|
This news story originally provided by The State Journal
2/5/04
The Cost of Campaigning
Candidates Contend With Increasing Expense of Running for Office in W.Va.
It is getting more expensive each year to seek public office in West Virginia, and political watchdog groups fear the rising costs will lead to a narrower list of candidates.
"We feel like it's already gotten to the point where people have to be either independently wealthy or have access to special interest group money to get elected in West Virginia," said Julie Archer, research analyst at the West Virginia Citizen Action Group and the Mountain State Education and Research Foundation.
With record numbers of candidates for such statewide offices as governor and secretary of state, some office-seekers may not realize how much it costs not only to run for office but, in some cases, to win.
Spending lots of cash does not guarantee victory. Charleston lawyer Jim Humphreys spent more than $10 million and lost twice to U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. But Gov. Bob Wise outspent former Gov. Cecil Underwood by about $250,000 in 2000 and beat the incumbent.
2002 Saw Costliest Elections
Wise spent more than $2.8 million to win the governor's race in 2000. In the most recent legislative elections, candidates raised more than $6 million altogether, according to campaign finance information compiled and calculated by the West Virginia People's Election Reform Coalition, which catalogs campaign finance information compiled by the Secretary of State's office.
PERC examined more than 1,000 reports filed with the Secretary of State's Office to develop a database detailing more than 27,000 campaign contributions in West Virginia.
In its 2002 election cycle report, PERC reported the year was the most expensive in West Virginia history. More than $4 million in contributions went to winning legislative candidates; 59 percent went to incumbents, 34 percent to challengers and 6 percent to those who ran for open seats in the Legislature.
For the fourth election cycle in a row, House Speaker Robert S. Kiss, D-Raleigh, had the highest contributions of all House candidates. He raised more than $72,000 and rolled over an additional $110,000 from previous campaigns.
Former Sen. Oshel Craigo, D-Putnam, lost his re-election bid in 2002, but he raised $408,587, more than any candidate since PERC began tracking campaign contributions in 1996.
Campaigns Aren't Cheap
Raising campaign funds can be critical for success, and the process gets more expensive each year.
Marc Harman has been involved in West Virginia politics for 30 years. He had directed congressional and statewide campaigns and been elected to public office on his own, spending five terms in the House of Delegates.
"Most of your money goes to media costs. Print, TV, radio, brochures, signage it's the most expensive part of a campaign," Harman said.
"For a statewide office like governor, you need a minimum level of campaign staffing. You can do a lot with volunteers, but you're going to need some paid staff. There are also travel expenses gas, food and lodging," he said.
Harman led Underwood's 2000 campaign and said the incumbent started raising money at least six to eight months before the 2000 election season began. Non-incumbents usually start raising funds once they commit to running for office, he said.
"There are different schools of thought about how you raise your money. Some are more heavily weighted to a grassroots campaign, which you'll see in the secretary of state race, where it's hard to raise money from special interests. Other races go right to the big money governor, U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court. Any of those high-profile races will have a blend of grassroots and heavy fund-raising," Harman said.
Well-heeled candidates are able to conduct polls throughout a campaign, the results of which can held them tailor their platform to what voters say they want in a candidate. Candidates with bare-bones budgets, on the other hand, often "fly by the seat of (their) pants," Harman said.
But money alone isn't enough, as the Humphreys-Capito races in 2000 and 2002 prove. A candidate's message must resonate with voters regardless of how much money a candidate spends on commercials and brochures, he said.
Following the Money
Archer said the Citizen Action Group, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and People's Election Reform Coalition started tracking campaign contributions in 1996, and the groups may follow expenditures in future elections.
"We wanted to see how campaign contributions are influencing public policy," Archer said. "In 2002, for example, we broke out contributions from coal and tobacco contributions because those issues were getting a lot of attention, and we were able to show how people receiving those contributions voted on the issues."
Individuals and families contribute the most to campaigns for governor and the legislative offices, Archer said.
"After that, the big ones are health care, labor, coal and consumer attorneys," she said.
PERC and the other citizen groups are pushing for cleaner elections that would use public money to finance campaigns, ridding the political process from much of the special interest groups' influence, Archer said.
"There is a bill in the Legislature right now for clean elections. If someone wanted to run for office, he would have to collect a certain number of individual $5 contributions, for example, in order to get the public campaign money," she said.
If the clean elections legislation ever becomes law, candidates would need to collect some money from individual donors up front to prove they have enough public support to legitimize the candidacy. The public campaign fund would be financed from individual donations and tax checks, which Archer explained are donations that taxpayers can add through their income tax filings.
This news story originally provided by The
Charleston Gazette
2/10/04
‘Bottle Bill’ event planned at Capitol
By Paul Wilson
Staff Writer
Consumers can get 10 cents for each empty beverage container they bring to the Capitol next week at an event environmental groups hope will elicit support for the West Virginia “Bottle Bill.”
The three-hour event, scheduled for 11 a.m. Feb. 17 in the Capitol rotunda, will simulate part of what would become law under Senate Bill 293 and House Bill 4147. Customers would pay 10-cent deposits on single-use glass, aluminum and plastic containers and get their money back if they recycled the items.
“People are welcome to bring one container or 50, but we will have a 50-container limit,” said Linda Mallet, program manager for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group. “You’ll come in, hand us your bag of containers, and we’ll hand you money.”
Sen. Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha, and Delegate Barbara Warner, D-Harrison, are the bills’ lead sponsors. Sen. Andy McKenzie, R-Ohio, is co-sponsoring the Senate bill with McCabe.
A deposit law would increase recycling, reduce litter and landfill tonnage, reduce the burden on taxpayers and municipal waste management systems, and save up to $3 million a year on litter cleanup, according to CAG.
In addition to CAG, the state Sierra Club, the state Environmental Council and the Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority are sponsoring next week’s event.
CAG has collected thousands of signatures in a statewide petition drive, and nine cities — including Charleston and South Charleston — and several county governments and county organizations back the legislation.
A message left at the West Virginia Retailers Association, which opposed the deposit law in the past, was not returned Monday. Paul McKown, a lobbyist for the group, told The Associated Press in October that the cost to small businesses would be too high.
Similar legislation wasn’t passed last year, but before that, it hadn’t been tried for about a decade, Mallet said. Eleven states have passed deposit laws, most of which charge and redeem 5 cents per container. Only Michigan uses 10 cents, Mallet said.
“We’re kind of using Michigan as a model,” she said. “Most states passed their laws in the ’70s, when 5 cents meant more. We figure if we use 10 cents, people will have more of an incentive.”
To contact staff writer Paul Wilson, use e-mail or call 348-5179.
This news story originally provided by The
Charleston Gazette
2/10/04
Woman says law not solving problems
Panel member says coal trucks sparking many calls
Brian Bowling
Daily Mail staff
In a two-hour advisory committee meeting that mostly consisted of state officials complimenting each other on how well they're enacting a new coal truck weight law, the lone citizen member suggested they talk to someone other than each other.
Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch bridled at a suggestion by Delegate Steve Kominar, D-Mingo, that speeding coal trucks were the main safety problem left in the southern coalfields.
In the first three months of operation, a hotline for citizens to report on coal trucks breaking the law has logged 159 complaints. Bonds pointed out that those complaints ranged from overloaded trucks to people being threatened for calling the hotlines.
"I'm telling you there are problems out there that still need looking at," she said.
In the Peytona area of Boone County, trucks have been overloaded to the point of losing some of their coal on curves, Bonds said. In one case, the coal struck a girl in the head.
"If we can listen to some citizens who actually live out there, we can maybe change things," Bonds said.
Charles Boggs, the state Public Service Commission's liaison to the advisory committee, said the committee didn't have time to listen to citizens in today's meeting but could add them to the next meeting's agenda.
Earlier in the meeting, Boggs thanked coal and trucking industry officials for helping the PSC write the regulations for how it will enforce truck weights under the new law.
"I want to commend them for their help. They've been really great," he said.
So far, the PSC has issued 744 permits allowing trucks to weigh up to 126,000 pounds on designated coal hauling routes. The limit includes the weight of the truck and the coal it is hauling.
The agency has issued another 277 permits allowing coal-hauling trucks to exceed the weight limits placed on other trucks but less than the 126,000-pound maximum.
A key part of the new weight enforcement system is that coal loads are measured at both the shipping and delivery points to verify the weights fall below the limits. Mike Browning, executive director of the PSC, said only 55 percent of the 240 shippers and receivers that have registered with the agency are making reports. Of those, only 17 percent of the reports have contained all the data required by law.
As its first official action, the committee picked Paul Hardesty, director of the state Development Office's Coalfield Community Development Office, as its chairman.
The next meeting of the advisory committee is scheduled for 8 a.m. April 13 at the PSC offices on Brooks Street.
Writer Brian Bowling can be reached at 348-4842.
This news story originally provided by The
Sunday Gazette-Mail
2/15/04
Drug bill attracts national interest
By Kate Long
Last week, drug company lobbyists said veterans could face higher drug bills if the Legislature cuts the prices West Virginia will pay for prescription drugs.
“If West Virginia imposes price controls on us, we have to make up that decrease somewhere else,” said Mike Bolen of Pfizer Inc. “We would have to raise our prices on the veterans who have sacrificed for their country.”
“That seemed to be a common theme from the drug company lobbyists,” said Sen. Jon Hunter, D-Monongalia, a member of the Senate committee that is considering the bill.
“They couldn’t do that if they tried,” said Alan Sagar, who directs Boston University’s Health Reform Project. Congress sets the amounts veterans pay for drugs, not the Veterans Administration or the drugmakers.
“This is the first time I’ve heard anybody suggest veterans’ benefits could be affected,” Sagar said. “But then West Virginia has a lot of veterans, doesn’t it? This may be what I call ‘The PhRMA fog of fear.’”
Wanda Moebius, communications director for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said she resents that kind of talk.
“The historical record shows that whenever price controls are imposed, it has the opposite effect and prices actually rise,” she said. “The Veterans Administration has repeatedly told Congress that the result of extending these prices may be to raise their budget by hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Kevin Outterson, a West Virginia University law professor who teaches health law, says PhRMA talks in code. “They use guarded language like ‘could have consequences,’” he said. “But they’re really saying, ‘If you reduce our profits, we’ll go over here and punish these other people.’
“They have the highest profits and the lowest taxes and the best markets of any industry. And yet they say that if little, old West Virginia tries to save money, they’re going to punish veterans.”
“If West Virginia can do this, other states will do it, too. So, they want to nip it in the bud,” said Gary Zuckett, who lobbies for West Virginia Citizen Action Group. Zuckett said he counted 13 pharmaceutical lobbyists having a breakfast strategy meeting in the state Capitol cafeteria one day last week.
In late January, after an impassioned speech from Speaker Bob Kiss, the bill zipped through the House of Delegates. It landed in the Senate Health and Human Resources committee. Chairman Roman Prezioso, D-Marion, has not brought it up for discussion for almost three weeks.
Still, the proposal is attracting unusual national attention. Within days after it was introduced, PhRMA denounced it. In an unusual move, the national AARP endorsed it, calling it “a proposal of national significance” and “a truly innovative approach.”
At least 20 other states have asked West Virginia for information about the bill, said Harold Michael, D-Hardy, Senate Finance Committee Chairman.
“There’s a lot of interest and excitement out there,” Michael said. “People are studying it, so we’ve already achieved something by getting the idea out there.
“We have too many people who need relief not to try to do something,” he said.
A most profitable industry with hundreds of lobbyists
Here’s how the law would work: Drug companies would be required to give the state — and some private insurance plans — the same discounts they give federal agencies through the Federal Supply System.
“It’s like getting Canadian prices without having to go through Canada,” said WVU’s Outterson.
The state would set up a pharmaceutical commission. Companies could petition the commission for higher prices to cover their research costs, but they would not be allowed to charge the state for the cost of drug advertising.
West Virginia would try to form alliances with other states to achieve a bigger bargaining group.
Sagar says the situation reminds him of the late 1990s, when the Maine Legislature voted to create a statewide program to cut drug costs. “I think PhRMA was worrying then that some 20 or 30 states were preparing to jump on the Maine bandwagon. I think that explains why they’re willing to spend so much in a small state.”
PhRMA immediately sued after the Maine law passed, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Maine’s favor on constitutional issues. “Maine got a lot of credit nationally for sticking to their guns,” Sagar said. “You can expect PhRMA to fight a bill like this with whatever they’ve got.”
PhRMA has budgeted at least $150 million nationwide to fight price controls this year, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of PhRMA’s budget last summer. That budget included about $45 million to fight state-level efforts to lower drug prices.
The PhRMA budget also included $11.4 million to “generate a higher volume of messages from credible sources,” the Times said.
One such message may have surfaced in West Virginia last week when a letter from the National Association for Uniformed Services was handed out on the Senate floor. NAUS Legislative Director Ben Butler wrote: “We are deeply concerned that this proposal will result in higher prescription drug prices for veterans.”
Contacted at the NAUS office in Springfield, Va., Butler said he got all his information about the bill from PhRMA. “They invited us to join a conference call,” he said. “They told us this bill was likely to hurt the drug benefits of our veterans. And it seemed to be something that could catch on in other states.”
He had not yet read the bill, he said, or heard from the supporters.
Asked about the call, PhRMA’s Moebius said, “We’re trying to educate groups that are negatively impacted by one of the fastest-moving pieces in the history of the West Virginia Legislature.”
“PhRMA is fighting battles in every area they can: the federal government, state government, in court,” said Gale Shearer, national Director of Health Policy Analysis for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. “The aim is to keep prices high for American consumers.”
“You’re talking about the most profitable industry in the world,” Shearer said. “They have 600 paid lobbyists in Washington, and they just got another huge windfall with the Medicare drug bill.”
In 2002, the pharmaceutical industry made a profit of 17 percent of revenue ($37 billion). The next five most profitable industries averaged less that 10 percent profit. According to the Congressional Research Service, the drug manufacturers enjoyed a 16.2 percent tax rate in a recent four-year period, compared with 27.3 percent for all industries.
Yet they are concerned about West Virginia. Last week, Pfizer’s Bolen drove in from out of state to help the West Virginian pharmaceutical lobbyists. “There comes a point where you have to stick up for your principles and get a return on your investment or go out of business,” he said.
If states try to get in the same buyer pool with the veterans, he said, veterans will lose.
West Virginia is not trying to get in the same pool with the veterans. The FSS prices West Virginia would get are considerably higher than prices the VA negotiates for its veterans drug program.
The FSS prices are on average about 40 percent lower than the prices uninsured people pay at the drugstore.
For example, an uninsured person paid $77 at Rite-Aid for a 30-day prescription of Lopid, a cholesterol medication, in September. The FSS price for that prescription was $27.90. The VA paid $3.
A 30-day supply of the blood pressure medicine Lopressor cost the uninsured person $43.80. The FSS price for that prescription was $33.14. The VA paid 30 cents.
The Legislature might avoid some confusion about veterans if it pegged the prices to the Canadian system instead of the Federal Supply System, WVU’s Outterson observed.
Bill proponents say West Virginia stands to save hundreds of millions of dollars per year if the bill becomes law.
The state would apply for a Medicaid waiver to allow the state Medicaid to get FSS prices and rebates. If that waiver were allowed, the state would save more than $300 million a year. If the waiver were denied, the state would still save millions via public employee programs and private programs.
“Whoever wrote that bill understands federal law and recent Supreme Court decisions. They managed to bypass any constitutional problems,” Outterson said.
The AARP believes that, if West Virginia gets the Medicaid waiver, other states can too.
Sagar expects PhRMA to argue that lower prices will force pharmaceutical companies to shut down research on life-saving and life-enhancing drugs. “But when you look at what they’re actually doing, they’re expanding their advertising efforts much more rapidly than their R and D [research and development].”
All these issues — and more — will be publicly aired if the Senate decides to call a hearing. As of Saturday, no hearing had been scheduled.
For more information on this subject, see www.wvgazette.com/uninsured, “50-4,000 percent markup” and “VA prices make Canada look expensive.”
To contact staff writer Kate Long, use e-mail or call 348-1798.
This news story originally provided by The Daily
Mail
2/18/04
Groups to fight water quality bill
Proposal includes amendments that weaken standards
By The Associated Press
Environmental lobbyists vowed to fight a bill that would weaken the state's water quality rules, even as they scratched their heads about how the proposal was resurrected.
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to take up the proposal, which creates rules that determine how the state's water quality is maintained.
Reconsidering an action it took last week, the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Monday endorsed the rules with industry-backed amendments that would weaken the standards.
"There's nothing magical or complex about it," said Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association. "The bill simply advanced in the form it should have taken last week."
"This was not a minor tweak," said Conni Gratop Lewis, lobbyist for the West Virginia Environmental Council. "We're talking about trying to preserve suitable drinking water for the future of West Virginia."
The Natural Resources Committee had passed the bill last week without the amendments, which are favored by coal, manufacturing, oil and gas and other business interests.
Both the state Environmental Quality Board, which wrote the original rules, and the Department of Environmental Protection, which enforces them, object to the industry amendments. The groups have not been able to reach a compromise.
The amendments include ordering state regulators to stop protecting all streams as if they are potential drinking water supplies, as well as eliminating an expanded list of protected trout streams.
During an interim legislative session last month, Sen. Herb Snyder, D-Jefferson, tried to pass the rules bill with the industry amendments "pending" for further study during the current legislative session.
Attorneys for the Natural Resources Committee last week interpreted that as meaning the amendments were not included, and the committee endorsed the bill without them.
But other legislative attorneys said Snyder's "pending" language was meaningless and that the interim committee's bill in fact had included the amendments.
Natural Resources Chairman Pat Fanning, D-McDowell, agreed to reconsider his action and reintroduced the bill Monday. But his committee voted to send it to the Judiciary Committee "unauthorized."
Fanning cited an August federal court decision that warned lawmakers not to change water standards without proper scientific backing.
Interim committee members "adopted those new rules at their last meeting with no scientific data or study," Fanning said. "The federal courts have said that's not acceptable."
Snyder said a Judiciary subcommittee would try again to forge a compromise.
On its 15th annual "E-Day" at the Capitol, the Environmental Council also threw its support behind legislation that would see consumers pay a dime deposit to encourage bottle recycling.
Sen. Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha and a bottle bill sponsor, said he would be "amazed" if the proposal passed this year.
But McCabe said retail and wholesale groups who have objected to collecting and storing bottles for recycling have been brought to the negotiating table, making future passage possible.
This news story originally provided by The Daily
Mail
2/20/04
Prescription drug bill draws out-of-state interest
By The Associated Press
West Virginians pay more of their income on prescription drugs than anyone else in the nation, lawmakers were told during a public hearing on a proposal to reduce costs by piggybacking onto a federal pricing schedule.
Mountain State residents could save $534 million this year alone if the Legislature adopts the Pharmaceutical Availability and Affordability Act which links drug prices to the Federal Supply Schedule, said Alan Sager of Boston University's School of Public Health.
State residents spent 2.12 percent of their personal income on prescriptions in 1998, the latest year for figures. That's nearly 70 percent above the national average; residents in the next-highest state spent less than 1.7 percent of their income.
The Federal Supply Schedule sets drug prices for federal programs, most notably the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs. It bases prices on what drug companies charge their favorite private customers. Federal supply Schedule prices average 42 percent below retail.
Lobbyists for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America later complained that Sager was allowed to address the chamber for about 45 minutes, while those who signed up to speak at Thursday's hearing were limited to five.
Sager was invited by House leaders who helped craft the bill. The House advanced the bill to the Senate last month.
PhRMA, the industry's trade group, opposes the bill.
"This bill is government-mandated price control," Jan Faiks, PhRMA's assistant general counsel, told lawmakers. "It's your form of socialized medicine."
To fight the bill, PhRMA has enlisted some veterans' groups to argue it threatens the low prices they enjoy. Several veterans appeared at the hearing, some in support of the proposal.
Miles Epling, former state commander of the American Legion, said soldiers returning from Iraq would be hurt if the bill passes.
"When our young men and women come home, the money will not be there for their medicine," Epling said.
But a West Virginia University law professor likened the drug lobby to terrorists, by holding veterans hostage with threatened price increases.
"They're going to punish someone you care about," Kevin Outterson said. "It is a ridiculous argument."
Outterson predicted that PhRMA would sue the state and delay the bill's implementation, as the trade group did with a prescription drug program in Maine. He said his review of the bill shows no ground on which PhRMA could prevail.
Andrew Krulwich, a Washington, D.C., lawyer hired by the Pfizer drug company to review the bill, told lawmakers it would illegally interfere in interstate commerce.
Outterson asked lawmakers to amend the bill to focus on brand-name drugs and exclude generics. Lobbyist Richard Stevens also proposed amendments to the bill, arguing it would hurt the state pharmacists he represents as written.
Faiks told lawmakers PhRMA is willing to help West Virginia lower drug costs with programs it hosts in 27 other states. But in a Wednesday interview with The Associated Press, Gov. Bob Wise said he tried to enlist the drug lobby's aid before he took office, to no avail.
"They are not here to help West Virginia," the governor said.
Speakers who urged lawmakers to rebuff PhRMA included Dan Kurland, who helps run Charleston's Covenant House shelter. Kurland said the fear instilled in veterans is typical of the drug lobby's tactics.
"The initial complaint was basically staged by the drug industry," he said. "We must not be held hostage by every Chicken Little scenario."
Don Ray, general manager of WSAZ-TV, said the bill might prompt drug makers to spend less on the direct-to-consumer TV ads that have become a major revenue source.
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has "serious reservations" about the bill's proposals, lobbyist Brenda Nichols Harper said.
This news story originally provided by The
Charleston Gazette
2/20/04
Drug debate heats up
Proportional cost burden highest for West Virginia residents
By Scott Finn
STAFF WRITER
West Virginians spend more of their income on prescription drugs than residents of any other state, lawmakers heard at a public hearing Thursday on a prescription drug bill.
That’s why the state should take the lead in passing a bill (HB 4084) to lower the drugs’ costs, said Alan Sager, director of the Health Reform Program at Boston University.
“Why should West Virginia have to act and take on the drugmakers? Because you have the brains and the guts to do it, and because you are suffering more from high drug costs than are most other states,” Sager said to a full House of Delegates chamber.
State agencies, businesses and private citizens could save $500 million each year if they paid the lower prices already enjoyed by several federal agencies, he said.
Opponents of the bill said it amounted to government price controls and socialized medicine. A drug industry representative promised to help lawmakers lower drug costs, without the bill.
“We’re here today to say, we want to do that. We can help you, immediately,” said Jan Faiks, assistant general counsel for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association. “Let us help you find a way to help West Virginians, without price controls.”
A Wise administration official countered that state officials sat down three years ago with the drug industry and achieved nothing.
“We had several pleasant meetings, and pretty much nothing came from those meetings,” said Ann Stottlemyer, commissioner of the state’s Bureau of Senior Services.
The House of Delegates unanimously passed the drug bill, the brainchild of Speaker Bob Kiss, D-Raleigh. It would create the state Pharmaceutical Commission, which would set drug prices for state agencies and possibly private businesses.
The commission would base drug prices on the Federal Supply Schedule — estimated to be 42 percent less expensive than retail prices.
Drug companies could ask for higher prices to pay for research and development, but could not recoup the cost of advertising.
The Senate Health and Human Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Roman Prezioso, D-Marion, is studying the bill. The Senate and House agreed to hold a joint public hearing Thursday.
Thirteen people spoke in support of the bill, including representatives from AARP and senior programs, hospitals, churches, labor leaders, and the Wise administration.
Ten people spoke in opposition, including representatives of veterans groups, drug companies, the state Pharmacists’ Association, the state Chamber of Commerce, and WSAZ-TV.
Both sides also brought in heavy hitters to advance their arguments. The House of Delegates invited Sager to speak for 45 minutes before the hearing began. Drug lobbyists complained that they were only given five minutes each during the hearing.
Drugmaker Pfizer hired lawyer Andrew Krulwich from the Washington, D.C., firm Wiley, Rein & Fielding to argue that the bill is unconstitutional. West Virginia University law professor Kevin Outterson completely disagreed.
Three military veterans and a member of the American Legion Women’s Auxiliary spoke in opposition to the bill. It would tie drug prices to federal levels, and could endanger the special deal the Department of Veterans Affairs has received from drugmakers for more than a decade, they said.
“With our sons and daughters today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am so worried if we pass HB 4084, the money will not be there for their medicine,” said Miles Epling, department adjutant of the West Virginia American Legion.
Several speakers mentioned that only Congress can increase what veterans pay for drugs, which is a $7 co-pay now.
Outterson compared the drug companies to terrorists holding veterans hostage.
“It’s the companies telling you, ‘If you pass this, we’ll hurt somebody you care about,’” he said.
He also encouraged lawmakers to take generic drugmakers out of the bill, saying the bill should apply only to name-brand drugs whose patents give companies a monopoly.
The proposed amendment was aimed at pleasing generic drugmaker Mylan Pharmaceuticals, which has a large operation in Morgantown and is represented by Prezioso.
Heather Bresch, vice president of government and public relations for Mylan, engaged in a five-minute exchange with Sager after his speech. She asked him if countries with price controls had a flourishing generic drug market, and suggested a more practical way of lowering drug costs was to encourage the use of more generic drugs.
Sager said the generic drug market in the United States could be hurt in the long run if name-brand prescription drug prices come down. But that is not reason enough not to try to lower those prices, he said.
“Generics alone will not help,” he said. “Some generic manufacturers might want this bill to fail because it gives them more of a price advantage.”
Pharmacists are worried that the bill could cut into their profit margin of only about 2 percent or 3 percent. Broadcasters are concerned that a cut in marketing costs could drive drug advertisers away.
Several speakers also said the state faces a lengthy legal battle, and could face retaliation from the drug companies.
But with drug prices doubling every five years, Sager said, West Virginia shouldn’t wait any longer to take up the fight, one that he predicted other states will join.
“If your house is on fire, and a fire truck pulls up, you don’t say no, I’ll wait for the next fire truck,” he said. “Your house is on fire.”
To contact staff writer Scott Finn, use e-mail or call 357-4323.
This news story originally provided by The
Charleston Gazette
2/23/04
Phil Kabler; Statehouse beat
Manchin better off being quiet?
Howard Dean clearly showed us how, under the glare of media scrutiny and negative campaigning by rivals, the presumptive front-runner can quickly become an also-ran.
Last week was a rough one for Democratic gubernatorial front-runner Joe Manchin, whose campaign spent the week putting out fires over perceived flip-flops, including his positions on displaying the Ten Commandments and on an excess acreage tax.
For about four dozen reporters across the state, an anonymous e-mail service titled ManchinWatch is providing daily reminders of perceived inconsistencies or contradictions in Manchin campaign statements.
The day after Manchin’s purported endorsement of posting the Ten Commandments, for instance, ManchinWatch provided the transcript of a
WTOV-TV Steubenville newscast quoting Manchin as saying the Beckley Register-Herald had “gotten it wrong.”
(Actually, the Beckley paper accurately quoted Manchin as saying he would not hesitate to sign such a bill into law if it reached his desk. It was The Associated Press rewrite of that article that misconstrued that interview into making posting the Ten Commandments a top priority for Manchin as governor.)
Register-Herald Statehouse reporter Mannix Porterfield says the Ten Commandments question is a standard asked of every candidate appearing before that paper’s editorial board.
ManchinWatch, meanwhile, has the fingerprints of Lloyd Jackson campaign consultant Larry LaCorte all over it, although the Jackson campaign denies any knowledge of ManchinWatch.
As one political wag commented last week, Joe Manchin will win this race — if he just shuts up for the next 70 days.
One thing is clear, in light of the dismal state budget shortage projections for the next six years, any candidate who talks about cutting taxes, expanding state programs and giving pay raises in the same breath should be subject to heavy media scrutiny.
With the state budget facing annual deficits projected to top out at $373 million, one reader suggests it may be time to consider eliminating the early kindergarten programs across the state.
In the proposed 2004-05 budget, the program will cost $36.17 million. That provides preschool for 7,911 children under age 5.
While there is no argument of the many laudable benefits of preschool programs for 4- and in some cases, 3-year-olds, it is also true the pre-kindergarten legislation passed with a wink and a nod to the state teachers’ unions.
The preschool programs help offset enrollment losses at the K-12 levels, preserving many teaching jobs that otherwise would have had to be cut.
With the state facing budget deficits totaling nearly $1.4 billion through 2010, legislators will have to make tough decisions on programs such as pre-kindergarten.
The hot rumor of the week last week had the Legislature contemplating recessing the session on March 13, and coming back to complete the state budget — with its $111 million in painful spending cuts — after the May primary elections.
That’s not likely, says Senate Finance Chairman Walt Helmick, D-Pocahontas. He said that, between the budget cuts recommended by the Wise administration and the likelihood of finding a few new sources of revenue, the budget is close to coming together.
One of those new tax sources is likely to come from a plan to impose the health-care-provider tax on the state’s burgeoning methadone clinics.
The clinics, which charge OxyContin addicts an average of $12 — cash up front — for what in many cases is a daily dose of methadone, often see hundreds of patients a day. By some accounts, the clinics require armored trucks to haul out the cash.
At 5.5 percent for each $12, that could be a nice financial boost for Medicaid, backers say.
Second Congressional District candidate Howard Swint says he was offended to discover a question on the National Right to Life Committee’s congressional candidate questionnaire that dealt with Medicare.
The questionnaire asks candidates if they would oppose legislation that would impose price controls or otherwise limit the ability of Medicare recipients to obtain supplemental health insurance.
The questionnaire says the 2003 Medicare legislation is “of greatest importance to the pro-life movement” because it allows senior citizens to buy additional health insurance “that is less likely to ration medical treatment and prescription drugs.”
Given that it’s not conceivable (my pun — not Howard’s) that there are many Medicare recipients of child-bearing age, Swint questioned whether the committee is being “co-opted” by the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.
Or, it could be that the committee is looking for candidates who are in line with Bush administration policies on health-care issues, such as the Medicare prescription drug plan. That could explain why all the “Stop Abortion Now” signs at last week’s pro-life rally at the Capitol had “Thank you, President Bush” on the back.
Legislation (HB4048) intended to link state prescription drug prices to the deeply discounted Federal Supply Schedule should begin moving in the Senate this week, sources say.
Part of the delay has been to craft an exemption, at the request of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, for generic drugs.
Several people, lobbyist Beth Thomasson among them, said I was being too kind last week when I suggested the Legislature is trying to legislate common sense this session with ATV safety and like bills. It would have been more precise, she said, to say that lawmakers are trying to outlaw stupidity.
Finally, talk about coincidence ... or maybe not. The same day the West Virginia Citizen Action Group came to the Capitol to promote legislation for returnable soft-drink containers, by paying a dime for each pop bottle brought in, members of the state Soft Drink Association were giving out free samples of their products at the well of the rotunda. WVCAG ended up paying out $440, according to Norm Steenstra.
This news story originally provided by WV Metro News
2/23/04
Changes In Campaign Financing Proposed
Staff
State Capitol
Click here to hear Comments With Senators Jon Hunter And Frank Deem
(mp3)
A bill calling for major changes in the way campaigns are financed in West Virginia is on its way to the Senate Finance Committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill Monday that would make public financing available to candidates who agree to raise no private money and spend none of their own cash on a campaign.
Monongalia County Senator Jon Hunter says candidates would become eligible for the funding by securing a number of $20 donations from supporters.
Hunter says the public fund would be created through voluntary donations from state residents. One way to donate would be a check-off on the state income tax return. Hunter says no tax dollars would be used to fund the campaigns.
Hunter says candidates could spend more time talking about issues and less time raising money.
Wood County Senator Frank Deem voted against the bill. Deem says the plan is nothing more than an attempt by special interest groups to have their candidates elected in non-traditional ways.
Deem says there are a variety ways to raise money and it takes a lot of hard work. He predicts few state residents would be willing to give up part of their tax return to fund a politician's campaign.
Observers predict the bill will have a tough time in the Senate Finance Committee.
This news story originally provided by The
Charleston Gazette
2/24/04
Bill would make it easier to drop policyholders
By Scott Finn
STAFF WRITER
Insurance companies would be able to drop new auto and home policyholders for any reason, and would have an easier time dropping their current policyholders, under a bill recently passed by the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Joe Minard, D-Harrison, said the bill (SB468) would do away with laws that force insurance companies to keep covering bad drivers and homeowners who make frequent claims.
“We’re trying to get competition into West Virginia,” he said. “Right now, the problem with our automobile and homeowners, we’re at the mercy of a few insurers. Nobody wants to write insurance here because of the lockup clause.”
That clause requires insurance companies to renew a policy after a driver has been with them for more than two years, unless the driver fails to pay a premium, is arrested on drunken-driving charges, or has two at-fault accidents or two serious moving violations within 12 months.
Under Minard’s bill, companies could drop a current policyholder with two serious moving violations within 36 months, or two at-fault accidents within 24 months.
As for homeowners, insurance companies currently can’t drop a policyholder after four years unless the homeowner doesn’t pay a premium, commits fraud or willfully or recklessly endangers the property.
Under the bill, for policies written after July 1, companies could drop a driver or homeowner for any reason, as long as they did not discriminate on the basis of race or age.
Gary Zuckett of the West Virginia Citizen Action Group said the bill could result in more uninsured drivers on the road. He also questioned whether the bill would lower rates, or pad profits in the insurance industry.
“When have insurance rates ever gone down?” he said.
State Insurance Commissioner Jane Cline said there was no specific study that shows doing away with these restrictions would lower rates. A survey by her office showed that only 10 other states had lockup clauses.
The current system causes good drivers to pay higher rates, Cline said, because insurance companies are not allowed to drop drivers with less-than-stellar records.
“The hope is the bill will improve the availability of insurance, and ultimately reduce rates,” she said.
The bill is expected to undergo changes before it gets to the Senate floor. Cline said one likely amendment would prevent the insurance companies from dropping more than 1.5 percent of their customers in any county each year.
The state’s largest insurer, State Farm, stopped writing new automobile or homeowner insurance policies in West Virginia last year.
State Farm lobbyist Ned Rose said he could not promise the company would start writing policies again if the bill passed. He did say it would improve the climate for insurance companies in the state.
“We do think it will help reduce the cost of car and homeowners insurance,” Rose said.
Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, D-Logan, said the bill was needed to keep insurance companies like State Farm from leaving the state.
“State Farm in particular is about to pull out of here, unless we make some of these changes,” he said.
Rose said that State Farm had no current plans to leave the West Virginia market, and had not threatened to do so.
Rates could actually increase if the bill passes, according to Doug Heller, a consumer advocate with the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
“If insurance companies can freely kick people off the rolls, they will do that when times get tight, then sign people up again at higher prices,” he said.
He suggested the state Insurance Commission be given more power look into the waste and bureaucracy within insurance companies, and refuse to pay for excessive costs.
In 1988, Californians faced a similar insurance crisis, and passed Proposition 103, which ordered insurance companies to roll back rates and imposed stringent regulation of the insurance industry, he said.
Since then, the insurance companies have refunded over $1.2 billion dollars to California drivers, and the state has blocked over $23 billion in automobile insurance rate increases.
“This is actually a very old argument, that deregulating fosters competition and lowers rates, when all it does it push prices higher and line the pockets of insurance executives,” Heller said.
To contact staff writer Scott Finn, use e-mail or call 357-4323.
|
