The congressman has sent out two messages in as many days to his "E-News" mailing list asking for opinions on upcoming votes. While he has certainly held public forums in the past, this is the first time the Gentleman from Upper St. Clair has ever asked for opinions en masse in an e-mail like this. One has to assume the Democrat takeover of Congress has motivated him to operate in different ways.
But, I do think it's a smart move - both from public policy and politics standpoints.
I am posting both e-mails below in their entirety:
Message #1:
From: RepMurphy Newsletter [RepMurphyNewsletter@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:22 PM
To: MURPHY-PA18@LS1.HOUSE.GOVSubject: Key Vote Alert: Embryonic Stem Cells
From the desk of Congressman Tim Murphy
KEY VOTE ALERT
Dear Friend:
On Thursday, January 11, 2007, there will be a very important vote in the House of Representatives regarding stem cell research. Congress will be voting on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 3, which would mandate the use of federal tax dollars to fund the use of human embryos for scientific research.
The stem cell debate is one of the most controversial issues facing Congress and the nation. Stem cells are cells from which all other cells originate. Medical research has indicated that there is great promise that many stem cells can lead to cures for many different diseases.
There are many different kinds of stem cells including embryonic, amniotic, and adult stem cells. Unfortunately, the media and public information campaigns often do not differentiate between the different types. While all are similar, they have shown different levels of potential and different levels of risk. No research has yet shown embryonic stem cell research to be fruitful to curing any disease.
Tomorrow's vote is not whether or not to fund stem cell research, but rather whether or not to federally fund research in embryonic stem cells. This is where the controversy lies. Medical research involving embryonic stem cells requires destruction of the embryo. For those who believe life begins after conception, this is equal to ending life. Others think the research benefit outweighs the concern of ending life if it will find cures for such diseases as Parkinson.
Many U.S. companies, universities, and states are engaged in a great deal of embryonic stem cell research already. California is currently spending $3 billion on stem cell research. The President and the U.S. Congress have supported research with over $90 million for embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed with more than 700 shipments to researchers since 2001. The upcoming vote upcoming is whether or not to use federal funds that would result in the destruction of more embryos for research purposes.
Those who support embryonic stem cell research have stated that these are embryos would have been destroyed and discarded anyway. However, many parents have asked Congress to consider that they want the opportunity to adopt these embryos and raise the children as their own infants.In fact, according to the non-partisan RAND Corporation the 'vast majority' or 88 percent of the 400,000 embryos that have been frozen since the late 1970s are not going to be discarded but are held for family building and not for medical research.
As previously mentioned, there are other types of stem cells with great potential that can be used for research. Adult stem cells have already been used to treat humans for 72 different types of conditions, ranging from different types of cancer to Chronic Coronary Artery Disease to Spinal Cord Injuries.
Just this week, an amazing scientific breakthrough was announced in which stem cells taken from amniotic fluid have the ability to develop into human tissue. These amniotic stem cells have the potential to develop human brain, muscle, bone, liver, and other cells. The tissues developed from amniotic stem cells cannot be rejected by the human body because they genetically match developing fetuses. The cells can be used to treat birth defects in newborns, frozen for personal use later on in life, placed in a bank for use by the entire population, or used for advancing research. Given the fast pace in which amniotic stem cells have matured, it would not take long to develop a bank large enough to ensure every U.S. citizen had access to cells that could cure them of countless diseases. According to the scientists involved in the breakthrough, just 100,000 women will need to donate their amniotic cells for this to happen.
Many argue that if we federally fund embryonic stem cell research there will not be enough money to fund research for other types of promising stem cells.
Given that this policy change is not going through the regular Committee process and further Congressional investigation will not take place, I am anxious to hear how you feel about this issue. Are you in favor of using federal tax dollars to conduct embryonic stem cell research which would involve the destruction of a human embryo or are you in favor of extending federal funding for research even if it involves embryo destruction and could divert funding for other stem cell research? Please email me your thoughts at Murphy@mail.house.gov or call my office at 412-344-5583.
Thank you for being an E-News subscriber. E-News is a great way to provide up-to-the minute information to the people who live and work in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. In the coming weeks you will notice several changes to our E-News format that will provide you with more specific information on the issues you are interested in and make it easier for you to provide me with your input. This will greatly help with the decisions I face in Congress. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Congressman Tim Murphy
504 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15228 412-344-5583
322 Cannon Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 202-225-2301
2040 Fredrickson Place, Greensburg, PA 15601
Visit Us On the Web: http://murphy.house.gov/
E-mail: murphy@mail.house.gov
Prepared by the Office of Congressman Tim Murphy
Message #2:
From: RepMurphy Newsletter [RepMurphyNewsletter@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:43 PM
To: MURPHY-PA18@LS1.HOUSE.GOV
Subject: Key Vote Alert: Medicare Prescription Drugs
From the desk of Congressman Tim Murphy
KEY VOTE ALERT
Dear Friend:
On Friday, January 12, 2007, there will be a very important vote in the House of Representatives regarding prescription drug medications, and I would like to hear your input on the issue. Congress will be voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, H.R. 4, which would allow the government to directly negotiate prices with drug manufactures that are part of the Medicare prescription drug program.
Whether or not the government plays a direct role in medication pricing has important implications for Medicare. The Medicare prescription drug program started one year ago. In this first year 80 percent of seniors who have selected Medicare drug plans said that they were satisfied with it. The Medicare prescription drug program is federally funded, and administered by a group of private companies. It is designed to give seniors a choice of pharmacies and prescription medications at a low cost. Under the current system, there are 66 Medicare private prescription drug plans in Pennsylvania for seniors. The private plans negotiate with drug manufacturers to get the lowest price possible for each drug. The plans vary in cost and the number of drugs available.
Under this system of private plan negotiation, the Medicare program has worked with great success and yielded significant savings for seniors. These private plans continue to negotiate throughout the year for lower prices. These price reductions have led to dramatic savings for seniors. The Medicare Trustees report the average senior's premium was 33 percent lower than projected for 2006, down from $37 a month to $24 a month. The 2007 projection is for still further savings, down to $22 a month on average. Seniors are saving an average of $1,100 each year on their medication costs under the program.
However, some people have proposed that these savings could be even lower if the government (not the private plans) "negotiated" drug prices with manufacturers. Manufacturers would submit bids to the government to offer a drug to Medicare patients at a certain prices. The government would then select the drugs that cost the least. As a consequence, similar drugs offered by other manufacturers may no longer be available to Medicare beneficiaries despite possibly having fewer or different side effects or other benefits, because the government would be selecting only the least costly drugs. Some analysts have worried such a system would lead to just a few or even only one manufacturer controlling the drug market if companies whose bids are not selected reduce manufacturing of these drugs altogether. This may lead to fewer medication options for seniors. However, some argue that cheaper drugs are worth the drawback of fewer choices of prescription drugs.
Another concern is that seniors will be limited to receiving their prescription drugs only through the mail and not be able to get the prescriptions filled at their neighborhood pharmacies. For some, this could be positive, but for others they may miss the personal relationship they have developed with their pharmacists who review their medications, and provide advice and consultation.
The Veterans Administration directly negotiates with drug manufacturers for its prescription drugs and it is often touted as a model for government negotiations to keep costs under control. Veterans enjoy lower drug costs; however, there are limits to what drugs are available. Some popular medications such as Celebrex and Lipitor are not available through the VA. For some, lack of prescription drug choice is not something they are willing to give up. There remains concern that government negotiations for Medicare may lead to limited prescription drug choices similar to the VA program.
Finally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is responsible for providing non-partisan analysis of legislation, state that government negotiation would not lower prescription drug prices any further: "CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law."
This bill is moving quickly through the House of Representatives and supporters are bypassing the customary procedures that would permit further investigations and hearings prior to a vote. I am anxious to hear how you feel about this issue. Do you believe private prescription drug plans should continue negotiations with manufacturers to lower prices for seniors? Or are you in favor of the government negotiating prices even if it restricts access to certain medications? Please email me your thoughts at Murphy@mail.house.gov or call my office at 412-344-5583.
Thank you for being an E-News subscriber. E-News is a great way to provide up-to-the minute information to the people who live and work in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. In the coming weeks you will notice several changes to our E-News format that will provide you with more specific information on the issues you are interested in and make it easier for you to provide me with your input. This will greatly help with the decisions I face in Congress. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Congressman Tim Murphy
504 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15228 412-344-5583
322 Cannon Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 202-225-2301
2040 Fredrickson Place, Greensburg, PA 15601
Visit Us On the Web: http://murphy.house.gov/
E-mail: murphy@mail.house.gov
Prepared by the Office of Congressman Tim Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment