BILLY TAUZIN

PRESIDENT AND CEO, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

“We can work with any administration...”

While much of the health care industry continues to lobby feverishly on health care reform, drugmakers have made their peace. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) voiced support early, after pledging to help reduce the nation’s drug costs by up to $80 billion over the next decade. Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads PhRMA, talked to Capital Thinking about the group’s stance on reform.

 

HOW DOES YOUR SUPPORT OF REFORM REFLECT PhRMA’S STRATEGY TO DATE?

We collectively decided that if reform was done with our principles in mind—in a way that provided good insurance to more people, that helped people not only get their medicines but take them properly, that respected the private sector and enhanced the opportunity for doctors and patients to make the right decisions … that we ought to support progress toward a good bill. We thought it was important to get to the table early so that we could not only help frame the debate, but also achieve a good outcome.

 

YOU WERE IN CONGRESS WHEN BILL CLINTON’S REFORM EFFORTS FAILED. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT BACK THEN?

In 1994, this plan was constructed outside of public view. Congress was asked to take it or leave it, and we decided to leave it…this year, many of us have been invited to the debate, including the great American public at town hall meetings across the country. It’s gotten pretty nasty, but this is the American democratic process, and it generally yields a better result than a group of people sitting in the room making decisions for the rest of us.

 

CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO THE GENESIS OF YOUR DEAL WITH THE ADMINiSTRATION?

First of all, we didn’t negotiate with the administration. We negotiated with Senator Baucus at his request, and Senator Baucus has negotiated with most of the health care players over the last few months. He wanted to determine willingness to absorb some of the cost of reform. So obviously we accepted this invitation. And we wanted to be assured at the end of it that it also had the blessing of the White House, because the House was likely to do something very different, and it would be very important to have both the support of the Senate committee and the White House. We agreed to a very large sum. You’ve heard all this noise about a “sweetheart deal.” It was not. This was a very difficult decision for the companies. Eighty billion is nearly two years of research in America.

 

WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO WORK WITH SENATOR BAUCUS?

I’ve worked with Senator Baucus as a member of Congress. He’s extraordinarily objective, fair and open-minded. And he’s an extremely hard worker who reaches out to others whom he doesn’t always agree with. That’s a skill set that I think is extraordinarily important now.

 

IF REFORM MEANS MORE AMERICANS ARE INSURED AND HAVE ACCESS TO MEDICATION, THEN ISN’T THIS A CASE OF ENLIGHENED SELF-INTEREST?

Keep in mind that people without insurance pay full price. When they get insurance, it will be at a discount through their insurer, so it’s not necessary a big windfall. What we see as a great benefit is the health of our patients. We hear that as many as half of all patients don’t get their prescriptions filled due to lack of insurance, or because the co-pay is too high. More people with chronic diseases are not managing their disease, so they’re becoming more expensive patients, and they’re going to suffer more. If we can get more attention paid to chronic disease, and patients insured in a way they’re more likely to take their medicine, then that would be a big win.

 

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR OTHER INDUSTRIES SEEKING TO BE HEARD IN WASHINGTON?

Since I’ve come to PhRMA, we have tried to become a nonpartisan organization. We’ve literally balanced our staff and our activities in a way that we can work with any administration that the American people select.