Having read Jane Hamsher’s posts on the biologic drug amendment issue, I felt it was time to give my district Representative’s office a call. For the most part, I’ve had little contact with her save to give her my vote and occasionally sending positive reinforcement for standing on the right side of important issues.

I spent some time distilling the salient points of the issue into a quick outline that I could work with on the phone, so perhaps it’s worth sharing with others here (as people have suggested I do on an earlier thread).

Here’s a quick synopsis of the call:

I stated that I was a constituent calling to discuss the Amendment for new pathways for approval of biologics medications that started as HR1548. I asked if the staffer was familiar with this amendment, and he said that he was.

I noted that the bill extends exclusivity protection for biologics for the original pharmaceutical company to 12 years, 7 years longer than standard medications.

I asserted that the primary argument for this is that they cost more to develop, but studies have shown that the development cost for biologics is similar to or less than a standard medication. Therefore this extended period is unwarranted, they should be covered by the same protection period as a standard drug.

I continued that there is a large loophole in the section intended to prevent the perpetual renewal of these exclusivity rights that will allow a pharmaceutical company to renew these rights indefinitely (aka evergreening) by making minor changes to the structure of the medication that do not impact the active ingredients of the drug. In short, this loophole is a license to print money on the backs of sick cancer patients and is indefensible.

I noted that in an article she wrote for the Huffington Post last Friday Eshoo claims to be categorically against "evergreening" and that her amendment doesn’t allow it. Many knowledgeable people dispute that reading of the amendment, and Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Sherrod Brown agree that this is a huge loophole, they have written alternate language that will close it.

I closed by saying that I look forward to hearing that she has modified the language of her amendment to meet the standards suggested by Rep. Waxman and Sen. Brown, and that if I do not hear she has done so, I will assume that it is a result of the over $128,000 she received from pharmaceutical companies and lobbyists in the last election cycle (over $700000 lifetime: see last cycle and lifetime at opensecrets ) and would be justly angry at her actions.

Lastly, I asked if the staffer was aware of whether or not Rep. Eshoo had begun the process of altering the language of the amendment to close this loophole, and he replied that he was not aware either way, and that he would be sure to pass my comments on to the Representative.

I have sent the contents of this post in an email to her office as a follow up, in the hopes that I will receive updates on the issue if and when she takes the appropriate actions to alter the amendment.

It was a brief, one-sided conversation, as these constituent calls often are. I can only hope that there are many others like me calling to give her a poke in the right direction.

Here is the contact info for Rep. Eshoo if you would like to do the same:

Rep. Anna Eshoo
Washington, D.C. Office
205 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-8104
Fax: (202) 225-8890

Palo Alto District Office
698 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: (650) 323-2984 or
(408) 245-2339 or (831) 335-2020
Fax: (650) 323-3498

or use this email form to send her your opinion. Please bear in mind that the effectiveness of a constituent contact is often as follows, from most impact to least: Phone call, fax, email.