Prescription Drug Industry Backing Lawmakers through TV Ads
November 3rd, 2008
photo credit: swanksalotAmerica’s health care system is pretty political. There’s Medicare and Medicaid, tax cuts for employer-funded health insurance, and an upcoming election in which health reform policy has been under much debate.
None of that is bad. America’s government takes some responsibility for the health of its people, and that’s a good thing. But how good is it when the pharmaceutical industry buys TV advertisements that back lawmakers who back the industry?
The Ties Between Political TV Spots and State Children’s Health Insurance Programs
Over the last five or six weeks, the drug industry has spent a total of $13 million to buy TV time for advertisements that praise lawmakers who voted to expand a program called the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
SCHIP is a proposed government backed children’s health insurance program, mostly backed by Democrats, as well as a stray Republican or two. However, the program was vetoed by President Bush, on the grounds that it would be providing insurance to kids who were already covered by private insurance (even though it would supposedly have reduced the number of uninsured kids in America by around one third, from nine million down to six million).
Obviously, the bill was supported by the pharmaceutical industry. After all, more kids covered by health insurance means more doctor visits, means more prescriptions, means more sales.
What the Television Ads Accomplished
The advertisements in question praise fifteen House members and thirteen Senators who were in favor of SCHIP (some of whom are in the middle of re-election campaigns). They are “sponsored” by a non-profit organization called America’s Agenda: Health Care for Kids.
But that organization didn’t foot the bill for the TV time; instead, that honor goes to none other than the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America – the big pharma trade group that, according to the group’s web site, “represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies.”
In other words, pharmaceutical industry money paid for TV time for advertisements backing lawmakers who supported SCHIP, a program that would have helped further line the pockets of drug companies.
This is certainly not illegal, nor without precedent. However, it shows that it’s increasingly difficult to know where to draw the line in terms of where funding for political advertising should come from.
Where do you draw the line? Should any big industry group be allowed to fund this kind of advertising? Should they be allowed to hide their identity behind non-profit organization sponsorship?
