foolhardy display on display at HuffPo.

Kick pol and troll/likeatroll ass Mz. Hamsher, it’s a pleasure to watch you do so and hold feets to fires.

*G*

If you start to sound like one, just know that it’s probably the thing that makes me most nervous about running a blog right now. We’re going to be taking several steps soon to make that a lot harder to do. If you think Eshoo’s great, by all means, defend her whole-heartedly, that’s wonderful. Just be careful about spreading distorted information that would accrue to the benefit of someone with a big psyops budget, especially right at the time they’d be spending it.

I didn’t want to piss Jane off. I’ve tried to keep my irritation under control as well, having a thick skin is important in on line communication.

This forum deserves civility and I try to keep it that way when I comment. Over on my motorcycle club’s forum… not so much. GTAFFIARD is one of the milder rejoinders there.