California voters have an important medical decision to make.

Drug companies have been forcing many Californians into an important medical decision every day: whether they should skip a pill or forgo filling a prescription because it is too expensive. [ Los Angeles Times, 9/20/04]

Nearly a third of prescriptions written go unfilled. The leading reason is the costs, set by the drug companies. [Angell, 2004]

Prop 78 provides direct discounts on prescription medicine – and leaves medical decisions to doctors – which is why Prop 78 is supported by physicians, patient groups and pharmaceutical research companies.

Prop. 79 provides higher discounts than Prop. 78. Prop. 78 will provide unknown discounts that could be from 15-40% while Prop. 79 could provide discounts of 50% or more. [Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2/23/05; 3/15/05]

Prop. 79’s discounts are also direct to consumer and it also leaves medical decisions to doctors. [Prop. 79]

Prop. 79 is supported by the California Physicians Alliance, and patient groups like Breast Cancer Action and AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which all oppose Prop. 78. [Prop. 79]

Prop 79 creates a big new government program that lets bureaucrats decide

what medications are covered.

See for yourself…

Prop. 79 uses the same approach as the Medi-Cal drug program which has been in place for a decade. It includes numerous protections for the working families, seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medi-Cal. [www.dhs.ca.gov]

Prop. 79 and Prop. 78 would require the same minimal level of set-up to create a prescription drug discount card – but Prop. 78 does not allow California to use its purchasing power to leverage the best possible discounts. [Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2/23/05; 3/15/05]

Prop 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

For real help, right now…it’s Prop 78.

Who will the defeat of Prop 79 help? Let’s ask Jan Faiks, a vice president of PhRMA:

“We take [Prop 79] as such a serious threat to the health and welfare of the pharmaceutical industry that we have to make a stand here…. It’s a very bad precedent. You’re the leader in the country, and there are 26 states that allow ballot initiatives.” [ Los Angeles Times, 3/28/05]

Stephen Chang: There are two prescription drug initiatives on the November ballot.

One written by drug companies for drug companies; the other written by consumer, health and senior advocacy groups. [California Secretary of State]

Narrator: Proposition 79 creates a costly new bureaucracy that imposes government restrictions on pharmaceutical companies that could limit patient access to discounted prescription drugs.

Prop. 79 and Prop. 78 would require the same minimal level of set-up to create a prescription drug discount card. [Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2/23/05; 3/15/05]

“Both propositions would create multimillion-dollar state government programs, consolidating the program's drug purchases and require discounts from drug companies. The difference is that Proposition 78 would achieve the discounts through a new, independent state program, while Proposition 79's program would achieve discounts by piggybacking on the state's existing Medi-Cal program.” [ Orange County Register, 8/17/05]

Prop. 79 uses the same approach as the Medi-Cal drug program which has been in place for a decade. It includes numerous protections for the working families, seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medi-Cal. [www.dhs.ca.gov]

Stephen Chang: So we’ve proposed a practical alternative…

Prop. 78 is an impractical approach mimicking a failed voluntary program, the Golden Bear State Pharmacy. It was scrapped by Schwarzenegger after “ officials invited 500 manufacturers, but only one generic drug maker and 13 brand manufacturers agreed to participate.” [ Los Angeles Times, 1/7/05]

Kimberly Fox, senior policy analyst at the Rutgers Center for State Health Policy: “There haven't been great success stories -- at least in the past -- with voluntary rebates.” [ Los Angeles Times, 3/28/05]

Stephen Chang: Proposition 78 will provide discount medicine for millions of Californians without red-tape or restrictions.

Narrator: Check it out…and see for yourself. For real help, right now…yes on Prop 78.

Prop. 78 promises discounts from 15-40% while Prop. 79 would provide discounts of 50% or more. [Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2/23/05; 3/15/05]  

“Health access plan: Ten million uninsured Californians … Drug industry plan: Five million uninsured.” [ Ventura County Star, 4/11/05]

Drug companies have even included an escape hatch for themselves: Prop. 78 can be terminated if drug companies provide “insufficient discounts” – or “there are an insufficient number of applicants” – or “the department is unable to find a responsible third-party vendor to administer Cal Rx.” [Prop. 78]

Did you know the prescription drug initiative, Proposition 79, creates an expensive new Sacramento bureaucracy?

OC Register Ad Watch: “Both propositions would create multimillion-dollar state government programs, consolidating the program’s drug purchases and require discounts from drug companies. The difference is that Proposition 78 would achieve the discounts through a new, independent state program, while Proposition 79's program would achieve discounts by piggybacking on the state’s existing Medi-Cal program.” [Orange County Register, 8/17/05]

Did you know with 79, Sacramento bureaucrats could deny patients access to medicine their doctor prescribes?

Sac Bee Ad Watch: “But even Medi-Cal patients could still obtain drugs that were not on the preferred list if it were medically necessary… Drug companies don’t like this because they believe doctors will gravitate toward prescribing drugs that don’t require prior authorization.” [Sacramento Bee, 8/23/05]

And did you know, 79 could jeopardize as much as 480 million dollars a year in drug rebates for California, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference?

The more you know, the more you’ll see, Prop 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

Prop 79 will save taxpayers money. Prop 79 allows the state of California to negotiate for the best possible price for the state, as well as for its citizens. The head of Medi-Cal has a legal obligation to get the best deal possible for the state and taxpayers: Prop, 79 does not change that.

The only way California could lose out on rebates is if the drug companies walked away from negotiations and lost hundreds of millions of dollars of the state’s business. By allowing state officials to negotiate on behalf of millions of more Californians, the state can gain more purchasing power, not less. So while reduced rebates to the state is theoretically possible under Prop 79 (as it is today), it is unlikely, and the independent Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis says it is as likely that “this provision could result in savings” for the state and the taxpayers. [http://www.lao.ca.gov]

The LAO also suggests that there is "potential savings for state and county health programs," since Californians who can access affordable drugs are less likely to rely on public programs. Since Prop 79 provides cheaper drugs for twice as many Californians, the savings for taxpayers would be expected to be more than under Prop 78.

Narrator: Who will pay for the Proposition 79 prescription drug plan?

According to a report by a respected former legislative analyst, Prop. 79 could cost the state general fund hundreds of millions of dollars.

The savings for prescription drug consumers comes negotiating with the drug companies, not from taxpayers.

The report is paid for by the drug companies. “Support for our analysis was provided by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PhRMA).” [ Hamm report, pg. 1, http://www.calrxnow.org]

Here’s the relevant fiscal analysis from the actual, independent Legislative Analyst’s Office:

“One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. State costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund.” [California Secretary of State, http://www.ss.ca.gov]

According to the actual Legislative Analysts Office, the costs for Prop. 78 and Prop. 79 are about the same. [http://www.lao.ca.gov/]

The Hamm report is based on several false assumptions, including a misreading of Prop. 79 that it “directs” the state to establish prescription drug purchasing programs for small businesses and unions at Medicaid prices: instead Prop. 79 says that the “department may establish a prescription drug purchasing program” …”that result in a net price comparable to the Cal Rx Plus program”. Another false assumption is that people with medical costs of more than 5% of their income are not financially needy, while even federal tax laws recognize high medical costs are legitimate tax deductions.

And 79 would jeopardize as much as $480 million a year in drug rebates for California, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference.

Do your own research, see for yourself. Prop. 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

Prop 79 will save taxpayers money.

The independent LAO analysis says it is likely that “this provision could result in savings” for the state and the taxpayers. It also said that there is “potential savings for state and county health programs,” since Californians who can access affordable drugs are less likely to rely on public programs. Since Prop 79 provides cheaper drugs for more Californians, the savings would be more than under Prop 78.

Prop 79 allows the state of California to negotiate for the best possible price for the state, as well as for its citizens. The head of Medi-Cal has a legal obligation to get the best deal possible for the Medi-Cal program: Prop, 79 does not change that. By allowing the state officials to negotiate on behalf of millions of more Californians, the officials can gain more purchasing power, not less.

And did you know, 79 could jeopardize as much as 480 million dollars a year in drug rebates for California, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference?

The more you know, the more you’ll see, Prop 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

Prop 79 will save taxpayers money. Prop 79 allows the state of California to negotiate for the best possible price for the state, as well as for its citizens. The head of Medi-Cal has a legal obligation to get the best deal possible for the state and taxpayers: Prop, 79 does not change that.

The only way California could lose out on rebates is if the drug companies walked away from negotiations and lost hundreds of millions of dollars of the state’s business. By allowing state officials to negotiate on behalf of millions of more Californians, the state can gain more purchasing power, not less. So while reduced rebates to the state is theoretically possible under Prop 79 (as it is today), it is unlikely, and the independent Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis says it is as likely that “this provision could result in savings” for the state and the taxpayers. [http://www.lao.ca.gov]

The LAO also suggests that there is "potential savings for state and county health programs," since Californians who can access affordable drugs are less likely to rely on public programs. Since Prop 79 provides cheaper drugs for twice as many Californians, the savings for taxpayers would be expected to be more than under Prop 78.

There’s a problem with Proposition 79 that Californians should be concerned about. With Prop. 79, patients on Medi-Cal could be denied medicine their doctor prescribes.

The drug companies are objecting to the existing Medi-Cal program, a program that has been in place for over a decade. Drug companies object to this program because it has reduced drug prices by $1.5 billion in 2003 alone, saving the taxpayers more than $5 billion in the last decade. (www.dof.ca.gov, Governor’s Budget Summary, pp. 115)

79 allows Sacramento to decide what drugs would be authorized, which could restrict access to the latest medications for the most vulnerable among us.

Prop. 79 builds on the existing Medi-Cal drug program. Existing law includes numerous protections for the working families, seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medi-Cal. [www.dhs.ca.gov

According to the Sacramento Bee, “Medi-Cal patients could still obtain drugs that were not on the preferred list if it were medically necessary. Their doctors would just have to obtain the state’s permission before writing the prescriptions. Drug companies don’t like this because they believe doctors will gravitate toward prescribing drugs that don’t require prior authorization.” [ Sacramento Bee, 8/23/05]

See for yourself, Prop. 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

Who will the defeat of Prop 79 help? Let’s ask Jan Faiks, a vice president of PhRMA:

“We take [Prop 79] as such a serious threat to the health and welfare of the pharmaceutical industry that we have to make a stand here.” [ Los Angeles Times, 3/28/05]

Narrator: When California faces a growing budget crisis, the prescription drug initiative Proposition 79 could make the deficit even bigger.

Prop 79 will save taxpayers money.

Prop 79 allows the state of California to negotiate for the best possible price for the state, as well as for its citizens.

The head of Medi-Cal has a legal obligation to get the best deal possible for the Medi-Cal program: Prop, 79 does not change that. By allowing the state officials to negotiate on behalf of millions more Californians, the officials will have more purchasing power, not less.

Prop. 79 builds on a program that has saved taxpayers billions of dollars over the last decade, and about $540 million in this fiscal year alone. [Statement by Sandra Shewry, Director, California Department of Health Services in “Close-Up on California: A Look at the Medi-Cal Program,” The Commonwealth Fund, October 2005, available at http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=302696]

Prop. 79 expands the bureaucracy in Sacramento, which means more government spending that could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

The LAO finds the direct costs of both Prop 78 and Prop 79 to be the same, in the low tens of millions of dollars, for the administration of the drug discount card.

OC Register Ad Watch: “ Both propositions would create multimillion-dollar state government programs, consolidating the program’s drug purchases and require discounts from drug companies. The difference is that Proposition 78 would achieve the discounts through a new, independent state program, while Proposition 79's program would achieve discounts by piggybacking on the state’s existing Medi-Cal program.” [Orange County Register, 8/17/05]

Can California taxpayers afford even bigger budget deficits? The answer is no. No on 79. Check it out and see for yourself. Prop. 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

California can’t afford to not negotiate for the best possible price.

Without Prop 79, Californians will continue to pay more for prescription drugs than anybody else in the entire world.

Narrator: Why do trial lawyers love Proposition 79?

Consumer and health groups support Prop 79, not trial lawyers. The California Association of Consumer Attorneys, the group that represents trial lawyers, has no position on Prop 79. Consumer attorneys were not involved in the drafting of the proposition. The Yes on 79 campaign has not received a single contribution from any trial lawyer. [Secretary of State website: www.ss.ca.gov]

It’s PhRMA that sues , not consumers or consumer attorneys.

* PhRMA filed lawsuits against Maine going all the way up to the Supreme Court to stop their discount plan. [ New York Times, 6/29/02]

* PhRMA filed lawsuits in 41 Ohio counties to challenge voter petition signatures for a rival prescription drug plan. [ Los Angeles Times, 3/28/05]

Take a look at what 79 actually does. The Prop. 79 prescription drug initiative reopens a legal loophole Californians voted to close. A loophole that encourages unlimited lawsuits allowing trial lawyers to sue without a client and keep all the money for themselves.

Prop 79 prohibits drug company profiteering.

Californians voted to support Prop 64 last November, in order to limit “shakedown lawsuits” of small businesses. The Prop 64 campaign didn’t ever mention protecting drug companies, who have significant legal resources and would not be “shaken down.”

Prop 79 sets a higher bar with narrower discretion for lawsuits than past California law.

Until last November, Californians had a right to sue drug companies: there was no “unlimited” flood of lawsuits against drug companies in the decades that that law was in place.

The more you know, the more you see, Prop. 79 may be good for trial lawyers, but it’s the wrong prescription for California.

Who will the defeat of Prop 79 help? Let’s ask Jan Faiks, a vice president of PhRMA:

Narrator: This is a doctor. With Proposition 78, every drug he prescribes is eligible for a direct discount of up to 40% for millions of Californians.

Under Prop 78, doctors don’t decide, drug companies do.

Since Prop 78 has no enforcement, the drug companies decide which drugs are discounted, which drugs are excluded, what the discount is, and even if they participate at all. If the drug companies don’t participate, the program ends.

This is a bureaucrat. With Prop. 79, bureaucrats in Sacramento could deny patients access to medicine their doctor prescribes.

Nobody with the discount card under Prop 79 could have their access denied by anybody. The state of California

The ad is referring to the “prior authorization” system in Medi-Cal, that already exists, and that would continue to exist under Prop 78, Prop 79, or if both measures fail. Prop 79 does not change that process.

With 78, doctors decide. With 79, bureaucrats decide. Check it out and see for yourself. Prop. 79 is the wrong prescription for California.

With 78, drug companies decide. With 79, California negotiates with the drug companies for the best price.

Narrator: There are three simple reasons to vote no on Prop 79.

There are nearly 10 million reasons to vote YES on Prop 79. Nearly 10 million Californians pay more for prescription drugs than anybody else in the world. As a result, there are over 2.5 million Californian families who don’t fill a prescription in a given year, and suffer the health consequences.

79 creates a costly new Sacramento bureaucracy.

Prop 79 will save consumers and taxpayers money.

The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office says it is likely that “this provision could result in savings” for the state and the taxpayers. It also said that there is “potential savings for state and county health programs,” since Californians who can access affordable drugs are less likely to rely on public programs. Since Prop 79 provides cheaper drugs for more Californians, the savings would be more than under Prop 78.

The LAO finds the direct costs of both Prop 78 and Prop 79 to be the same, up to the low tens of millions of dollars , for the administration of the drug discount card. [Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2/23/05 ; 3/15/05 ]

With Prop 79, patients could be denied access to medicine their doctor prescribes…

Prop 79 will provide Californians with more access to prescription drugs, not less.

The independent, nationally recognized website Factcheck.org called this charge “ seriously misleading.” [www.factcheck.org, “California: Drug Company Half-Truths, 10/28/05]

Nobody with the discount card under Prop 79 could have their access denied by a bureaucrat or anybody else.

The ad is referring to the “prior authorization” system for those with Medi-Cal coverage. This system has been in place in Medi-Cal for over a decade, and would continue to exist under Prop 78, Prop 79, or if both measures fail. Prop 79 does not change that process. Now and under Prop 79, Medi-Cal patients have a preferred drug list that must have at least one drug in each therapeutic class, and under this “open formulary,” they have the right to get any needed drug, even those not on the list.

“But even Medi-Cal patients could still obtain drugs that were not on the preferred list if it were medically necessary… Drug companies don’t like this because they believe doctors will gravitate toward prescribing drugs that don’t require prior authorization.” [Ad Watch, Sacramento Bee , 8/23/05]

An October 2005 Rand Health report concludes that the approach used by Prop. 79 to enforce discounts is widely used in the private sector and by many state Medicaid programs with little or no evidence of adverse consequences on patients’ health.” [The Right Prescription for California?, Rand Health, p. 19.]

…and 79 encourages unlimited lawsuits, allowing trial lawyers to sue without a client and keep all the money for themselves.

Prop 79 prohibits drug company profiteering and price-gouging, but sets a higher bar with narrower discretion for lawsuits than past California law.

Until last November, Californians had a similar right to sue drug companies: there was no “unlimited” flood of lawsuits against drug companies in the decades that that law was in place.

Check it out and see for yourself. Prop 79 is the wrong prescription for California .

While drug companies may oppose it, Prop 79 is supported by consumer, senior, and health organizations, including AARP California, the League of Women Voters of California, and Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.