Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003
AMENDMENT NO. 932, AS MODIFIED
Mr. WYDEN. If I could pose a question to the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from New York, who has been very gracious in indicating that he has been in support of what I want to do. Last week I made public a report from the General Accounting Office involving Taxil, which is the biggest selling cancer drug in history. This drug was developed largely by the taxpayers, with everything for support from the Pacific yew tree, which grows in my home State of Oregon, all the way to the work done at the National Cancer Institutes by Federal researchers, and has produced $9 billion in sales for Bristol-Myers with the Federal Government getting a return of about $35 million, about one half of 1 percent on the biggest selling cancer drug in history.
In this report, the General Accounting Office documents that the Federal Government basically dropped the ball. Without going to price controls and regulations and things of this nature, with some modest steps, the Federal Government could have stood up for the taxpayers and the patients who cannot afford the medicine and gotten the drug to market quickly and also taken steps to make it affordable and to protect the taxpayers. It is my desire, as somebody who has worked on these issues often with the Senator from New Hampshire for many years, to work out a bipartisan agreement where the National Institutes of Health would simply consider affordability when it enters into these agreements. It would not have to do anything prescriptive but would also have to look at affordability. I do not want in any way to hold up the work of the Senator. I think what he and the Senator from New York have done is very helpful, but I would have to object now if we could not get an agreement to at least at some point in this take a very modest step and ask that the question of affordability be considered when the National Institutes of Health enters these agreements, given the fact that basically patients on this particular drug, which has been the biggest selling cancer drug in history, cannot afford it and taxpayers got very little in return.
Would that be acceptable to the Senator from New Hampshire? If I did not object at this point, would the Senator from New Hampshire work with me so at some point later in this discussion we could get a bipartisan agreement on a very modest step that affordability be considered in these agreements? Is that acceptable to the Senator from New Hampshire?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
Mr. GREGG. First, I was very impressed with the report the Senator was able to get out of the public domain. It was a report that raised very serious issues. The fact is it appears somebody dropped the ball somewhere in the process. We should have gotten a better return for the taxpayer than we got on this drug.
The Senator is approaching an issue which needs to be addressed. I am happy to work with the Senator to try to address it. I cannot say unilaterally I can agree to the terms, but I will work throughout the day and tomorrow and have our staffs work to try to come up with language that gets to the Senator's purpose to make sure, when this research is done by NIH or other Federal entities, that research receives a fair return to the taxpayer. I was rather surprised we did not in that instance. I am happy to work with the Senator.
On this amendment, there is an agreement between myself and the other primary sponsors that we will not have second-degree amendments because we worked hard to get to this point.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is being very gracious. On the basis of his statement that he would work with me on itwhat the Senator from New Hampshire and Senator Schumer have accomplished is very important. I reiterate how important it be done at this time. It is one thing when drugs are developed with private sector money. It is a free enterprise system. Fortunately, investors take risks. There are some gushers, some that are not profitable. It is a different story when the drugs get to market with taxpayer money. Here we have the largest selling cancer drug in history.
It is imperative over the next day or so we work in a bipartisan way. The National Institutes of Health does phenomenal work. I don't want to do anything to impede their mission in getting drugs to market quickly. That is their first and foremost obligation. But let us also make sure when they sit down and enter into these agreements, they also try to make sure the drugs are affordable. It is one thing to get the drugs on the shelf, and it is another to not have the patients able to afford them.
On the basis of the pledge of the Senator from New Hampshire to try to work this out with me in the next day or so in an agreeable fashion, I do not intend to object. I want to see the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from New York go forward. I will work with the Senator from New Hampshire when he completes this important amendment.
I yield the floor.