Pharmaceutical, medical device industries have shifted campaign contributions to Democratic candidates

Pharmaceutical and medical device companies have contributed more to the campaigns of Democratic candidates than Republican candidates in the current election cycle, a "sharp reversal" from previous cycles and "one more sign of the campaign difficulties the GOP could face this November," the AP/Miami Herald reports.

In the current election cycle to date, Democratic candidates have received $7.4 million in campaign contributions from political action committees and individuals associated with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, compared with $7 million for Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. During the last six election cycles, pharmaceutical and medical device companies on average contributed twice as much to the campaigns of Republican candidates than Democratic candidates.

In the presidential race, as of Feb. 28, pharmaceutical and medical device companies have contributed $639,124 to Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and $574,828 to Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), compared with $168,300 for presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

"All three candidates have taken positions that rankle the drug industry," such as their support for proposals that would allow HHS to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on prices for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit and permit prescription drug reimportation, according to the AP/Herald.

Move Toward Nonpartisanship?

Pfizer, often the largest contributor to campaigns among pharmaceutical companies, in the current election cycle has donated more than $862,000, 52% of which went to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, according to CRP. In an e-mail, Pfizer wrote, "We support candidates and policymakers in both parties who share our common goal of expanding access to medicines, improving health outcomes through medical innovation and delivering value to patients."

Billy Tauzin, CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and former chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the shift in campaign contributions to Democratic candidates has resulted from a new focus on nonpartisanship by the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the increase in the number of Democratic lawmakers. He said, "It's only natural, if we adopt a nonpartisan position like we did three years ago, we'll find it easier to work with more and more Democrats who want to work with us for the good of patients."

Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said that the shift in campaign contributions to Democratic candidates indicates the interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the health care debate. According to Thompson, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are "finally waking up to the fact they can't sit on the sidelines and they have to be a major player in both political parties" (Freking, AP/Miami Herald, 5/22).

Opinion Pieces

Summaries of two opinion pieces related to health care issues in the presidential election appear below.

• William Snyder, Omaha World-Herald: The discussion in the presidential campaign about "why only this or that ... candidate can be trusted to fix health care" leaves the "impression that the system is static and the health care industry is sitting on its hands" until 2009, but "changes in the health care system are so many and so rapid that they're almost impossible to keep up with," Snyder, a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute, writes in a World-Herald opinion piece. He cites a number of recent changes made by health insurers, such as the use of "objective provider rating tools," as well as moves by Google, Microsoft and other "established firms" to enter the health care sector. In addition, he cites the launch of a number of health care companies, such as those that offer wellness programs for employees, and increased and improved options for consumers (Snyder, Omaha World-Herald, 5/20).
• John Sweeney/Mike Cerbo, Denver Post: The future of retirees who must work to pay for health insurance to avoid debt is "essentially what's at stake in the upcoming election," AFL-CIO President Sweeney and Cerbo, executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, write in a Post opinion piece. They add that the results will determine whether "we as a country ensure that health care is affordable and available to everyone in America." Some, such as McCain and President Bush, "believe that health care is a business proposition, a market-based commodity from which government should step out entirely," and their proposals would make quality health care "like mansions and limousines -- something available only to the very rich," according to the authors. Others, such as Clinton and Obama, who "are skeptical of the idea that the market is the right entity to put in charge," believe "that the lack of guaranteed affordable health care is in itself what must be addressed," they write. According to the authors, "For working families, the choice is obvious." Most voters "agree that we need broad reform to reduce costs, provide care to more Americans and improve the quality of care," they write, adding, "Now it's up to voters to take a close look at the candidates and decide who really has their health and their future at heart" (Sweeney/Cerbo, Denver Post, 5/22).