US voters will head to the polls next week in the midterm elections, and in the run-up to the election, the Kaiser Family Foundation has revealed that pharmaceutical companies have donated nearly $79 million to members of Congress over the past 6 election cycles.
US voters will head to the polls next week in the midterm elections, and in the run-up to the election, the Kaiser Family Foundation has revealed that pharmaceutical companies have, over the past 6 election cycles, donated nearly $79 million to members of Congress.
These findings come from Kaiser’s newly launched “Pharma Cash to Congress” tool, which uses campaign finance reports from the Federal Election Commission. The interactive tool allows users to explore which lawmakers have received the biggest contributions from pharma, and which companies have given the most. Voters can search for members of congress to find detailed breakdowns of contributions received from individual pharmaceutical companies both in the current election cycle and since 2007.
According to Kaiser, since the beginning of 2017, 34 lawmakers have each received more than $100,000 each from drug makers’ political action committees (PACs), and 2 representatives—Kevin McCarthy, R-California, and Greg Walden, R-Oregon, have accepted more than $200,000 each.
More Republicans (209) than Democrats (185) received contributions, with Republican representatives and senators receiving a total of $4.9 million and $2.1 million, respectively, and Democratic representatives and senators receiving $3.3 million and $1.6 million, respectively, as of June 30, 2018. During the 2010 election cycle, when Democrats were in power, a greater amount of donated dollars went to Democratic lawmakers.
Among companies who contributed the most were Pfizer ($1.02 million), Amgen ($946,000), AbbVie ($852,000), and Abbot Laboratories ($703,000).
Kaiser also notes that donations to lawmakers in election cycles tell only part of the story of pharma’s influence in US politics; its “Pre$cription for Power” tool, released in April of this year, tracked donations to patient advocacy groups that, it says, “provide patients to testify on Capitol Hill and organize social media campaigns on drugmakers’ behalf.”
Kaiser’s research into these donatiosn revealed that pharmaceutical companies gave $116 million to patient groups in 2015 alone, raising concerns that patient groups’ advocacy, and eventually the nation’s health policy, could be negatively impacted by pharma’s dollars.
Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Skinny Labeling
January 2nd 2025To close out the year, 4 senators came together to introduce a new bipartisan bill to protect biosimilar and generic drug manufacturers from patent litigation when obtaining “skinny label” approvals for their products.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
How Vertical Integration Drives Innovation and Access in Biosimilars
December 27th 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, highlights how vertical integration in the biosimilar industry streamlines costs, improves supply reliability, accelerates market adoption, and enhances patient access, while emphasizing the value of collaboration, quality control, and value-based contracts for sustainable health care delivery.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.