Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Daschle's Firm And Group Have Ties To Private Health Care Industry

Posted by Sam Stein, Huffington Post at 5:32 AM on June 19, 2009.


The firm has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on behalf of key players in the health care industry.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The firm that houses two of the three former Senate majority leaders who proposed a comprehensive health care compromise bill on Wednesday has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on behalf of key players in the health care industry. In addition, the company that presented those findings, the Bipartisan Policy Center, counts as a major fundraiser one of the country's largest pharmaceutical companies.

Former Sens. Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and Howard Baker joined forces this week to put out a health care plan 15 months in the making. The three political gray beards, who co-founded the Bipartisan Policy Center, called for an approach to reform that included state-operated public insurance options as well as individual and employer mandates for coverage. Their proposal was pitched as a bi-partisan effort at solving one of the most complex legislative issue facing the nation.

Not everyone was ready to take out the anointing oils. Opponents of the proposal and good government groups are questioning the ties the plan's authors and organizations have to groups with direct financial interests in the health care debate.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, for instance, lists the pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough as a "substantial contributor" on its 990 form. How much money the company contributed is not listed.

A spokesperson for BPC, Eileen McMenamin, dismissed the notion that Schering-Plough -- which is a member of the anti-public-option Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association -- played any role in crafting the group's health care proposal.

The company did not have "unique access to or influence over any of our projects" McMenamim said. They were "one of 16 members of our Leaders' Council, which provides 10% of the total organization's funding."

"The entire funding for the Leaders' Project on the State of American Health Care (which is our health care project that released the report yesterday)," she added, "came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."

The ties between BPC and the health care industry, however, don't end there. For its health care project, BPC employed former Clinton administration official Chris Jennings as a co-director. Jennings is listed on BPC's site as being "a health policy veteran of the White House, Congress and the private sector." His resume also includes his role as president of Jennings Policy Strategies (JPS), a firm that, among other things, has earned millions of dollars in lobbying fees from companies with interests in the health care debate. Clients have included the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (which, since 2001, has paid at least $2 million), The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association ($450,000), and Actelion Pharmaceuticals ($320,000).

The ties connecting BPC to private industry influence extend to the group's figureheads as well. Both Daschle and Dole are employed (though not as lobbyists) by the firm Alston + Bird, a Washington D.C. powerhouse with substantial influence inside government and numerous clients in the private health care industry.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Alston + Bird filed 60 lobbying reports in 2008 on issues pertaining to Medicare and Medicaid. An additional eight were filed on matters relating to "health issues" and three on pharmaceutical matters. That same year, the firm lobbied Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 35 times, and the Department of Health and Human Services ten. The clients it represented included the
American Hospital Association (which paid the firm $80,000), Bayer AG ($120,000), Fresenius Medical Care ($160,000), Generic Pharmaceutical Association ($190,000), the Health Management Association ($120,000), HealthSouth Corp ($440,000), the National Association for Home Care ($210,000) and Roche Group ($120,000), a company that is "systematically pursuing personalized medicine."

Neither Dole nor Daschle lobbied on these or any matters. The two former majority leaders have steered away from the lobbying title, with Daschle holding the post of "Special Policy Adviser," and Dole going by "Special Counsel." But the two -- Daschle in particular -- are reportedly used by the firm in a way that resembles lobbying: drawing in clients and helping them chart ways to get their legislative priorities achieved.

A spokesman for Alston + Bird did not return request for comment, only noting that the senators do not play lobbying roles with the firm. In an article on Daschle's continued involvement in the health care debate, following his withdrawal from the nomination for HHS Secretary, he noted that he does not change his "analysis or my message based on the audience."

"That's my strength," he said, "that I can share this analysis ... with whomever is interested."

Not everyone agreed. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in that same article that Daschle's position at Alston + Bird raised questions about the policies he advocated to elected officials in Washington. "It's like being a senator or being in the administration without having any of the restrictions," she said.

Digg!

Tagged as: health care, pharmaceutical, dole, daschle

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C.


Murdoch and Murdoch Flak Confused About Racism, Truth
What must it be like to do spin for News Corps?
Post by Tana Ganeva. November 11, 2009.
Right-Wing Pundits Now Lecturing the Military: Bases Need More Guns
Logically more guns would mean less shootings, right? Wait ...
Post by Eric Boehlert. November 11, 2009.
Public Option Back on the Chopping Block
Adding to the problem of scared Dems is the Dems who insist upon being catered to. Lieberman has now been joined by Ben Nelson.
Post by mcjoan. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Barring US from the Other side of the market Table is UNAmerican
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 19, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Free market??? Not when 'We the People' are prohibted from working both sides of the market table! We the People have been relegated to Only providing the labor for the 'merchant Class' or merely participating as a Consumer.
Our Constituion Binds our States under one Democratically Elected Gov't Body. The Federal Gov't is the conglomerate of 'WE the People'. To claim this Representative entity has no Right to act as our collective producer/provider/supplier/vendor is essentially Blocking OUR right to participate in ALL aspects of OUR Free market!
and what does this sound like- the very market structure of Old Europe- where only the merchant class and the Nobles had the right to sell their wares. The Serfs were limited to mere labor to produce the products or forced to consume what limited 'wares'that were offered.
By creating a market which requires huge financial investment, incorporation, we have fallen back into a realm where only the upper echelon are afforded Access to mercahndise their products in the market place- what once was the elite priviledge of the Family Crests in Old Europe, have now become the Sole domain of the Logos in the US.Same Shit Different Graphics.
Oh we are all afforded the right to be small donors when it comes to national Defense, infrastructure, paying publicworks and Services....But we are Prohibited from being small contributors and shareholders in such areas as manufacturing, healthcare, energy production and distribution?
We are all required to kick in to save them a Buck, yet are not allowed to kick in when it may save US a buck or cost some of theirs.
I'm Required to pay taxes to assure all Gross Pointers have cop and firefighter services, but am barred from assuring all Detroiters and Flinters have healthcare services?
Funny the Rigthwingnuts expound the virtues of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" when it comes to the Unborn, yet fail to uphold that ideology/Conviction when it comes to Living Breathing citizens. How many can not afford their heart meds? Their Seizure meds?Rheumatoid arthritis pills? Skipping diagnositic tests? Preventive vaccines? Insulin injections? If there was any thing which typified/exemplified the Constitutional Right to 'Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness'- it is healthcare .
By failing to assure ALL Americans are granted this Birthright, The Congress and their Corp overlords are usurping the Civil Rights of All Americans.They are spitting on that One Very Important Adage of Our founders- to me it essentially adds up to Over 46 Million counts of Civil Rights Violations.Then add the Prohibition of 'We The People' From the Merchant side of the market table and you have the High Crime of Treason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets force congress to have what we have.
Posted by: LCG on Jun 19, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a very simple solution to reforming healthcare. Congress gives itself a government sponsored healthcare plan with very good benefits. So my solution is give them what everybody has. They will never change the current system unless they personally have to put up with what everybody has. This can be legislated in the form or a constitutional amendment.

This amendment can read:
In order that congress is responsive to the needs of the people no member of congress or their family shall receive any healthcare or retirement benefit more that that of any person of the United States shall receive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the winner is....
Posted by: mattwoolery on Jun 19, 2009 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do believe Thom Hartmann predicted this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]