NE1: The Medical research act

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Medical research act

1. All drug companies have to be registered with the Northeastern Government to be allowed to sell  their products.
2. To be registered in the Northeast drugs companies must spend at least 70% of revenue on research and development, or related costs.

Sponsor: Bore

Bore, you have 24 hours before I kill this thing on camera and am forced to hide from the law. Debate time will last 72 hours total.

[bore]

It is a fact that in our region and across the world pharmeceutical companies spend billions upon billions on marketing and lobbying, while neglecting actual research. A particularily current example of this is the complete lack of funding for alzheimers research. This bill aims to make it impossible for companies to spend almost nothing on research, while fleecing taxpayers by designing fancy packets and gifting doctors items, by removing their revenue source if they are all style and no substance.

[Insula Dei]

I actually find this a sensible proposal.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I actually find this a sensible proposal.

If you talk here one more time, I will bomb the entire nation of Belgium.

[Simfan34]

Bore, how does this 70% figure contrast with the spending statistics from most companies.

[Barnes]

While I truly share your concerns over this issue, bore, I simply cannot support such an extreme - frankly, draconian - tax against pharmaceutical companies.   The Gazette of Atlasian Business ran a very interesting write-up about the bill, and while I don't agree with some of it in part, I do feel that this bill would simply deter business investment in the region.

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps replace the current bill with legislation that would establish a regional body to supervise and review drug preparation and sale within the region.  This body would be tasked with providing oversight and regulation into the market as well as giving the companies an opportunity to invest in regional communities and businesses that are found to be in need of low-cost research and development.

[Simfan34]

The Gazette provides a strong case against this bill, certainly, but I am willing to take a good look  at your side of the issue.

[Barnes]

The Gazette provides a strong case against this bill, certainly, but I am willing to take a good look  at your side of the issue.

I agree, however, significant changes would have to be made for this to get an Aye from me, and I feel that's up to bore.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm sorry, but I can't endorse this legislation.  I think this would demonstrate a vast overreach of power and would either increase the costs of medicine, drive businesses out of the region, or most likely- both.

Establishing an oversight committee would be more ideal as long as it doesn't undermine its own intentions.

[Goldwater]

I oppose this bill, for the reasons my fellow Representatives & Senator have stated.

[bore]

Firstly, thank you for all of your comments- its good to see representatives (past present and future) actually having a debate. Also I'm glad to see almost everybody sees this as a serious problem- even if they may disagree with my means.

It is my understanding, under the New Atlasian Healthcare Act, that our region is obliged to pay for workers drugs etc. Therefore, surely our region decides which drugs to buy, so it does not have to be a federal thing. Also, as at our last budget we spent 20 billion on healthcare, so we are not chump change which drug companies can choose to ignore.

However, I am, of course willing to modify the bill if it will enable its passage. One suggestion is instead of the 70% R and D requirement (which was really just a starting point) perhaps a marketing cap (so no more than x% can be spent on marketing- I'd suggest 10, but that's just a starting point) on total expenditure. Also I am aware the law is a little heavy handed, and so I could support a voluntary arrangement at first, as long as there would be a change if that didn't work.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Proposing an amendment:

The Medical research act

1. All drug companies have to be registered with the Northeastern Government to be allowed to sell  their products.
2. To be registered in the Northeast drugs companies may spend only a maximum of 15% on marketing drugs or related costs.

Bore, is it friendly?

[bore]

Yes that's friendly.

[Barnes]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

The Medical research act

1. All drug companies have to be registered with the Northeastern Government to be allowed to sell  their products.
2. Once a fiscal year, the Northeastern Government shall review all registered drug companies and assess the percentage of the annual profit invested into approved research and development areas.
3.The decision on which areas are approved shall be taken by a five person board of medical professionals, appointed by the Northeastern governor.
3. If the percentage referenced in Section 2 is below ¹/₃ of annual revenue then the company shall be placed on a six month "probationary" period.  During this period, the company may spend only a maximum of 15% on marketing drugs or related costs.
4. At the end of the probationary period, the government shall hold another review of the company's half-year revenue and investments and assess if the company has increased its research and development funding to the level specified in Section 2.  If the company has met the request level, it's probationary period shall end, if it has not, a new probationary period will be instituted.
5. The legislation shall come into effect July 1, 2013.


This amendment is friendly, but I'd like to add another amendment as well, to stop all of the mandatory research and development being focused on 'me too' drugs, instead of actually useful ones.

[Barnes]

Sorry, had to fix an unintentional grammatical error.  Oh, and fix the numbering!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Extending debate time by 24 hours.

[bore]

Sorry, had to fix an unintentional grammatical error.  Oh, and fix the numbering!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do I have to say this is friendly? because if so, it is.

[Goldwater]

While I understand the reasoning behind this bill, I'm uncomfortable with the government being given the power to control what a company does with the money it earns.

[bore]

I remain skeptical that the oversight that this bill calls for is necessary, and the requirements that it will impose on pharmaceutical companies seem rather burdensome and intrusive. I cannot offer this legislation my signature unless I see a stronger case.

Here is why I think this bill is necessary:

Around the world, today we are (or will soon be) suffering a drugs crisis. I'm sure we all know that bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, this is not only a medical danger, but according to the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics in america we spend between 17 and 26 billion dollars a year because of antibiotic resistance. Now we could try and use the old drugs but sparingly, yet in many ways the cat is already out of the bag. In the long term we need to develop more drugs, yet the actual opposite is happening:
 

And its not just antibiotics that are affected by less research, all kinds of diseases are not stopped or slowed down because we don't do enough research.

I hope that through out my term so far as an assemblyman I've shown myself to be reasonable, I have never been wedded to one particular idea because I believe the state or business is inherently "good", and believe me if research was going well and new breakthroughs were being made I would be happy to support the status quo. But as of now research spending is falling, while profits are going up: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/26/pharmaceuticals-rd-idUSL6E7HO1BL20110626
 I think its vital that we do something to arrest this decline.

Having said all that I am willing to make amendments to the bill, such as increasing the probationary period to a year so companies don't have to collect anymore data etc.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Extending debate time by another 24 hours. This time is the final extension, so get your concerns out now.

[Poirot]

I was asked about my opinion on this act in another thread so I thought of also sharing my citizen's opinion here.

I respect assemblyman bore for addressing this important topic. 

I think it's true pharmas spend a lot on marketing and lobbying. Taking prescription drugs should be a medical decision and not the result of a good sales job.

I cannot agree on deciding the areas of research for the companies. Maybe some areas will never be profitable or would needs decades to discover something, and a panel would be responsible for this (not the companies themselves).

This is a complex issue and I don't think there is an easy solution. I will try to offer some ideas to be constructive.

To help some specific areas of research we could fund university research centers for them to work in those areas.

On the commercialization side, we could limit direct marketing of drugs to people like some countries do. (perhaps less adequate at regional level) In return we could give longer patent protection for new drugs. Also maybe we could look at working with doctors to make sure their code of ethics protect them from being too influenced by the companies.

[Simfan34]

While your motivations are most noble and indeed necessary, bore, I do not think this bill in its present form, or any form besides a radically different one, could earn my support.

To spur greater medical innovation, and innovation of any sort, a major influx of innovation spending is necessary. We need to restart Bell Labs et al, we need to have more money go back into basic scientific research, I will put forth a bill outlining how.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So is everyone decided?

[Goldwater]

So is everyone decided?

Yes, I think we have.