Bunning Votes Against Lowering Cost of Prescription Drugs for Kentuckians
WASHINGTON -- No matter how Jim Bunning eventually votes on a prescription
drug benefit for seniors, in his heart of hearts he is against lowering
the cost of prescription drugs as evidenced by his recent vote against
allowing cheaper drugs to be re-imported from Canada. Bunning, who is a
darling of the pharmaceutical industry and who has received over $31,000
in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies [www.opensecrets.org,
Federal Election Commission Data], voted on June 20th against allowing
the re-importation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medicines
from Canada, where they sell for a fraction of the price charged in the
United States.
A new report from the Congressional Research Service, found that, "The
statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products
in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar." Experts
estimate the savings to American consumers from the measure could reach
$38 billion annually and Kentuckians could save approximately $663 million
a year. Kentuckians spent approximately $1.7 billion on brand-name prescription
drugs in 2001.[1]
"Apparently Jim Bunning can't see the need to help Kentucky's seniors
gain access to lower cost prescription drugs through the wads of campaign
cash being waved at him by the pharmaceutical industry," said Brad Woodhouse,
spokesperson for the DSCC. "Kentuckians already pay too much for their
prescription drugs; they simply don't need a U.S. Senator standing in the
way of lowering costs. It's no wonder only 40 percent of Kentucky voters
want to send Jim 'Big Drug Company' Bunning back to the U.S. Senate."
Bunning was one of only 28 Senators to vote against [2] allowing safe
medicine into the country to be sold to Kentucky seniors at a fraction
of the cost. An estimated one million Americans -- most of them seniors
with no drug-insurance benefit -- are thought to be getting drugs from
Canada. Approximately 913,000 Kentuckians (or 19.9%) have no drug coverage
at all.[3]
[1] Boston University School of Public Health, September 5, 2001
[2] Friday, June 20th, 2003, Senate Roll Call Vote #232, Murkowski
voted No.
[3] Boston University School of Public Health, October 5th, 2000