Don't let Big Pharma's out-of-state lobbyists undermine Oklahoma's drug program
Will Rogers once said, 'This country is bigger than Wall Street. If they don't believe it, show 'em the map.' That wisdom is alive in the Oklahoma Legislature, where lawmakers are standing up to Big Pharma ― the $6 trillion pharmaceutical industry ― by rejecting its attempts to protect profits at the expense of rural Oklahomans' access to health care.
The same industry that spends billions convincing you to buy their latest drugs is working behind the scenes to block hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) from fully participating in the federal 340B drug program. Established by Congress over 30 years ago, 340B requires drug manufacturers to sell medications at reduced prices to qualifying hospitals and FQHCs, ensuring vulnerable communities have access to affordable care. Critical access hospitals (CAHs), which serve our most rural areas, automatically qualify ― yet the pharmaceutical industry is attempting to curtail their participation.
This program costs taxpayers nothing. It's strictly regulated and subject to rigorous federal oversight. But that hasn't stopped Big Pharma from bankrolling misleading campaigns to manipulate public opinion and intimidate state lawmakers against supporting HB 2048. Authored by Rep. Preston Stinson and Sen. Brent Howard, the bill would ensure hospitals and FQHCs can fully participate in the program, safeguarding health care access across Oklahoma. Earlier this session, out-of-state pharma executives flew into our state to pressure lawmakers against supporting the bill. Their tactics backfired. The Oklahoma House of Representatives soundly passed the bill, rejecting Big Pharma's deception, and Oklahomans should, too.
The same industry responsible for 300,000 opioid deaths is using its financial influence to deploy so-called 'patient advocacy' groups to defend its obstruction to this vital program. These organizations, funded by Big Pharma, protect industry profits, not patients.
More: My daughter has Type 1 diabetes. New bill will hurt vulnerable patients like her. | Opinion
Consider diabetes. Three companies control 90% of the insulin market, yet they charge Oklahomans nearly 10 times what patients in other countries pay. According to the OECD, the U.S. manufacturer price for insulin averages $98.70, compared to just $8.81 in other countries. For those with Type 2 diabetes, semaglutide medications offer hope. But once again, Big Pharma exploits American consumers. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, the list price for Ozempic is $936 per month in the U.S. ― five times the price in Japan and 10 times that in Europe or Australia.
Oklahoma ranks fourth nationally in diabetes mortality, yet residents pay more for life-saving medication. Under Big Pharma's rules, Americans pay retail while the rest of the world pays wholesale.
Last year, a federal appeals court upheld Louisiana's 340B protections. Oklahoma's proposed law mirrors Louisiana's, yet Big Pharma continues fighting nationwide to block access to this vital program ― including here in Oklahoma. Don't be fooled by dark money ads and pharma-funded advocacy groups that vilify our rural hospitals and FQHCs. It's time to put Oklahoma patients first and stand up to a trillion-dollar industry that only shows up when their profits are at stake.
Rich Rasmussen is president and CEO of Oklahoma Hospital Association.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Big Pharma trying to undermine Oklahoma's drug program | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Maddow Says the ‘Interesting Question' About Trump Is ‘What the Country Lets Him Get Away With'
Rachel Maddow belittled Donald Trump on Monday night whilechatting with her MSNBC colleague Lawrence O'Donnell, declaring that Trump's latest 'dictator' actions have made him 'very boring.' Not that she argued the current situation isn't serious, only that Trump is acting like, as she joked, a blonde copy of the extremely corrupt former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. But Maddow also clarified that the 'really interesting question' about all of this is 'what the country lets him get away with. The comment came up at the start of 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell,' as the duo discussed how Trump's current actions — calling in the national guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to quell lawful protests — are the exact opposite of what he said he could legally do in 2020 during the George Floyd protests. At that time, Trump said it would be unlawful for him to do so without a request of a state governor. 'I mean the difference,' Maddow said, is that 'he's decided that he's throwing it all out. You know, 'dictator on day from day one,' and you know, going to terminate parts of the Constitution. And he's decided that he doesn't matter what Congress does, and it doesn't matter what the courts do, that he's just the strong man he's going to be.' 'He's decided to throw out all the rules,' Maddow continued. 'The thing that that has done, as far as I'm concerned, is make him very boring, because it's like it's all on the table. We know exactly what he's doing. We know exactly what his intentions are. He's blonde Berlusconi. This is, I mean, he's just trying to do the same thing all the other strongmen and would be dictators do all over the country. I think the really interesting question is, what the country lets him get away with, and we're seeing a really interesting test of that right now, all over the country, especially this week.' Later in the discussion, Maddow argued that the issue isn't that Trump has changed his mind over what he can and cannot legally do, it's that 'we can probably intuit that what he's being told is, 'yeah, it's illegal, therefore, go do it.' I think that the more laws he breaks, the more blatantly unconstitutional things he both proposes and tries, I think the more they think power accrues to him, because he's less constrained by things that don't actually stop him.' 'And so ultimately, I mean, the courts are pushing him back. Congress, to a certain extent, is pushing him back a little bit, although I think a little bit more than they're giving credit for, but mostly it's people pushing him back. He's deeply, deeply, deeply unpopular and underwater on every issue, and he is absolutely panicked by the protests against him, to the point where he's already playing the biggest cards that he's gotten. He's not even six months into this term. I just think, I think we're getting the test really early, and I think that he's failing.' Maddow later noted that Trump's rhetoric and response to the protests is vastly out of proportion with the scope of them, but 'even if these protests were 100 times the size that they are, there still wouldn't be an operational reason to bring in active duty troops or federalized National Guard. I mean, it's just, it's not, it's not that sort of thing. This is obviously not operationally necessitated, right, in terms of the security of the city. He's doing this because he's panicking and thinks that he looks weak, and therefore he has to do something that seems strong.' 'And so we will have tanks destroying the streets of Washington this Saturday, and we will have National Guardsmen and active duty US Marines standing around Los Angeles, wondering what their what this has to do with their military careers. And it's all because he has no freaking idea how to deal with this politically. And he's absolutely panicking about the, I think, trenchant and joyful and sustainable opposition against him.' Maddow added. Watch the whole conversation below: The post Rachel Maddow Says the 'Interesting Question' About Trump Is 'What the Country Lets Him Get Away With'| Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House approves pair of resolutions condemning antisemitic attack in Colorado
The House on Monday approved a pair of resolutions condemning the antisemitism attack in Boulder, Co., as the chamber looks to crack down on the spate of incidents targeting Jewish individuals. The first resolution, led by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), was adopted in a 400-0-2 vote, with just Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) voting 'present.' The second measure, spearheaded by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the chamber in a 280-113-6 vote, with 113 Republicans voting 'no.' 'Antisemitic violence will not be ignored, excused, or tolerated in the United States of America,' Van Drew wrote on X after the vote. While both measures were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, the resolution sponsored by Evans drew Democratic ire. Lawmakers were frustrated that Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who represents Boulder, was not included as a co-sponsor of the legislation. Some also took issue with the inclusion of details about the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman's, immigration status. Evans' resolution also said the attack 'demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas,' leaning into the politically polarizing issue of immigration. And it 'expresses gratitude' to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'for protecting the homeland.' 'In times like these I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims, to condemn antisemitism as I have said and as our resolution does. It's not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker,' Neguse said on the House floor. 'And the question that Mr. Evans should answer is why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI? The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the congress, not divide it.' Neguse and other members of the Colorado congressional delegation — including two Republicans — introduced their own resolution condemning the attack last week. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Evans resolution was 'not a serious effort.' 'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America,' Jeffries said. 'This is not a serious effort. This guy is going to be a one-term member of Congress. He's a complete and total embarrassment.' Soliman was charged with 118 counts of attempted murder after he threw Molotov cocktails at a group of people who were gathered peacefully and calling for the release of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas amid the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. He was also charged with a federal hate crime after acknowledging that he planned the attack for a year and said he 'walked to kill all Zionist people.' In a statement on X after the vote, Greene said she voted 'present' on Van Drew's resolution because Congress has not condemned hate crimes against other groups of Americans. 'Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others,' Greene wrote. 'Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent. We don't vote on endless resolutions defending them.' 'Prioritizing one group of Americans and/or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including antisemitism,' she added. 'These crimes are horrific and easy for me to denounce. But because of the reasons I stated above, I voted present.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they are unhappy that Hegseth has not provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which President Donald Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Lawmakers may quiz Hegseth on the latest searing images coming out of the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. Hegseth has deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel. But there are questions about what the troops will have to do and how much it will all cost. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, will be on Capitol Hill testifying at a separate budget hearing at the same time as Hegseth and is likely to face similar questions. What Hegseth has focused on so far Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Most recently, Hegseth directed the renaming of a Navy ship that had honored Harvey Milk, a slain gay rights activist who served as a sailor during the Korean War. His spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the renaming was needed to ensure "the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed ongoing support for Ukraine. His use of the Signal messaging app Hegseth's hearing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since he squeaked through his Senate confirmation with a tie-breaking vote. It was the closest vote of any Cabinet member. While he has talked a lot about making the military more lethal, it was his use of the unclassified, unsecured Signal messaging app that quickly caught public attention. Set up by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz, a group chat included Hegseth and other senior administration leaders and was used to share information about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. The chat became a public embarrassment because the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to it. Waltz took responsibility for the gaffe, but Hegseth was roundly criticized for sharing details about the military strikes in this chat and in another one that included his wife and brother. Multiple investigations are looking into his use of Signal. The Defense Department's acting inspector general has been looking into the initial chat at the request of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon's watchdog also is reviewing whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete any Signal messages. Controversial Pentagon spending While any number of those issues could come up at the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, money issues are more likely to be the focus of the hearings Tuesday in the House and Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Already defense leaders have been grilled in other hearings on the plans to retrofit the Qatari jet and the costs of the military parade. Trump has long wanted a parade, and Army leaders defended it as a good way to attract new recruits. Other questions may involve the costs of expanding the use of military forces to secure the southern border, the plans for the Golden Dome missile defense program, and how the department intends to fund modernization programs for drones and other critical weapons systems.
