Tag: johnson johnson
Johnson & Johnson Sues Biden Over Law Reducing Prescription Drug Costs

Johnson & Johnson Sues Biden Over Law Reducing Prescription Drug Costs

CNBC reports that Johnson & Johnson sued the Biden administration on Tuesdayin an attempt to halt provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act designed to cut the cost of prescription drugs. The suit follows similar legal maneuvering by drug giants Merck and Bristol Myers Squibb.

President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022 after it passed both houses of Congress with only Democratic votes and over unified Republican opposition. A provision in the legislation allows the federal Medicare program to negotiate drug prices for some of the medications covered by program benefits.

The lawsuit filed by Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey’s federal district court aims to block the Department of Health and Human Services from compelling the company to participate in the federal program. According to CNBC, the company alleges that the legislation is the result of “innovation-damaging congressional overreach.”

Merck sued the administration in June, complaining that the process to lower prices is a “sham.” A week later Bristol Myers Squibb also sued, noting that its blood thinner Eliquis and its cancer treatment Opdivo would be included in price negotiations. Both drugs were significant contributors to the company’s profits in 2022, with a reported combined $20 billion in sales.

The Biden administration has been sued over the prescription drug benefit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the lobbyist group for multiple drugmakers.

“We’ll vigorously defend the President’s drug price negotiation law, which is already lowering health care costs for seniors and people with disabilities. The law is on our side,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra tweeted on June 6 in response to Merck’s suit.

Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb earn billions from drug sales. For 2022, Johnson & Johnson reported sales of $94.9 billion and $27 billion in profits. That same year, Merck’s net income was $14.5 billion and Bristol Myers Squibb’s was $6.3 billion.

In addition to the drug negotiation provisions, the Inflation Reduction Act also contains other stipulations designed to lower drug costs.

The law requires drug companies to provide rebates to Medicare if drug prices increase at a rate higher than inflation. The Department of Health and Human Services released a list of 43 drugs on June 9 that fall under this provision.

Prescription drug costs are now capped at $2,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses for many Medicare recipients as a result of the law.

Insulin costs are also capped at $35 per month for certain Medicare recipients. In March, drug manufacturer Eli Lilly announced that it would cap the price of its insulin drug itself, including for patients outside the Medicare system, citing the changes implemented by Biden’s law.

In spite of its benefits for millions of consumers, congressional Republicans on February 3 introduced H.R. 812, a bill that would completely repeal the entire law. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN), who sponsored the bill, said in a statement touting his legislation, “Instead of creating any positive change for Americans facing record-breaking economic challenges, Leftists opted to increase federal spending and the deficit – by at least $110 billion dollars through 2031 – in order to advance their personal political agendas.”

During remarks on February 9 at the University of Tampa in Florida, Biden warned about the fallout for medical patients if Ogles’ bill becomes law.

“If Republicans in Congress have their way, the power we just gave Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices goes away. The $2,000 cap next year on prescription drugs goes away. The $35-a-month insulin limitation goes away,” Biden said.

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

Anti-Vax Sen. Johnson Urges 'Standard Gargle' To Stop Coronavirus

Anti-Vax Sen. Johnson Urges 'Standard Gargle' To Stop Coronavirus

Reprinted with permission from DailyKos

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson has a hot new suggestion for stopping the coronavirus in its tracks, and the best thing that can be said for it is … at least he didn’t suggest bleach. No, Johnson suggested mouthwash instead.

“There are things you can do: Vitamin D, you know, zinc, keep yourself healthy, vitamin C—by the way, standard gargle, mouthwash, has been proven to kill the coronavirus,” Johnson said during a Wednesday town hall meeting, according to a recording shared on Twitter by a local radio station. “If you get it, you may reduce viral replication. Why not try all these things? It just boggles my mind that the NIH continues to tell people ‘Do nothing, you know, maybe take Tylenol.’”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), in fact, tells people to get vaccinated, along with a long list of possible treatments. But about that mouthwash.

Johnson subsequently linked to a study of 176 people who had tested positive for COVID-19 but were asymptomatic or only mildly ill. They were given mouthwash regularly for seven days, with the study concluding that the mouthwash “appears to provide a modest benefit compared with placebo in reducing viral load in saliva.”

That’s interesting, but you know what definitely provides more than a modest benefit compared with placebo in reducing viral load in more parts of the body than just saliva? Vaccines, which Johnson has repeatedly expressed suspicion of, to the point of being suspended from YouTube for spreading disinformation.

Mouthwash? Maybe it can reduce the virus levels specifically in your saliva, but, “Even if gargling kills some of the virus, it won’t be able to clean the nasal area, nor the viruses that’s already penetrated deeper into the body,” Kim Woo-Joo, an infectious disease expert at Korea University, told The Washington Post. And no, that part about cleaning the nasal area is not a suggestion to waterboard yourself with Listerine.

On a site for health care professionals, Listerine details studies involving mouthwash, stating, “We are aware of several ongoing, independent clinical trials where LISTERINE® is being assessed in patients with COVID-19. However, the current available data is not sufficient to support a conclusion that the use of LISTERINE® mouthwash is helpful against the COVID-19 virus. As a company firmly rooted in science, we are committed to advancing research in oral and public health.” Listerine is made by Johnson & Johnson, a company which, of course, also has a vaccine—and while the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not the most effective one out there, it is far, far, far more effective than Listerine. Or vitamin D. Or zinc. Or generic wellness.

It is so very, very special that here we are, with vaccines that are very effective at preventing severe illness even if delta and omicron have reduced their effectiveness at preventing any infection at all, and a United States senator is suggesting mouthwash. Death rates in Republican-voting counties are far higher than those in counties that vote for Democrats as vaccination rates among Republicans lag, but Republican politicians like Johnson are still promoting a line that will make it more likely for their own supporters to die horrible, painful deaths. The only good thing that can be said about Johnson’s mouthwash suggestion is that mouthwash is not going to harm anyone. But it’s not going to protect them, either, so suggesting it in place of the thing that will protect them is itself harmful. Ron Johnson has already shown that he doesn’t care if he causes harm, though, so it’s no big surprise.

Suspend Those Vaccine Patents Now

Suspend Those Vaccine Patents Now

Images of the uncontrolled pandemic in India or Brazil may seem too distant to worry us in America, separated as we are by thousands of miles and decades of development. But any such complacency is badly misplaced. Raging contagion poses an existential threat to us, whether abroad or at home, and can only be stanched by an emergency mobilization of massive inoculation.

That global effort is only likely to succeed in time if Western countries remove the patent protections that now stand in the way of rapid and decentralized production of COVID-19 vaccines. Any nation that can make its own — with appropriate safeguards and quality assurance — must be given the formulas and technology to do so now. Delay means allowing the virus to spread and mutate at an unlimited rate, which would only result in disaster. It would render useless the vaccines, which represent the single meaningful achievement of former President Trump's administration.

After months of dithering over this question, despite an earlier promise by President Biden, the White House now supports lifting U.S. patents on the vaccines. That encouraging announcement came within hours of the publication of a pathbreaking article in The Atlantic magazine by Chelsea Clinton and Achal Prabhala. The daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a public health expert as well as vice chair of the Clinton Foundation. Her co-author is a respected voice on access to medicines in the developing world.

As Clinton and Prabhala explain, the United States can back a pending proposal before the World Trade Organization to temporarily suspend intellectual property rights on the pandemic vaccines. "The proposal has been languishing at the WTO since October, despite overwhelming support from developing countries," they write, "because of opposition from the U.S., as well as from Canada, Australia, the European Union and the United Kingdom." With the Biden administration switching sides, pressure on the other recalcitrant states will be too strong to resist.

But that won't be enough. Clinton and Prabhala also urge Biden to require both Moderna and Johnson & Johnson to disclose how they make the vaccines that were invented with billions invested by U.S. taxpayers. In fact, the principal technology that underlies the production of nearly all the COVID-19 vaccines is based on a discovery made with government funding that will shortly be patented — by the U.S. government.

Despite the critical public role in producing most of the vaccines now being used, the Trump administration negotiated contracts with the pharma companies that omitted any obligation to share those products or license them to other countries. Instead, following the blind stupidity of their "America First" mantra, Trump officials insisted that no such requirements be imposed.

Those foolish decisions can be overruled by Trump's successor, however, who now seems inclined to do so. Clinton and Prabhala point to the Defense Production Act, which provides broad presidential power to assist foreign nations during a worldwide health crisis. Biden could also threaten to sue most of the vaccine manufacturers for patent infringement, and he possesses many other levers to obtain their compliance.

The usual reluctance to sympathize with Big Pharma might be diminished somewhat by their remarkably swift creation of the lifesaving vaccines, heavily subsidized though they were. Their spokespersons have come up with a long list of excuses for maintaining the patent protections that most countries seek to suspend. For instance, they claim that even if patents are suspended, few countries have the capacity to safely manufacture the new vaccines at scale.

But quality manufacturing processes for those medicines have been greatly simplified and decentralized — and while Western countries delay, China and Russia have been licensing production of their own versions for the sake of "vaccine diplomacy." There is no reason why the United States and Europe, whose vaccines are superior, should lose that contest. The Western pharma companies have already earned tens of billions of dollars from vaccine sales and stand to make much more. Saving the planet from a coronavirus conflagration is in their interest too.

The world watched a similar process unfold two decades ago, when the industrialized countries finally reversed their genocidal policy of withholding HIV/AIDS medications from the poor because they were "too costly." The pharmaceutical companies opposed that humanitarian change, at the risk of a hundred million lives. Their greed was eventually overruled — by Bill Clinton and the late Nelson Mandela, among others — and that is exactly what should happen now.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Those foolish decisions can be overruled by Trump's successor, however, who now seems inclined to do so. Clinton and Prabhala point to the Defense Production Act, which provides broad presidential power to assist foreign nations during a worldwide health crisis. Biden could also threaten to sue most of the vaccine manufacturers for patent infringement, and he possesses many other levers to obtain their compliance.

The usual reluctance to sympathize with Big Pharma might be diminished somewhat by their remarkably swift creation of the lifesaving vaccines, heavily subsidized though they were. Their spokespersons have come up with a long list of excuses for maintaining the patent protections that most countries seek to suspend. For instance, they claim that even if patents are suspended, few countries have the capacity to safely manufacture the new vaccines at scale.

But quality manufacturing processes for those medicines have been greatly simplified and decentralized — and while Western countries delay, China and Russia have been licensing production of their own versions for the sake of "vaccine diplomacy." There is no reason why the United States and Europe, whose vaccines are superior, should lose that contest. The Western pharma companies have already earned tens of billions of dollars from vaccine sales and stand to make much more. Saving the planet from a coronavirus conflagration is in their interest too.

Jewelers Mutual

Don't chip your diamond!

Yes, diamonds can chip. But, don't worry, here's how we can help you prevent it.

LEARN MORE

The world watched a similar process unfold two decades ago, when the industrialized countries finally reversed their genocidal policy of withholding HIV/AIDS medications from the poor because they were "too costly." The pharmaceutical companies opposed that humanitarian change, at the risk of a hundred million lives. Their greed was overruled — by Bill Clinton and the late Nelson Mandela, among others — and that is exactly what should happen now.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Help Wash Formaldehyde Out Of Babies’ Hair

Help Wash Formaldehyde Out Of Babies’ Hair

In the U.S. alone, the cosmetics industry pulls in some $70 billion a year in sales of what’s commonly called “makeup.” But lipstick, blush, mascara, etc. are not the only kind of makeup the cosmetic giants are peddling.

For years, their lobbyists, lawyers and PR agents have been making up facts, stories, half-truths and whole lies to keep lawmakers and regulators from banning various cancer-causing, hormone-disrupting and otherwise destructive ingredients that their products contain. One especially nasty example of this is the continuing campaign by L’Oreal, Revlon and the industry’s Personal Care Products Council to keep allowing formaldehyde in everything from baby wipes to hair straighteners.

Back in 1981, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency scientific panel, first listed this noxious chemical as a likely human carcinogen. A volcano of outrage erupted from cosmetic makers, which buried the NTP findings in a suffocating ash pile of denials, attacks and false facts. But the toxicologists, pushed by consumer and environmental groups, kept doing even deeper research, and in 2011, NTP listed formaldehyde as “known to be a human carcinogen.”

That should have been that, but corporate lobbyists got their congressional puppets to stall, making up more lies to assail NTP for flawed research and for interfering in private business. However, the prestigious National Academy of Science has been reviewing that research and has now unequivocally endorsed NTP’s findings — even adding that new research shows that formaldehyde may cause a much wider array of cancers than previously known.

So, after 33 years, the health of babies finally wins one over cosmetic profiteers, right? Not quite yet. Incredibly, the products of Revlon and L’Oreal still contain cancer-causing formaldehyde, and both of the greed-headed giants continue to balk at necessary reforms.

But who says we’re not making progress in our battle against the senseless, destructive and deadly greed of corporate profiteers? Look at the big change won earlier this year when the labels on Johnson’s Baby Shampoo announced: “Improved Formula.”

This popular Johnson & Johnson baby product has long been advertised with the comforting slogan “No More Tears,” for the shampoo’s ingredients don’t sting a tiny tot’s eyes. That’s nice, but many mommies and daddies have become more concerned about another ingredient in those soapy suds the corporation has not advertised: Formaldehyde. This toxic chemical, which can cause several cancers including leukemia, is contained in thousands of consumer items, including carpets, nail polish and, yes, soaps, lotions and dozens of other baby products.

But — O, progress! Johnson’s “improved” baby shampoo qualifies for a new advertising slogan: “Now with No Formaldehyde!” You’ll see no such bragging, however, for even though the consumer marketing giant is taking the big, beneficial step of getting this carcinogen out of all of its baby products, the corporation continues to assert that the amount of poison in a bottle of shampoo is harmless. But, as the head of the Environmental Working Group put it, “Why is there a carcinogen in their shampoo? When in doubt, take it out.”

Bingo! And let’s note that J&J is not taking formaldehyde out as an act of corporate benevolence, but because a tenacious, informed grassroots coalition called Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has rallied consumers, scientists and family advocates to demand it. As Johnson’s head of consumer product development conceded, “This [health concern] lands right at the heart and soul of what Johnson & Johnson is all about, so we had to take this very seriously.”

So, three cheers for Johnson & Johnson for finally doing the right thing. But Revlon, L’Oreal and other giants, however, are not removing formaldehyde, so we must keep pushing. To help, go to Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at www.SafeCosmetics.org.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Want more consumer news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!