Thread by @danielmarans

New: People have been puzzled by why freshman Mass. Rep. Jake Auchincloss stuck his neck out for Pharma.

There's no single factor, but it turns out he gets a lot of donations from Pharma CEOs and other insiders, including his mother: huffpost.com/entry/jake-auc…

Dr. Laurie Glimcher, Auchincloss's mother and a GlaxoSmithKline board member, gave $105k to a super PAC that supported his bid for an open seat vacated by JKIII in 2020.

Another backer is Patrick Ronan, a GOP donor who consults Pharma companies and employs Auchincloss's sister.

And while Auchincloss refuses corporate PAC money, the money he gets from Big Pharma employees are almost entirely from CEOs and other top executives at firms like Alnylam, Amgen, Dicerna , Frequency Therapeutics, Lytica, Proterris, Cartesian Therapeutics, Vertex and Novartis.

Auchincloss' spokesperson was furious at the suggestion that donors to a super PAC affect the congressman's views in any way.

“Any suggestion that he has done so without proof is journalistic malpractice and calls into question the integrity of your outlet.”

And as for the direct campaign contributions: "Donations do not impact his views ― his 100% voting record with the Democratic caucus speaks for itself."

The donations are at least worth bringing to the public's attention though because as @AliceOllstein and @SusannahLuthi reported, Auchincloss co-led a letter to Pelosi asking for a bipartisan Rx bill to “preserve our invaluable innovation ecosystem.” politico.com/news/2021/05/1…

In a subsequent interview with @hunterw -- and later, through a spokesperson, in comments to me -- Auchincloss used the talking points that pharmaceutical companies always use to thwart reform: "Price controls" will hamper "innovation" and prevent development of essential drugs.

Compare what he says to what PhRMA says about HR 3 -- and what it was saying back in 2003 when it successfully ensured that Medicare couldn't negotiate prices.

catalyst.phrma.org/h.r.-3-threate…

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fro…

“There is very limited daylight, if any, between what his position was in May and Pharma’s positions,” @contirena1 said.

These talking points are a "scare tactic," @akesselheim said.

Auchincloss says he only objects to international reference pricing -- the part of the bill that caps Medicare payments at 120% of prices in a group of other developed countries.

“It would severely impair drug development, especially for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer ..."

But the advantage of international reference pricing is that it provides a quantifiable formula that companies can't wiggle out of.

Most affordable drug advocates believe that these complaints are simply an effort to replace the current formula with something weaker.

From the cutting-room floor: There could be an entirely different story about why Auchincloss's list of alternative proposals is either inadequate or fantastical ...

big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…

... For example, like Pharma, he points the finger at PBMs, calling for them to pass discounts onto customers.

Some Democrats like Henry Waxman agree: commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/…

But CBO has found it would not save money: cbo.gov/system/files/2…

After facing a billboard accountability campaign from @SSWorks, Auchincloss became a co-sponsor of H.R. 3.

"He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that position, but gobs of pharmaceutical cash no longer outweigh the rage of the American people ..." @alaw202

Auchincloss's spokesperson again colorfully denied that the pressure had an impact and questioned my judgment.

“Our office does not make decisions based off of D.C. stunts and saying there was ‘blowback’ is wishful thinking on the part of whoever pitched this story."

As Auchincloss team noted, @P4ADNOW indeed congratulated Auchincloss -- but only after he came around on H.R. 3.

A bit of news here though: Before that, Auchincloss benefited from a Pharma-funded astroturf campaign praising him for "fighting to protect access to Medicare."

big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…

big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…

big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…

Something to note here: Progressive drug affordability advocates actually consider H.R. 3 a major compromise because of the limited universe of drugs it would subject to negotiation.

@RepLloydDoggett called it "an already overly narrow mini-negotiation bill."

.@MEPFuller and I wrote last year about how @USProgressives had to throw down to get the minimum number of drugs subject to negotiation up from 25 to 50: huffpost.com/entry/freedom-…

This is the bill that a small group of Pharma-friendly Dems want to water down further.

This story focuses on Auchincloss, a former Republican, for good reason. He's filling the seat held by Joe Kennedy III and is almost certainly to his right.

As @SeanMcElwee warned at the time, he benefited from a split progressive field:

huffpost.com/entry/massachu…

But the Auchincloss case is a microcosm of how Big Pharma has convinced lawmakers that any efforts to rein in their discretion to price gouge would come at the cost of innovation.

There's tons of evidence that that's not the case ...

... @contirena1 called it a "false choice."

“We can have both affordable drugs and continue to fund research and other activities that bring the next generation of drugs to market" ...

... In fact, as @akesselheim notes, H.R. 3 would likely improve innovation by steering more resources to drugs that are actually socially beneficial rather than whatever Pharma thinks it can make the biggest profit on.

Pharma currently makes a lot of copycat drugs ...

... It happened in Germany after a similar 2011 law. big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…

Germany that R & D backwater where a pharmaceutical company, BioNTech, played a key role in developing Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.

Auchincloss's people pointed me to two studies that support their contention that H.R. 3 would stifle innovation.

One was sponsored by PhRMA: vitaltransformation.com/wp-content/upl…

The other by a pharmaceutical investor and Auchincloss donor: timmermanreport.com/2021/03/a-glim…

Anyway, read the whole thing for some history of this debate in Congress as well!