The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long lobbied for drug companies, but it appears that the chamber may have overstated its case when it came to Viagra. The business magazine Forbes reported in March that in return for lobbying and donating money to candidates who support the Chamber’s agenda, the organization has benefited greatly from the government’s generous handouts.
Forbes reports that from 1997 to 2006, the government gave 80 percent of Viagra’s sales price directly to the pharmaceutical company. Since the drug’s introduction in the U.S., the government has paid for 79.2 percent of its total sales. It seems that the government is directly or indirectly funding a great deal of Viagra’s development costs as well.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Helped Create The Crisis
Like many other organizations before it, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has taken a lobbying approach to try to improve its position on behalf of industry, but in this case its efforts may have backfired. The Chamber’s efforts to boost Viagra sales led to a situation where there was so much demand that the drug was becoming scarce. This, in turn, caused prices to skyrocket and was ultimately responsible for the federal government’s decision, in 2006, to pay for the vast majority of Viagra sales.
How Does The Government Pay For Viagra?
To understand how the government covers the cost of Viagra, it’s important to know a little bit about how the pharmaceutical industry works. From a clinical standpoint, the drug is essentially the same as its competitors. When a pharmaceutical company creates a new drug, it often has to perform numerous clinical trials to prove its effectiveness and safety. This is a lengthy and costly process that often takes six to ten years to complete. Once the company is able to do so, it can apply for FDA approval, which grants it the ability to market and sell its drug for clinical use. However, it must still follow the Generally Recognized Standards for Pharmaceutical Care (GRSFC) when dispensing the medication to patients. These standards, which serve as the basis for most U.S. pharmaceutical regulations, have been developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. They include such things as how the drug is stored, mixed, and presented to the patient. They also address matters such as patient counseling and record keeping. The U.S. FDA generally approves new drugs based on their effectiveness and safety in clinical trials, but it also looks at whether the drug’s manufacturing process adheres to the FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). Most importantly for our purposes here, the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies it oversees typically pay for the cost of developing new drugs. This is because the government considers drugs to be an important part of medical research and invests heavily in the R&D of new medications.
Taking Advantage Of The Government’s Handouts
Since its inception, the U.S. federal government has invested heavily in the pharmaceutical industry. Back in 1943, the federal government established the National Institute of Health (NIH) to, among other things, “promote basic and applied research” that would “benefit [the] Nation’s health.” One of the principal ways that the institute benefits society is by spending lots of money on research and development. Between 2000 and 2003 alone, the NIH spent $11.8 billion on R&D for new drugs and other medical products. In 2003, the government gave the pharmaceutical industry a tax credit of up to $4 for every dollar that it spent on R&D. This credit amounted to $20.8 billion in tax breaks for the industry that year alone. It wasn’t until 2006, after years of excessive use and lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry, that Congress decided to phase out these tax breaks in an effort to save the U.S. Treasury $32.8 billion over the next ten years. While the credits are no longer available, the government still funds the vast majority of drug research and development. The U.S. government expects the pharmaceutical industry to create a drug that will save thousands of lives and expects to pay for it.
The 80 Percent Payment Scheme For Viagra
When it comes to Viagra, the U.S. government has a history of bailing out businesses that are connected to the defense industry. In a report issued in 2006, the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs investigated the influence that the pharmaceutical industry has on Congress. The committee found that since 1997, the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $30 million on lobbying and over $600 million on campaign contributions. In return, the committee said that it expected the industry to get “considerable help” from the government. The committee also discovered that since 1997, the FDA had approved 35 new drug applications from 21 pharmaceutical companies. Twenty of these pharmaceutical companies are now part of the larger pharmaceutical conglomerate Pfizer. The CEO of Pfizer, who also happens to be its president, thanks to the “consolidation” of the company, has a personal relationship with the U.S. president and vice president. The CEO of Pfizer, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a prestigious group of international leaders), has been very active in the CFR (which has a pharmaceutical subcommittee) and is also on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It should not come as a great surprise, then, that the president of the United States’ favorite drug maker has had great influence over U.S. healthcare policy and that the government has chosen to directly or indirectly pay for a large number of its developments.
The Link Between Big Pharma And The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce
It is well-known that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has taken an active stance in favor of big business (especially big pharmaceutical companies), but exactly how close is the Chamber’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry? Is the Chamber really just an arm of the pharmaceutical industry, or does it work independently? It is important to note that the Chamber does not issue press releases or hold any public events that it does not deem “pro-business.” The Chamber, much like other businesses, is a for-profit organization and will work hard to support and advance the interests of its members. As previously noted, Pfizer, which owns 37.7 percent of the firm and is the largest shareholder, has been a consistent contributor to the Chamber’s political action committee. The pharmaceutical company has given the group $16.5 million since 1997 and has also been a major funder of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), a group that works to get Republicans elected to Congress. The Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of trade associations (i.e., businesses that are members of the group), which include drug companies. These companies contribute heavily to the Chamber’s coffers because they understand the value that the Chamber provides. The Chamber creates a network that allows these companies to gain government favors and access to policymakers. The Chamber also puts companies in touch with influential people, such as journalists and bloggers, who actively write about the companies’ products. Anecdotally, it appears that many journalists and bloggers earn a substantial portion of their income from pharmaceutical companies. Through this network, the Chamber has been able to further the interests of its members and, in turn, become a significant lobbying force. One thing is for sure: without the drug companies, the Chamber would not exist.
What About All Those ‘Campaign Finance Laws’?
It is important to keep in mind that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying organization, not a political party. The U.S. Chamber does not endorse candidates for public office and generally supports “issues-based campaigns” that encourage voter participation. The group lobbies the government and works with policymakers to get certain legislation passed. While the U.S. Chamber does not take a direct hand in the governance of the country, it is indirectly responsible for the creation and continuance of a lot of wealth within the United States. This, in turn, helps to determine how the country will be governed. It is hard to put into words the power that the pharmaceutical industry has over the United States’ healthcare policy and the degree to which the government promotes the interests of this one industry. The power of the pharmaceutical lobby over U.S. healthcare policy is unquestionable. It is well-known that from 2002 to 2007, the pharmaceutical industry spent 19 times as much on lobbying as it did on R&D and that since 1981, the industry has donated over $570 million to political campaigns.