Mr. Speaker, I made the attached remarks regarding the Avian Flu on May 11, 2006. You're on your own. This has been the credo for the Administration's approach to health care and it summarizes their approach to Avian Flu. The…
Mr. Speaker, I made the attached remarks regarding the Avian Flu on May 11, 2006.
You're on your own.
This has been the credo for the Administration's approach to health care and it summarizes their approach to Avian Flu. The Implementation Plan gives a little guidance to state and local governments and businesses and then wishes them luck.
First, there is the leadership vacuum. The plan calls for HHS to coordinate the medical response but calls for Homeland Security to coordinate federal operations and resources. A bipartisan report out of the Senate, released in April, found that the Department has lagged in fixing the problems that plagued its atrocious response to Hurricane Katrina. It found that major structural reforms were necessary and that little has changed in the Department so far. So we can expect Homeland Security to adopt a similar motto to the one they adopted last Summer: you're on your own.
What's more is that the plan has been called the mother of all unfunded mandates. While 7.1 billion dollars for avian flu preparedness is a step in the right direction, it is simply not enough. Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, called the budget ``completely unrealistic.'' A big part of the reason it is insufficient is that it has to make up for years of steady erosion of the public health infrastructure due to lack of funding. In fact, Dr. Redlener points out the need for 5 billion dollars just for ``staffs, equipment and supplies, and general resiliency.'' Yet the vast majority of the Administration's funding is going toward the anti-viral and vaccine stockpile.
This plan, therefore, gives us inadequate leadership and inadequate funding, which leaves the clear impression that we truly will be on our own in a pandemic. And a crisis is precisely the time we need to look out for each other the most.
However, we can be assured that everyone is not left to their own devices.
On November 4, 2005 during a House Government Reform Committee hearing on Avian Flu Preparedness, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt responded to my questioning by saying that he would not be issuing a compulsory license for the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu. He also declared that he was in negotiations with Roche, manufacturer of Tamiflu, over the cost of the drug being purchased for the national stockpile. On one hand, Secretary Leavitt has a Congressional mandate to stockpile enough Tamiflu for 25% of the nation. On the other hand, he withdrew the threat of compulsory licensing, even if Roche tries to price gouge. In so doing, Leavitt undercut his own negotiating power and effectively surrendered control of price to Roche.
On November 10, six days after the hearing, the New York Times reported that Roche announced what they would be charging developed countries for Tamiflu: 15 Euros, or about 19 dollars for a course of treatment. Wondering how the price negotiations between HHS and Roche went, my office recently asked HHS what they were paying for Tamiflu for the stockpile. The asking price of 15 Euros, or 19 dollars. Even with the bulk purchasing power of 810 million pills, HHS did not bother to get a better deal than the asking price.
Lest you get the impression that this price is fair, allow me to point out that Roche did not sink a dime into research on the drug. They simply license it from its inventor, Gilead Sciences. That means there is no need to recoup research costs. Furthermore, we know it can be sold for a profit for much less. Cipla, a generics manufacturer in India, for example, is selling Tamiflu for only 12 dollars. That is 36 percent less than what the Federal Government is paying. If we paid Cipla's price instead of Roche's, we would save over a half a billion dollars. I bet local health agencies and hospitals could save a lot of lives with that kind of money. Think of what we could do with a half billion dollars--we could reduce the deficit, put teachers in classrooms, invest in renewable energy, provide health care to some of the uninsured, brace ourselves for the effects of climate change.
Those that stand to gain from inflated prices for pandemic pharmaceuticals are doing well. Roche's sales for the first quarter of 2006 are up 22 percent to 7.7 billion dollars. Gilead Sciences, the company that originally developed Tamiflu and continues to receive royalties on its sales, outperformed RBC Capital Markets estimate of 350 million dollars in Tamiflu Sales by 163 million dollars.
In essence, we are telling state and local governments that there's not enough money to fund things like medical personnel and equipment while we're giving away bags of money to the already incredibly profitable pharmaceutical industry. In other words, you're on your own, unless you're big Pharma.