The Hill upon a City

01/11/2007 07:27 AM |

More of America's top economists and health care scholars decry the lunacy of government negotiated prices for prescription medicines.

This time it's a letter in The Hill.

Here's the link.  Read More & Comment...

sunitinib

01/10/2007 08:28 PM |

That's Sutent. It's a new cancer drug used to treat stomach cancer in place of interferon and in patients who don't respond to Gleevec.

It's not on the VA formulary. And I guess it will stay that way under the pending Medicare bill so that Pete Stark can squeeze drug prices enough to pay off the pharmacy lobby for its support of the price control bill.  Read More & Comment...

Eliminate the Drug List Double Standard

01/10/2007 03:21 PM |

Those who support price controls and restrictive formularies should have the consistency, if not the courage, of their convictions. Limit themselves to the drugs on the VA formula. Restrict themselves in the same way the VA does. Delay use of all new medicines for the same amount of time. Jump through the same hoops others have to in order to get permission to try or use a new drug.

Starting with the members of Congress who support price controls and drug reimportation.  Read More & Comment...

Lies My Godfather Told Me

01/10/2007 03:11 PM |

More lies from Families USA...what a surprise.

I could build a whole business around catching Ron Pollack and his family in their lies, distortions, contradictions, etc. Maybe one day members of the media will wise up and do some of their own fact checking...they are being scammed big time by one of the best public policy grifters in the game.

FYI. Families USA put out a report stating that the
20 most commonly used drugs by seniors are cheaper on
the FSS or VA price list than on medicare part D.

Nice try.

The fact is, while those drugs might be cheaper
because of price controls and restrictive formularies,
many of the drugs on the list are NOT available on the
VA formulary or have a step therapy requirement
meaning patients must fail first on a drug before they
get the drug on the VA formulary

Here is the list with the VA restrictions and
omissions. Nine of the 20 drugs on FUSA's list are not
on VA formulary or have restrictions placed on access but are available on Medicare Part D formularies. That's nearly 50 percent fewer drugs available
to seniors.
Drug VA Availabiliy
Actonel Available
Aricept Available
Celebrex fail first
Fosamax available
furosemide generic
Lipitor 10 mg NA
Lipitor 20 mg NA
metoprolol tartrate generic
Nexium NA
Norvasc 5 mg fail first
Norvasc 10 mg fail first
Plavix 75 mg available
Prevacid NA
Toprol XL restricted to certain patients
Xalatan NA
Zocor 20 mg Now generic
Zocor 40 mg Now generic
Zoloft 50 mg available  Read More & Comment...

The Old Canard About Me-Too Drugs

01/10/2007 10:59 AM |

Someone sent me California PIRG's letter in support of price controls.

They claim that most R&D is not needed because two-thirds of all drugs developed are me-too drugs. That means the rest are novel therapies.

Let's break this logic down. We know that different drugs attacking a different target in somewhat different ways is therapeutically important. That the meta-analysis of a variety fo RTCs, all with different exclusion criteria, seem to suggest no different in drugs really only proves statistically what we know is going on mechanistically....different people responding to a variety or combination of meds due to genetic polymorphisms. So density of therapeutic space is associated with improved health and well-being.

But even if these drugs were ALL the same -- and they are not -- that leaves 30 percent of all drugs and biologics -- that are truly novel or unique. PIRG seems to think companies can focus research on truly breakthrough products alone. Well that's biotech my friends as you can see how risky that is and the prices and returns they need invest in novel and unvalidated targets. (Note to pharma companies: explaining THIS part of drug development might be useful...) Multiply the failure of the Pfizer drug a hundred fold and exclude work on every well-know drug target and that's what pharma would look like. Heck, that's what pharma is today...both within and as a function its JVs with biotech.

So what PIRG, FUSA and others are claiming is that we should impose price controls at the point when pharma is becoming more innovative...  Read More & Comment...

Families USA Pharmaceutical Fibs

01/10/2007 10:05 AM |

Poor Ron Pollack and FUSA.

First they put out a bunch of reports claiming that if we shove seniors into the VA system Medicare would save tons of money.

Soros funded Families USA Godfather Ron Pollack never told his Democrat supporters or the media that the VA used price controls, restrictive formularies and rationing of new medicines.

(We did and have for months if not years, going back to my time at the Manhattan Institute.)

Either they knew and were politically venal or just stupid. Either way, Democrats and Republicans are now stuck trying to prove that you drive down prices without restricting choice.

Now FUSA has come out with yet another report claiming that VA prices are lower than Medicare prices. Tell us something we don't know.

Except now Ron thinks he has outsmarted those who opposed price controls.
To wit (or to witless in this case) :

“Opponents of Medicare bargaining make two contradictory claims. First, they claim that private market competition under Part D is more effective in reducing prices than Medicare bargaining; and second, they claim that Medicare bargaining would reduce prices so significantly it would harm research and development,” said Pollack. “These arguments cannot both be true—and, indeed, neither is true.”

Here's some math even Ron can understand. Big difference between price X and price X less 50 percent minus 3 years sales (due to limited access to the market) or price X minus no sales at all because of a restrictive formula. If Ron or anyone else wants to see my computations on this they can email directly at bobgoldberg@yahoo.com

Then Ron claims that all drug companies spend more on sales, marketing and administration than on R&D.

That's true. But misleading. And dishonest

Ron takes all the sale's, marketing, AND administrative expensives of a corporation worldwide (and administration includes the toner for the copier as well as the toilet paper for the men's room) and uses that as the denominator for R&D for the pharmaceutical firm alone. If FUSA and Ron were honest he would

1. Use the GAO numbers that show companies spend about $11 billion on marketing to consumers and docs compared to $31 billion on R&D. Companies might be able to spend less, but some education and advertising in needed. In any event, to zero it out would not lower drug prices low enough to "fill the doughnut hole." Once again Ron is hoping anger over drug prices will cause people to glide past his deception.

2. Add in biotech. That's another $20 billion in R&D will less spent on marketing. And most of these companies lose money and depend in drug companies for funding. They would be hurt twice by FUSA's proposal. They would lose pharma funding and then find their products barred from government formularies.

FUSA is a desperate organization seeking to restore badly damaged credibility created by their own lies and distortions.

They tried to scare seniors away from Medicare Part D and failed. They claimed it would be a failure. They were wrong. They claim it's still a failure. No one takes them seriously. They mislead the public on price controls and its impact on the lives of seniors. And now they are trying to mislead again on the impact they would have on medical progress.

At least Ron and FUSA are consistent.  Read More & Comment...

The Part D Line

01/10/2007 07:29 AM |

Why would meddling with the non-intereference clause be a calamity for America' seniors?

Why is the VA model really a health care quagmire?

Why is "government negotiations" only a code phrase for "price controls?"

Why do "price controls" = "choice controls?"

What do America's seniors know that Congress has yet to learn?

Good questions! Crucial questions. Questions that deserve accurate answers based on facts rather than rhetoric.

And here they are -- brought to you by many of our nation's top health care thinkers. Just click on the link below -- and pass it on!

Download file

If Speaker Pelosi wants to talk about health care, then it's time to inject some truth serum into the first 100 hours.  Read More & Comment...

Arnold's Health Care Plan: Pumping Up Medicaid

01/08/2007 10:18 PM |

Drugwonks is all in favor of expanding health care coverage by giving people money to choose among competing plans (would it be that the competition was national but that's for another time). The Massachusetts approach makes sense in this respect. Unfortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to cover California's uninsured by dumping them into Medicaid will be a disaster. We already have a recipe for failure: it's the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP. Only 50 percent of all kids are enrolled in that program nationwide and have been since it's inception since 1997. One reason: most parents think of it as welfare. Also, lots of good docs have left the program, particularly in California where reimbursement rates are pathetically low.

Why didn't the governor take a more market driven approach that treats the uninsured like consumers instead of welfare recipients.

Arnold should send his Medicaid plan back for a rewrite.  Read More & Comment...

Bad News For Democrats: Drug Costs Drop Without Their Help

01/08/2007 09:59 PM |

Two more pieces of good news about how markets and competition that will no doubt disappoint Democrats and those who would rather see drug companies die than see more people live from their increased investments...

Articles in the Health Affairs that came in the mail today show that rate of increase in drug spending declined faster than it has in over a decade from 2004-5. Meanwhile healthcare spending in the US essentially remained the same. (All this is happening by that way even as the number of people using meds and the number of prescriptions increases..) Other articles showed that increased spending on medicines for hypertension contributed to a decline in deaths and spending on more costly medical services. Moreover, the studies found that if more people had actually taken the medicines prescribed the cost offset and benefits would have been even greater.

Now what does that tell us class?

First, that from 2004-5 even as seniors began to increase the number of prescriptions they took with the help of prescription drug card, the rate of increase declined. That's because more people took generics and price competition kept prices down. Also, new formulations were more cost effective.

Second, increased drug utilization is associated with a decline in health care spending. As the studies on medicines and cardiovascular disease shows -- studies conducted by Harvard's David Cutler and associates -- drugs that control the progress of chronic illness also control the rate of health care spending. The more they are used, the more they do so

Third, the earlier and more frequently we treat disease with medicine the more likely we prevent disease and control its cost as well as improve life. Therefore drugs are undervalued.

And that class, is the problem. The Left truly hates the drug companies and therefore seeks to devalue its products at every turn. Either they claim they are me-too pieces of crap, poisonous pills that they payoff the FDA to market, or way to expensive cancer drugs that marginally increase survival. They can't think of one drug that truly makes a difference.

The latest research shows, yet again, they are wrong. And they are venal.  Read More & Comment...

Dems Follow Families USA Off the Part D Cliff/AARP Devours the Souls of Seniors To Keep Dems Debacle Alive

01/08/2007 02:50 PM |

Poor Democrats. They listened to and believed the Families USA half truths about the VA not being price controls and being such an easy to use formulary and saving gazillions. That's what they get for actually buying into those comic books that FUSA passes off as scholarly research.

And now they are trapped like rats, hoisted on their own price control petard. They can't use the VA model because it will allow the GOP to paint them as Dr. Kervorkian. Those there are still some Kool-aid drinkers among them like AARP's David Certner who claims that all the government needs to do is impose co-pays on drugs that don't meet government low, low prices. So I get it David, make seniors pay more out of pocket for drugs they need, make them beg and crawl and fail first for those off-formulary drugs so they wind up paying twice? Are you sure you work for a group that defends the interests of seniors or has the Kool-aid turned you into Dawn of the Dead Democratic Part D defender, devouring the interests of seniors to keep alive their price control scheme at all costs.

What's next: claiming that the Cipro bulk purchase under threat of patent seizure is the model for Medicare drug negotiations?  Read More & Comment...

The Udder Side of the Story

01/06/2007 09:40 AM |

The New York Times editorial page is certainly entitled to its opinion. But it shouldn't be entitled to excessive hyperbole. (Please note that by "excessive hyperbole," I don't exactly mean "lying" so much as "not telling the whole truth.")

Specifically I refer to their editorial today, "Safe as Milk?" which decries the FDA's assessment that food (especially milk) from cloned animals is safe to eat.

The Gray Lady thinks that's a bad idea. That's their priviledge. It's a contentious topic. What's not appropriate is when they twist the facts to make their point. I take particular umbrage at the Times' statement that the FDA decision was "hurried along in a way that is more sensitive to political and economic pressure than to the long-term welfare of animals, humans and the world they inhabit."

Not so. And I speak from personal, first-hand knowledge. The agency has been studying this issue in great detail for a very long period of time. In fact, many of the world's leading experts on this issue work at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. During my tenure at the FDA (which ended in 2004), this issue was already being deeply investigated and intensely debated. So, when the New York Times deigns to say that the agency's decision was "hurried along" without either due regulatory process or focus on science, I say, where's the beef?  Read More & Comment...

Preaching to the Choir?

01/05/2007 02:14 PM |

Thought you'd enjoy this profile of DrugWonks from the January edition of Pharmaceutical Executive.

Here's the link:

http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=395590&ref=25

Preaching to the choir? Perhaps. But right now that's more crucial than ever since "the choir" isn't singing from the same hymnal.  Read More & Comment...

The Part D Hasn't Started Yet

01/05/2007 12:59 PM |

The two page bill (more like a placeholder) is just the first step designed not to step on the toes or in front of the cameras of those committee chairs who are inclined and will be likely to introduce much more draconian measures. To be sure the D's don't want to do anything to undermine the large but extremely soft numbers in support of "direct negotiations" which is why they came up with poll-tested and politically ambiguous piece of legislation ("nothing in this act should be construed as requiring the Secretary to wear a dress to work every morning, especially with white shoes, especially when not in season..")

I wonder what the poll numbers would be like if the pollsters asked intelligent questions like: Do you support government negotiating directly with drug companies even if it might result in restricting access to new medicines and less money for stem cell research?

I wonder.  Read More & Comment...

Madam to Madam

01/05/2007 08:47 AM |

And only in the nicest meaning of the term!

Here's an important new op-ed piece by Madam Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute addressed to our new Madam Speaker. Topic: Medicare and the Part D benefit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4447256.html

We're sure that Grace-Marie's advice is offered in the spirit of partnership rather than partisanship.  Read More & Comment...

Wither Internet Pharmacies

01/05/2007 08:14 AM |

Here's another take on the "sleazy side" of Internet pharmacies:

http://www.cmpi.org/newsDetail.asp?contentdetailid=259&contenttypeid=3&page=1

Worth a read.

Final quote in the article says it all, "Rogue outfits wouldn't keep operating if they weren't profitable. Legitimate pharmacies are licensed for a reason. Sometimes a bargain is just too expensive."  Read More & Comment...

Goodbye Non-Interference. Hello Con-Interference.

01/04/2007 03:48 PM |

Courtesy of Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel, please welcome the “Medicare Prescription Price Negotiation Act of 2007.”

Goodbye non-interference. Hello con-interference.

And if the devil is in the details this bill is as saintly as they come because, there ain’t no details – the bill runs just a tad over two whole pages, double spaced. Talk about Part D Deficit Disorder.

The good news/bad news is that there’s no there there.

Good news because there’s no there there.

Bad news because it is the beginning of the slippery slope towards choice controls (aka: price controls). And, because of that, it must be robustly fought.

According to the draft bill, “… the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals,” but “nothing shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary” and “… shall not be construed as affecting the Secretary’s authority to ensure appropriate and adequate access to covered part D drugs under prescription drug plans …”

So, the Feds can negotiate, but if the negotiations fail (whatever that means), the Secretary doesn’t have the authority to “ban” any drug from any federally-funded formulary (i.e., every single existing part D plan). Some hammer.

And, to remove yet another tooth, the bill makes clear that "government prices” need not even be the lowest ones. As the draft bill reads, “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the sponsor of a prescription drug plan, or an organization offering an MA-PD plan, from obtaining a discount or reduction of the price for a covered part D drug below the price negotiated under paragraph (1)” – the “government price.”

A total toothless wonder – and no wonder. The new Congressional majority knows how to read a poll. Seniors like the prescription drug benefit. It works. It’s an entitlement – the newest political third rail.

This bill is a dodge. A face-saver. And it’s dishonest from every angle. For those who believe in real price controls (Rahm Emanuel, etc.) it’s a teensy-weensy baby step. Such folks (however wrong-minded) should be outraged at such a lame piece of legislation. For those opposed, it might very well be seen as an easy “yea” vote – since it really won’t do anything. But, as stated above – it’s a slippery slope with the slippery folks at the helm for the time being. "Least worst" alternatives must not acceptable when it comes to the public health.

Here is a link to the draft legislation:

Download file

See if you can read it in its entirely while holding your breath. And then take a deep breath – because the battle has begun.  Read More & Comment...

CMPI Science Adviser Launches Personalized Medicine Breakthrough

01/04/2007 01:27 PM |

So much for the one size fits all formulary plans of Marcia (one drug per disease will do ya) Angell and those in the EBM movement.....


Dr. Gualberto Ruano, President of Genomas, Inc. and a principal scientific adviser to The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest has identified DNA markers for risk and protective factors involved in diabetes-related metabolic side effects from treatment with common antipsychotic drugs used to treat schizophrenia and manic depression.

The research, which was published in the January 2, 2007 online issue of Nature Publishing Group’s Molecular Psychiatry, highlights how understanding a patient’s DNA can predict an individual’s profile of risk or protection from the antipsychotic drugs prescribed, and paves the way for using genetic tests to personalize the treatment of mental illness. The study, entitled “Physiogenomic comparison of weight profiles of olanzapine- and risperidone-treated patients”, looked at two of the leading atypical antipsychotic medicines on the market and found that a series of unique DNA variations could predict a patient’s likelihood for developing pre-diabetic side effects such as weight gain.

The use of antipsychotic drugs is on the rise, with an estimated 14 million patients suffering from chronic mental health disorders -- such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder -- for which these drugs are increasingly being prescribed. Atypical antispychotics (AAPs) can induce diabetic symptoms in nearly one third of patients, most notably characterized by increased weight gain in some patients but not in others. However, the side effect profiles for these drugs even within the same drug class may differ, raising the possibility of drug-specific side effects.

Dr. Ruano's research demonstrates that risk varies by individual and can be predicted and limited in ways to offer hope and reduce suffering. His research and dedication to the making medicine more predictive underscores the immense opportunity of personalized medicine as well as the human price we will pay if policymakers persist in imposing one size fits all solutions on patients and the public as a whole.

CMPI plans to conduct a study to determine the value of widespread DNA testing for AAPs in terms of the time and money saved by avoiding unnecessary, ineffective of unsafe treatments.

The battle is joined. And Dr. Ruano will be joining us at our Media and Medical Science conference in DC on Feb 21.  Read More & Comment...

Learning Abbott's Lesson on Drug Pricing

01/04/2007 12:08 PM |

It is not for nothing that the WSJ ran its piece on Abbott's strategery regarding the re-pricing upward of Norvir the week that Democrats are planning to push through price controls on prescription drugs. (See New Regimen Inside Abbott's Tactics To Protect AIDS Drug Older Pill's Price Hike Helps Sales of Flagship; A Probe in Illinois By JOHN CARREYROU)

But then again, the article does offer some valuable lessons from drug and biotech firms as does a seemingly unrelated article by Alan Murray today dealing with the demise of Home Depot's CEO Bob Nardelli for not understanding that today's corporate chieftain is now in charge of a group of stakeholders (that's why it's called a public company) and not just the bottom line. Indeed, it is the persistent failure of drug and biotech companies to fail to plan for the political and consumer impact of it's corporate decisions.

Abbott raised the price of Norvir when it became clear it was being used as a booster for a competitor product. But the company did a horrible job of clearing the path for what it knew would be a controversial move. In the end, the furor died down but not until Abbott took steps it should have integrated at the outset into an overall package to both explain and insure that both Norvir and it's new product, Kaletra, could be used a suite of products en route to delivering outstanding care. Abbott undertook damage control when it should be been planning for a reconfiguration and relaunch, working and talking to the groups affected and interested in its products.

The fact is what drug and biotech companies do interest people far beyond the immediate group of patients and clinicians that use them. They generate headlines for news organizations and politicians alike. Companies have yet to understand that public policy is just as important to the launch and reimbursement of a product as the science behind it. Similarly, CEOs in the industry seem to be the last of the bunch to understand that their role is not just making the numbers and steering firms through a transition in the science of drug discovery, tough as those tasks are.

Rather, as Alan Murray notes about Home Depot's Bob Nardelli can still be said for many CEOs in the pharma and biotech community:

What Mr. Nardelli missed, however, is that in the post-Enron world, CEOs have been forced to respond to a widening array of shareholder advocates, hedge funds, private-equity deal makers, legislators, regulators, attorneys general, nongovernmental organizations and countless others who want a say in how public companies manage their affairs. Today's CEO, in effect, has to play the role of a politician, answering to varied constituents. And it's in that role that Mr. Nardelli failed most spectacularly.' See Alan Murray's article: Executive's Fatal Flaw:
Failing to Understand New Demands on CEOs in today's WSJ.

The Abbott article is a cautionary tale of the cost of continuing to fail. As we enter a high dry political season for pharma-bio, leadership on a grander scale will be required. Above all, if CEOs fail to defend the mission and value of their enteprise, no one else well. Ultimately, the pharma CEO must create a constituency for his corporation. And simply paying lobbyists to keep the wolves away will not do.  Read More & Comment...

Not quite, but almost (Freking) perfect

01/04/2007 11:49 AM |

In case you missed.

(Of particular interest is that the Part D provider having the biggest problems -- at least according to one pharmacist -- is the AARP.)

Medicare drug benefit signup less bumpy this year
By Kevin Freking
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – Seniors are experiencing fewer problems at the start of the Medicare drug benefit's second year, even as hundreds of thousands come into the program for the first time or change plans.

The smoother start was reported Wednesday by federal health officials and representatives of seniors and pharmacists.

“It's not perfect, but it seems a lot better than last year,” said Carol Cooke, spokeswoman for the National Community Pharmacists Association, which represents about 24,000 pharmacies.

“It's nothing overwhelming like last year,” said Deane Beebe of the Medicare Rights Center. “But, yes, there is a smattering of problems we're hearing about. We've also spoken with pharmacists who say it's too soon to tell.”

With the start of a new year, hundreds of thousands of people are coming into the program for the first time, while hundreds of thousands more have switched insurance plans. The changes have the potential of causing havoc for consumers and health care providers if they weren't properly plugged into computer databases before Jan. 1.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it had seen nothing like the barrage of complaints that had marked the drug program's first week in 2006, when consumers were not listed in insurers' databases and pharmacists had problems verifying coverage.

“It's very quiet, but we're always on the lookout. There's nothing that has risen to the level of crisis,” said Jeff Nelligan, spokesman for the agency, which oversees the drug benefit. Cooke said pharmacists had reported problems billing UnitedHealthCare, which administers drug plans with the AARP brand and has the highest enrollment. She read an e-mail from a pharmacist: “It is now 1 a.m. and I am still at work since 9 a.m. transmitting claims for Part D. During the day, I could get no AARP claims to go through.”

“We had initial issues that affected our systems, but at the present time, we are seeing high service levels and 99 percent of all claims submitted are being processed within one second,” replied Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesman for UnitedHealthCare.

Last year, Cooke and her colleagues returned from the New Year's holiday to find their telephone message systems overflowing with complaints.

Under the program, beneficiaries can choose from 50-plus plans serving their states. They pay a monthly premium and for some of the costs of their medicine. The federal government picks up most of the initial expense. But once total drug costs reach $2,400, there is a gap in coverage – the so-called “doughnut hole” when the plan will pay nothing toward the cost of the drugs. That gap continues until total drug costs total $5,451. Then, the government begins paying again at a rate of 95 percent.

The poor get extra help with the cost of their medicine.

About 23 million people are enrolled in drug plans. People could switch plans or enroll for the first time from Nov. 15 through Dec. 31. Deadline exceptions will be allowed for some seniors, particularly about 250,000 people enrolled in plans that failed to properly notify them of changes in their coverage. The federal government gave them another six weeks to make a switch if they want.

Going into the new year, federal officials were most worried about those seniors who waited until the final few days to change plans. However, surveys indicated that few seniors would do so. The Kaiser Family Foundation polled seniors in early November about whether they would change drug plans. Only 5 percent said yes. About 66 percent said no. The remainder said they had yet to make that determination.

Beebe said a federal mandate that insurers provide an emergency 30-day supply of medicine has helped limit problems. She also said that some consumers learned from last year. They filled their prescriptions just before the end of 2006 so that they wouldn't have to deal with problems that they encountered last January.  Read More & Comment...

A Sweet Solution to Democratic Attacks on Part D

01/04/2007 11:38 AM |

Hybrid Molecule Causes Cancer Cells To Self-destruct
Science Daily — By joining a sugar to a short-chain fatty acid compound, Johns Hopkins researchers have developed a two-pronged molecular weapon that kills cancer cells in lab tests. The researchers cautioned that their double-punch molecule, described in the December issue of the journal Chemistry & Biology, has not yet been tested on animals or humans. Nevertheless, they believe it represents a promising new strategy for fighting the deadly disease.

Could we link a sugar to Pelosi's price control plan for seniors and get the same therapeutic explosion. Heck, I would even support Byron Dorgan in opposing stuffed molasses in from Canada at a lower price for that to happen... apparently the Senator who supports using price controls from Canada on medicines opposes reimportation of stuffed molasses from the same country to get around sugar tariffs imposed on behalf of sugar producers in the US, particularly in Lousiana, home of Senator David Vitter who courageously blocked a vote to confirm Andy von Eschenbach in order to bar customs officials from seizing counterfeit drugs at the Canadian border.  Read More & Comment...