Meds-for-meth bill drew record lobbying expenses, not even including radio and newspaper ad campaigns

Makers of over-the-counter drugs spent more than any lobbying interest ever had during a single Kentucky legislative session in their effort to defeat a bill requiring prescriptions for the key ingredient in methamphetamine, Bill Estep reports for the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"The Consumer Healthcare Products Association spent $457,053 on lobbying activities in the first three months of this year's legislative session, according to reports filed with the state Legislative Ethics Commission," Estep writes. "The group's lobbying effort was so dominant that it spent more than the next five groups combined in that period, January through March, according to spending reports."

And the figure doesn't even included hundreds of thousands of dollars that the trade group spent on radio and newspaper campaigns, because the lobby-reporting requirements do not apply to messages aimed only at the general public. The group did report spending on "a phone-bank operation to put people in contact with legislators to voice concerns about legislation to require a prescription for medicine containing pseudoephedrine, which is now available over the counter," Estep writes.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

The efforts, dating back to 2010, were partly successful. The legislature passed a bill "that will require a doctor's prescription for pseudoephedrine, but only after someone has bought 24 grams of the medicine a year," Estep notes. "A 48-count box of the generic medicine with 30-milligram pills contains 1.44 grams of pseudoephedrine. The bill excludes limits on gel caps and liquid pseudoephedrine." (Read more)

The lobbying effort wasn't only about Kentucky. The makers of Sudafed and other pseudoephedrine preparations are trying to stave off similar efforts in other states, and viewed Kentucky as a sort of firewall after seeing prescription-only laws pass in Oregon and Mississippi.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

Makers of Sudafed, similar cold medicines again lead in legislative lobbying expenses, and that doesn't count their radio ad campaign

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which is fighting legislation that would limit the amount of pseudoephedrine that could be bought without a prescription, remained the leading spender among lobbying interests at the General Assembly in February, the state Legislative Ethics Commission said in its monthly newsletter.

CHPA, which represents manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter medicines, spent $192,985 on lobbying in February, and a total of $388,000 for the first two months of the session. Those amounts do not include an extensive radio advertising campaign, which from all indications has cost more than the spending that had to be reported.

Other health-care interests were among the top spenders in February. Ranking second through 11th were the Kentucky Hospital Association ($38,422, for a two-month total of $74,543); the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce ($30,056, two-month total $63,404); Altria (Philip Morris) Client Services ($28,129, two-month $50,434); the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation ($24,805, total $38,655); AT&T ($24,199, total $47,432); the Kentucky Medical Association ($21,958, total $42,731); the Kentucky Education Association ($21,629, total $45,249); the Kentucky Retail Federation ($21,191, total $45,452), which also opposes the meds-for-meth bill; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth ($18,317, total $34,188) and the Kentucky Optometric Association ($18,227, total unavailable).

Group fighting meds-for-meth bill says it spent nearly $200,000 in January on lobbying, and that apparently omits radio buys

The group fighting a bill that would make the key ingredient for making methamphetamine available only by prescription spent more than $194,000 last month alone to lobby lawmakers, far more than any other lobbying interest at the General Assembly.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association "reported spending more on Frankfort lobbying for the month than the next eight largest groups combined," reports Tom Loftus of The Courier-Journal. "That's almost an obscene amount of money to be spending on one month on one issue," said Senate Majority Leader Robert Stivers, R-Manchester. Stivers is sponsoring the bill, which would require a prescription for cold and allergy medicine that contains pseudoephedrine.

The group with the second highest spending was the Kentucky Hospital Association, at $36,120.

CHPA "is a group of manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter medicines whose members include Bayer Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson," Loftus reports. In a statement Monday, the group said it is again "efforts by some legislators to deny law-abiding citizens nonprescription access to certain cold and allergy medicines they depend on."

The $194,957.76 spent on lobbying apparently does not include what the CHPA spent on broadcast advertising, which it does not have to report. As of Feb. 3, the group had spent more than $82,000 running ads on Louisville, Lexington and Somerset radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio operator, according to public-inspection files at those stations, the only ones that have been checked by Kentucky Health News and its journalistic partner, Jonah Engle. In 2011, CHPA paid the Kentucky Association of Radio and Television more than $93,000 to run ads, according to public-inspection files from Cumulus Broadcasting, another major owner of stations in Kentucky.

As for lobbying expenses, more than $12,000 was spent on salaries for three lobbyists, plus nearly $4,000 for food, lodging, beverage and transportation expenses. More than $150,000 was spent "for professional and technical research and assistance," plus nearly $27,000 for "educational and promotional items."

"I'm not surprised they reported so much for lobbying because it's obvious they're doing a pretty good job of getting their message out ... which I believe is a misleading scare campaign," said Sen. Ray Jones, D-Pikeville, who is co-sponsoring the meds-for-meth bill. (Read more)

Pat Boone commercial about Medicare has many inaccuracies

A television commerical misleads seniors into believing the federal health-care reform law will ration and deny care and contains other inaccuracies, according to FactCheck.org, a non-partisan, non-profit service based at the University of Pennsylvania.

The ad features singer Pat Boone and is being aired repeatedly in Ohio (and presumably in Northern Kentucky) by the conservative 60 Plus Association. It claims the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will create the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of elected bureaucrats who "can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments so Washington can fund more wasteful spending."Boone says,"Unaccountable bureaucrats should never have the power to deny you the care you deserve."

The board is neither made up of bureaucrats, nor can it ration care. "The IPAB is tasked with finding ways to reduce the growth in Medicare spending," FactCheck reports. "Its 15 voting members won't be bureaucrats, according to the health care law (see page 502); they will be doctors and medical professionals, economists and health care management experts."

The law also says proposals from the IPAB "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise reveneues or Medicare beneficiary premiums ... increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

The ad says the law will cut $500 billion from Medicare, but fails to mention that cut is in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years and will come from the supplemental Medicare plans seniors can buy.  Moreover, though Boone suggests seniors should object to the $500 billion in cuts, they are meant to extend the funding of Medicare Part A by 12 years.

The ad also states Medicare will be bankrupt in nine years. "The truth is that Medicare Part A — the hospital insurance trust fund, one of four parts of Medicare — is expected to be insolvent by 2020, according to the projections from the Congressional Budget Office, or perhaps 2024, according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees," FactCheck reports. "Shortfalls have been projected for Part A 'almost from inception,' says a Congressional Research Service report," but Congress has always found a way to extend the program. (Read more)