Posts Tagged ‘Consumer Protection’

A sign advertising generic drugs.A woman walks into a pharmacy to fill a prescription. She is offered either premium-priced drug Brand Name-X or Generic Drug Y, which offers the same treatment at a significantly lower price. She understandably chooses Generic Drug Y. She is not alone, as more than 75 percent of all prescriptions are filled by generic versions of drugs, largely because states require generic substitution which lower health care costs. But many patients are unaware of the lack of accountability that generic drug manufacturers have to warn of safety risks associated with their products.

The manufacturers are not entirely to blame. The federal oversight agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has created regulatory obstacles preventing manufacturers from adequately warning patients when the manufacturers become aware of potential hazards associated with their products that are not currently addressed on the generic drugs’ labeling. Second, and compounding this safety problem, patients harmed by generic drugs are barred from suing manufacturers of generic drugs. The result is a significant gap in generic drug safety and manufacturer accountability.

In August 2011, Public Citizen submitted a citizen petition (PDF) to the FDA urging it to address the problem. The petition asked the agency to amend its regulations so that manufacturers of generic drugs could revise their products’ labeling to add new information about risks and contraindications, through a revision process currently permitted only for brand-name drug manufacturers.
As experts have noted, all the risks associated with a particular medication are not identifiable until after the product has been on the market for several years. In addition, the majority of approved drugs with distinct ingredients, delivery routes, and strengths are available in generic form. In fact, many drugs are available solely in generic form. Because of their expanding market share, generic drug manufacturers likely receive substantial reports of safety incidents, and have the tools to be fully aware of information suggesting previously unknown risks or other inadequacies in the current labeling.

Unfortunately, the FDA’s failure to keep regulations in pace with the growth of the generic drug market creates a gap in drug safety. 

Continue Reading

As predicted, the Senate GOP today blocked the confirmation of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Republican lawmakers just don’t seem to understand how angry people are about how powerful Big Banks have run roughshod over them. You would think that lawmakers would be rushing to confirm Cordray so that the bureau could start to fully function – meaning that it could help stop the predatory practices of major institutions. Instead, the GOP would rather kill the new bureau altogether.

Here’s what Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said after the vote:

In blocking confirmation of Richard Cordray – universally considered qualified for the job – to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Republican caucus in the Senate today sent a clear message: They stand with Wall Street donors rather than American consumers. Now In blocking confirmation of Richard Cordray – universally considered qualified for the job – to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Republican caucus in the Senate today sent a clear message: They stand with Wall Street donors rather than American consumers. Now it is time for President Barack Obama to end the needlessly drawn out process of installing a leader for the CFPB by making Cordray head of the agency through a recess appointment.

Perhaps you have heard that the Republicans can block a recess appointment simply by staying in session. Not so, says David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch in this Huffington Post piece. He analyzed the Constitution and concluded that:

If the Senate wants to adjourn and the House won’t permit it, the President can adjourn both houses of Congress.

Mr. President? Ball’s in your court.

The Big Business attack on public safeguards will get a little more intense in the coming days, when the House votes on a couple of particularly treacherous deregulatory bills aimed at dumping a barrel of molasses into the rulemaking process.

In this space I’ve previously written about the REINS Act, the bill that would require congressional approval of all major rules within 70 days. This ludicrous provision (as if Congress can get anything done in 70 days) is designed to prevent any rules from seeing the light of day. The other blunt object being used against public protections is the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), a cynical attempt by the supporters of Big Business to cripple the federal regulatory process. Both of these odious measures will be up for votes in the House soon.

The RAA is deceptively presented as a “reform” to the rulemaking process, but don’t be fooled. The bill would add more delays to an already exhaustive process and set an even higher bar than currently exists for issuing needed protections. In effect, the RAA would hamstring all rulemaking agencies and squander their resources, placing the American people in harm’s way.

A clarion call is being issued by the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (of which Public Citizen plays a leading role) with its new paper, Impacts of the Regulatory Accountability Act: Overturning 65 Years of Law and Leaving Americans Less Protected. It’s a thorough look into the bill and it reveals several examples of how it would affect the rulemaking process. The RAA would:

• Make the “least costly” rule the default choice, instead of promoting the public good
• Super-mandate cost-benefit analysis even when it would be misapplied
• Shift to “formal” rulemaking processes that thwart appropriate give and take
• Eliminate hybrid rulemaking that is often the best approach
• Allow judicial review of all agency judgments, undermining scientific findings

Agencies already have had some ridiculous experiences with some of these procedures and Big Business has effectively used them to throw a monkey wrench into a proposed rule it didn’t like. A classic example of this is the Food and Drug Administration’s “peanut butter” rule, which was developed several decades ago.

Continue Reading

Bad news. The dangerous anti-regulation campaign sweeping Congress has hit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the agency tasked with ensuring the safety of our drugs and medical devices. Over the last two months, several members of Congress have introduced misguided bills that would make it easier for manufacturers to sell new, unsafe medical devices, and in turn put patients’ lives at risk.

"FDA drug approval"

FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg (right) speaks with Public Citizen president Robert Weissman (left) at a Public Citizen event on July 25, 2011. Click on the photo above to view YouTube video of this event.

Evidently, some members of Congress are buying into the arguments from the medical device and pharmaceutical industries that the process to approve drugs and devices is too lengthy, blocking their products from the market, and depriving pharma and device companies of their precious profits. However, contrary to industry’s statements, the FDA recently reported that its approvals of new drugs have increased.

The industries’ predictable talking points come as they negotiate with the FDA and Congress over a process to reauthorize fees collected from the industry and reevaluate FDA rules and practices. The process is expected to be completed in 2012. Unfortunately, if these anti-safety initiatives gain traction the lives of patients will take a back seat in the negotiations.

The innovation and continued improvement of drugs and medical devices are important health care goals, but the FDA shouldn’t lose focus on ensuring their safety. Recent history shows that dangerous drugs and devices have unnecessarily injured or killed hundreds of thousands of patients, strongly indicating that industry profits trumped patient safety in numerous instances.

Continue Reading

If the 99 percent wants a list of Senators who support Wall Street over Main Street,  Sen. Richard Shelby conveniently collected the names last spring. He organized a letter signed by 44 colleagues demanding that the new Consumer "Bart Naylor" "Financial policy"Financial Protection Bureau be gutted. That’s the hallmark of the Dodd-Frank law approved by Congress to prevent predatory lending, liar loans and the other abuses behind the housing bubble—and our subsequent Great Recession.

The Alabama Republican’s letter carried a threat: The senators would block any nominee to head the agency.

At least one Republican, who wasn’t on that original list of forty-four, may have heard the protests of an America demanding reform, as embodied by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Yesterday, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) became the first Republican senator to support Richard Cordray’s nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Once a director is at the helm, this new agency will be able to start cracking down on the financial industry’s worst abuses.

Brown’s support is a reminder that this should not be a partisan issue. Americans across the political spectrum want meaningful consumer protection to police Wall Street and the big banks.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.