Fundraising for US presidential campaign surpasses $1 billion
By
Joseph Kishore
25 March 2016
Financial contributions for Democratic and Republican candidates running in the US presidential elections surged past $1 billion by the end of last month, shattering comparable figures for previous elections. A huge proportion of this money has come from a handful of super-wealthy donors who have taken advantage of the elimination of restraints on donations to “Super PACs” associated with individual campaigns.According to data compiled by the Campaign Finance Institute and reported yesterday by USA Today,
the sums of money raised so far are more than twice the $402.7 million raised during the last presidential election in 2012, through the end of February. In 2008, the last year when both parties had contestedprimaries, election spending was at $812 million through the same period.
Super PACs, which are free to raise unlimited funds following the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, account for nearly 40 percent of fundraising, up from 22 percent in 2012.
According to USA Today, 108 individuals, companies and groups have contributed at least $1
million to super PACs, for a combined total of $232 million. That is,just over 100 individuals have contributed more than half of alldonations to Super PACs and nearly a quarter of financing for the
election as a whole.
Separate data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has raised the most of any candidate through the first week of March, at
$222.6 million. Of this, $62.7 million has gone to outside organizations associated with her campaign, primarily her Super PAC Priorities USA Action, which has pulled in the most of any outside group.
Top donors for Clinton and her Super PAC include Soros Fund Management run by billionaire investor George Soros ($7 million), Euclidean Capital ($3.5 million), Pritzker Group ($2.8 million) and Saban Capital Group ($2.5 million).
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has raised nearly $140 million, much of it in the form of
individual contributions to his campaign, with half the total coming from donations of less than $200. When individual contributors are grouped by the institution where they work, the largest (at $132,000) is Google, followed by the University of California, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. The presence of other tech companies and universities on the list is an indication of Sanders’ support among students and professional workers.
On the Republican side, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has raised $119.2 million, with 44 percent of this going to his Super PACs. Cruz’s Keep the Promise I, II and III Super PACs have each
raised more than $10 million.
Donald Trump has raised $36.8 million, the bulk of which has come in the form of loans from the
candidate himself to his own campaign, which he expects to be able to pay back. The billionaire real estate developer has pledged to spend unlimited funds to secure the presidency.
The Center for Responsive Politics also breaks down campaign donations by sector.
Individuals associated with finance/industry/real estate have contributed $192.3 million to candidates and outside groups so far, with $67.1 million going to Republican candidate Jeb Bush (who has now
dropped out), $40.1 million to Cruz and $29.1 million to Clinton. Lawyers and lobbyists have contributed $26.2 million, with half of this going to Clinton.
Next month Clinton is hosting a fundraiser inSan Francisco, California with seats at the head table (which will include actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal) going to individuals
who raise or donate $353,400 for the Hillary Victory Fund (which includes Clinton’s own campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees).
According to a report in Politico, the event will be hosted by Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks and a major backer of both Clinton and, before her, Barack Obama.
Overall, the 2016 election—which is still more than 7 months away—is expected to
be the most expensive on record by far. Candidates and outside groups are predicted to spend up to $10 billion on the presidential, congressional and other candidates, 40 percent more than was spent in
2012.
A separate analysis published by the New York Times last week estimated the monetary value of free media coverage for the different candidates, based on the equivalent advertising rates. Trump
received by far the largest amount of media coverage, the equivalent of $1.9 billion. Clinton’s media coverage was estimated at $746 million and Sanders’ at only $321 million.
Sanders has posed a significant challenge to Clinton in the Democratic Party race despite his relative
lack of media coverage and access to large donors. While Clinton is widely expected to win the delegate race easily, a recent poll conducted by Bloomberg gave Sanders a slight lead nationally, with 49 percent to Clinton’s 48 percent. Other polls have put Clinton ahead by significant
margins.
Sanders’ poll numbers and his financial contributionsare reflections of the fact that he has gained support particularly from younger and less wealthy Democratic Party primary supporters. It is
also an expression of his assigned role: to use “socialist” rhetoric and anti-big business rhetoric to channel disaffection back into the Democratic Party, the party of the status quo.
NO ONE SERVES HIS PAYMASTERS ON WALL STREET MORE THAN BARACK OBAMA!
HE SMELLS THOSE SPEECH FEE BRIBES ALREADY!
AND HILLARY IS OBAMA'S CLONE!
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign
advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for
show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient
of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry,
taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
US drug prices doubled since 2011
By
Brad Dixon
18 March 2016
According to a new report bythe pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the average price of
brand-name drugs increased by 16.2 percent last year. Between 2011 and
2015, branded prescription drug prices have nearly doubled, rising 98.2
percent. Since 2008, the prices have increased by a whopping 164
percent.
Drug spending rose by 5.2 percent in 2015. This was about half the
increase seen in 2014, the year of the largest hike since 2003.
The report is based upon prescription use data for members with drug
coverage provided by Express Scripts plan sponsors. In assessing changes
in plan costs, the report distinguishes between the relative
contributions from changes in patient utilization (e.g. more patients
being prescribed the drug) and changes in the unit price of the drug
(e.g., price hikes).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, most drug spending was on
traditional drugs (small-molecule, solid drugs) to treat conditions such
as heartburn, depression and diabetes. The recent trend has been a
shift to specialty drugs. Still, within traditional therapy categories
there were significant increases in spending on medications to treat
diabetes, heartburn and ulcers, and skin conditions.
Diabetes medications remain the most expensive of the traditional
drug categories. Drug spending in this category increased by 14 percent,
with the hike being equally influenced by increased utilization of the
drugs and rise in unit cost. Three diabetes treatments—Lantus, Januvia
and Humalog—were among the top five drugs in terms of spending across
all traditional therapy classes.
Although not discussed in the report, an investigation by Bloomberg News last year found evidence
of “shadow pricing” by drug manufacturers, where companies raise their
prices immediately after their competitors do so. The investigation
found that the prices of diabetes drugs Lantus and Lemivir had increased
in tandem 13 times since 2009, and evidence of similar shadow pricing
for the drugs Humalog and Novolog.
Heartburn and ulcer drugs saw a 35.6 percent increase in spending,
almost solely due to the rise in unit cost. Although 92.3 percent of the
medications filled in this category were generic, the price unit trend
was heavily influenced by the increase in prices of branded drugs such
as Nexium, Dexilant and Prevacid.
Treatments for skin conditions also saw a significant increase of
27.8 percent in spending, again due almost completely to rises in the
unit costs of the medications. The report notes that these increases
occurred for both generic and branded therapies, largely due to industry
consolidation through mergers and acquisitions leading to less
competition in the market. While 86.3 percent of the drugs filled were
generic, many of the generic versions saw sharp increases in unit cost,
including the two most widely used corticosteroids, clobetasol (96.2
percent) and triamcinolone (28 percent).
While the overall spending increase for traditional therapy classes
was nominal (0.6 percent), the primary factor for the increase in
spending came from specialty medications. Specialty medications require
special education and close patient monitoring, such as drugs to treat
cancer, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis. Spending on specialty
drugs rose by 17.8 percent in 2015. The report found that 37.7 percent
of drug spending was for specialty drugs in 2015, and the figure is
expected to rise to 50 percent by 2018.
Spending in this category was topped by inflammatory conditions—such
as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis—which
rose by 25 percent, driven by a 10.3 percent increase in utilization
and 14.7 percent rise in unit cost. The average cost per prescription in
2015 was $3,035.95. The medications Humira Pen and Enbrel, which
captured more than 66 percent of the market share for this class, saw
unit cost increases of more than 17 percent.
Spending on oncology therapies increased by 23.7 percent, due to both
increased use (9.3 percent) and increased unit cost (14.4 percent). New
cancer therapies average $8,000 per prescription and the average cancer
regimen is around $150,000 per patient. Between 2005 and 2015, the
anti-cancer drug Gleevec, manufactured exclusively by Novartis, has seen
its price more than triple, with an annual cost of $92,000. In 2015,
the year prior to the drug’s patent expiration, Novartis increased the
unit cost of the drug by 19.3 percent. This is a common practice for
companies facing patent expiration.
Drug spending on cystic fibrosis treatments rose by a significant
53.4 percent, largely based on increases in unit cost (40.9 percent vs.
13.3 percent from patient utilization). This rise was largely due to use
of the new oral combination therapy, Orkambi, which became available in
mid-2015. The drug costs more than $20,000 per month.
The report forecasts that between 2016 and 2018 spending will
increase annually by 7-8 percent for traditional drugs and around 17
percent for specialty drugs.
The prices of generic drugs have on average decreased, although there
are notable exceptions. Pharmaceutical companies like Horizon Pharma,
Turing Pharmaceuticals, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals have purchased
generic drugs and then significantly hiked their prices.
The report notes the emergence of “captive pharmacies” in 2015 as
another factor responsible for higher drug spending. Captive pharmacies
are owned or operated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and tend to
promote their manufacturer’s drugs, rather than generic or other
low-cost alternatives. The report gives as examples the arrangements
between Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Philidor Rx Services, and between
Horizon Pharma and Linden Care Pharmacy.
The Express Scripts data matches the findings released earlier this
year by the Truveris OneRx National Drug Index, which found that branded
drugs rose by 14.8 percent in 2015.
Despite the widespread media publicity of the notorious drug price
hikes by companies like Turing and Valeant, pharmaceutical companies
have continued to inflate prices in 2016, with Pfizer leading the way with an average price hike of 10.6 percent for 60 of its branded drugs.
Workers are rightly outraged at the skyrocketing price of drugs. A
Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted last year found that 74 percent
of respondents felt that the drug companies put profits before people.
The political establishment, however, has sought both to exploit this
anger for electoral support and to direct it into safe channels that do
not disrupt the status quo.
A congressional hearing held in January placed a spotlight on the price-gouging practices of HYPERLINK Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals, whose dubious activities were highlighted in a pair of congressional memos.
The purpose of the hearing, however, was not probe the underlying
causes of the sharp rise in drug prices. Instead, legislators sought to
safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole through a
verbal lambasting of the industry’s most notorious culprits.
Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, who has stated that he will support
Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination, received $82,094 in
donations from the industry. Sanders has proposed a series of minor
reforms to address drug prices, such as the re-importation of drugs from
Canada, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers,
and decreasing the patent life of branded drugs.
None of the candidates, including the “democratic socialist” Sanders,
challenge the private ownership of the pharmaceutical industry in which
everything from research and development and clinical testing to drug
pricing and promotion are subordinated to the profit interests of
corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment