Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

In the last month drug companies have raised $43 million to fight Prop. 79, a union sponsored (Alliance for California) measure that would cut prescription drug prices for a wide range of California residents.

Proposition 79, an Initiative Statute:

Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown costs and savings as a result of provisions linking drug prices for the new drug discount program to Medi-Cal prices, including the potential effect on the state’s receipt of supplemental rebates; unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts; and unknown costs and offsetting revenues from the anti-profiteering provisions.

Giant pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have pumped more than $8.5 million each into the industry’s California Initiative Fund, which also is financing Proposition 78, a rival drug cost measure on the special election ballot.

Proposition 78, An Initiative Statute:

Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low – and moderate – income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities to implement the new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts.

Here we have dueling initiative statutes with a costly media campaign that the public employee and private unions cannot win if they are battling the Governor over paycheck protection, teacher tenure and redistricting.

And does anyone continue to wonder why the Democrats want to cut a deal with the Governor and either narrow their election day campaigns or so thoroughly confuse (bore) the voters that all measures fail.

The drug industry has collected a total of more than $53 million thus far for the initiative battle, an indication of how important the fight over prescription drug costs is to the industry.

“Their fund raising is astronomical, and obviously they’re scared,” said Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for a Better California, a union- funded group that put the Proposition 79 drug cost measure on the ballot. “They wouldn’t invest that kind of money if they didn’t have something to lose. ”

The money shows that the pharmaceutical industry will wage an all-out effort to defeat the union initiative and pass its rival measure, said Jan Faiks, a vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

You bet they will and the ads by Merck are already airing on talk radio stations.

Around the Capitol asks:

Maybe the drug companies can give the guv some fundraising pointers…

How about a media campaign too!

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

In the first study of its kind, University of Florida researchers are testing the power of a natural human hormone to biochemically move teeth faster and less painfully during orthodontic treatment.

“Most of orthodontics has traditionally dealt with physics, the biomechanics of applying a force against a tooth to move it,” said study investigator Timothy Wheeler, a professor and chairman of orthodontics at UF’s College of Dentistry. “Ours is the first study to use a naturally occurring hormone, recombinant human relaxin, to biochemically augment tooth movement and retention.”

Relaxin is best known as the hormone that helps women’s pelvic ligaments stretch in preparation for giving birth. It does this by softening collagen and elastin in the tissues, loosening strong, cord-like fibers until they have the consistency of limp spaghetti noodles.

That ability prompted researchers to consider relaxin a possible way to accelerate tooth movement and prevent relapse, a condition where the tooth migrates back to its original position after braces are removed.

The study will be the first of many to test the hormone as an orthodontic therapy, and it is hoped the drug could cut treatment time in half and eliminate the need for retainers after braces have been removed.

Flap is still waiting for that”Magic Mouthwash” to eliminate caries and periodontal disease.

But, an interesting application of hormonal therapy here.

HT: Medgadget

The Wall Street Journal has the latest on the NON-Flap FLAP over Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize–perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Indeed!

Micelle Malkin has THE NY TIMES’ ROVE-MANIA.

John Hinderaker at Power Line and Tom Maguire at Just One Minute break it down for you.

And for laughs read the New York Times editorial, A Few Thoughts on Karl Rove

Far be it for us to denounce leaks. Newspapers have relied on countless government officials to divulge vital information that their bosses want to be kept secret. There is even value in the sanctioned leak, such as when the White House, say, lets out information that it wants known but does not want to announce.

But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary…

And what were the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg?

New York Times = Biased Hypocrisy

California Assemby Speaker Fabien Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata will ask a Sacramento area court on Thursday to join the lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to remove Prop. 77, the redistricting initiative supported by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger, from the November Special Election ballot.

If Núñez and Perata are denied permission to join as intervenors, which essentially would make them parties to Lockyer’s suit, Olson said they would file their own litigation against Proposition 77.

“What we’re trying to accomplish is to have the matter removed from the ballot,” he said. “We’re talking about the rule of law here – and the rule of law is that this shouldn’t be on the ballot.”

Lockyer’s suit, filed Friday, claims that proponents of the measure to overhaul how California draws legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization seats failed to comply with procedural requirements to qualify a state initiative.

Lockyer contends he has a duty, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, to seek judicial resolution of the matter.

“It’s not a partisan issue for him, it’s a matter of policy,” said Nathan Barankin, the attorney general’s spokesman.

Right!

Specifically, Lockyer’s suit said wording on the document used to gather signatures was different from the text submitted to Lockyer’s office for a title and summary, which formally launched the initiative’s petition drive.

Attorney Daniel Kolkey, representing leaders of the redistricting campaign, concedes that there were discrepancies and attributes them to human error – someone mistakenly sent the wrong version of the initiative to the printer, he said.

Kolkey argues that wording differences were minor, did not affect the substance of the measure and should not be used to thwart the will of voters.

Kolkey personally notified Secretary of State Bruce McPherson about the problem on June 13, three days after the redistricting measure qualified for the ballot.

McPherson, a Republican and former state legislator, has called the situation unprecedented but said he plans to place the redistricting measure before voters Nov. 8 unless a judge deems otherwise.

McPherson said he has an obligation to place before Californians any issue that 900,000 voters have demanded a right to consider.

“My presumption is that the people who signed the petition knew what they were signing,” he said.

McPherson, a defendant in the suit, opposes the intervenor request by Núñez and Perata.

“Additional involvement could mean additional time – and time is of the essence,” he said. “We need a quick resolution of this issue.”

If this measure is removed from the special election ballot then the rationale for holding an off-year election will disappear. Remember the Governor argued that the redistricting measure is imperative so that new legislative districts would be available to voters in 2006.

Will the Governor trade Prop. 77 for a bipartisan competing measure that also allows a change in term limits (to appease Nunez since he is soon termed out of office)?

Will the Governor cancel the Special Election entirely if Prop. 77 is removed from the ballot? The rumours around the Capital have legislative legal folks researching legal precedent to cancel the election.

Or will Prop. 77 survive and the Governor makes no deals?

Stay tuned.

Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page