Support Drug Regulation Acts

Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even

What is the proper role of the following groups in addressing these dilemmas: National governments, Branded pharmaceutical firms, and Generic manufacturers?

Point of View: In my opinion, the new law does provide a more specific regulation that will help control the manufacturing and distribution of compounded drugs. I do believe that the United States Food and Drug Administration should have more power to control and regulate the distribution of drugs, as well as have more power to inspect companies to insure product safety.

The United Sates Food and Drug Administration has been protecting American consumers for around 70 years. The FDA assures the safety drugs, medical devices, chemicals, cosmetics, foods and additives by evaluating products for approval. Controversy has recently been surrounding the FDA's drug approval process, due to a general trend to get pharmaceuticals on the market more quickly. The FDA has been under pressure from congress and the public to speed approval, but pharmaceutical companies, who benefit more than anyone form accelerated drug approval, have also been applying pressure to the FDA through congress. The speeding of the approval process helps patients with incurable illnesses

Led by our chairs Nils Tran and Julie Samreth, our Voting & Legislation initiative has worked to break the barrier between the community and issues regarding pharmacy. They have done so by educating students and members of the community about active bills in session that impact patients and pharmacists.

Companies were selling drugs that were guaranteed to do things for people, with no proof to back it up. The Pure Food and Drug Act required that all foods and drugs sold across the United States carry accurate labels indicating the presence and dosages their ingredients. It also required federal inspection of meats.

Specifically, FDAISA allows the FDA to collect user fees from industry groups in order to fund reviews of innovative drugs and medical devices, improve patient access to safe products, increase stakeholder involvement and improve drug supply safety. All in all, it is clear that the FDA is a major regulatory player in healthcare industry in the United States due to its broad and direct impact on people’s lives.

Each year, the President of the United States releases an updated version of the National Drug Control Strategy. The latest edition, from July of 2014, introduces a number of changes from previous years. The most important aspects of President Obama’s drug policy includes accepting those who do drugs as individuals who need help, and are the victim of a disease, rather than as criminals who are intentionally being menaces to society. This approach is very progressive, as there is a tradition in America to penalize those who have drug charges as though they are criminals, all while many people agree that money should be saved in this area. The idea that drug use is a victimless crime (of course, with the exception of violent drug-related crimes,

The FDA’s origin did not begin as the federal consumer protection agency it is widely recognized for being today. Prior to the FDA transforming into the present-day agency, the FDA’s emergence can be traced back to the agricultural industry during the 1800’s (History, 2015). In fact, it was Congress that enacted the FDCA (Food, Drugs, & Cosmetics Act) of 1938 that created the modern-day FDA (Allen, 2013). Despite the FDA’s passing of the tobacco law, the ongoing issues concerning the under and over regulation of products, and the high number of drug recalls suggests that the

Eyre continues: “Lawmakers have said the DHHR could decide to build a new drug treatment center, add beds at existing state-run facilities or contract with privately owned facilities. Under the bill, the facilities would offer long-term substance abuse treatment and work with drug courts” (Eyre 2). West Virginia is setting a seminal tone. Through filing (and winning) law suits with drug distribution companies, a trickledown effect is created and disturbs the kickback benefits between “Big Pharma” and major insurance companies that dominate treatment regulations. In order to provide readily available recovery options for addicts, it is essential to bring awareness to this oligopoly and dismantle its ability to pick and choose the treatment options insurance companies feel like paying for. The executive and legislative branches have the ability to pass these laws: “Until the insurance industry catches up with science and the law by eliminating barriers to treatment, and the capacity for treatment matches the epidemic, government intervention and funding is

The works of Fran Hawthorne, Philip Hilts, and Christopher H. Foreman Jr. help create a dynamic narrative about the creation, evolution, and growth of the FDA. In her book Inside the FDA: The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat, Fran Hawthorne discusses how the FDA responds to pharmaceutical scandals, exterior pressures, and the changing political climate, greatly contributing to my study of Reagan’s influence on the FDA. She focuses on various case studies such as Voixx and the AIDS/HIV epidemic, while touching lightly on how various presidential administrations have affected the agency. This pairs well with Philip Hilts’ Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation, which covers many of the same topics with a different perspective. Likewise, Christopher H. Foreman Jr.’s Plages, Products, and Politics addresses many of the political concerns surrounding the FDA. Pill Politics: Drugs and the FDA, by Stephen J. Ceccoli, addresses the evolution of the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA with a critical

Laws are created by parliament which is made up by the MP’S society votes for during the election process. The Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) was introduced to prevent the misuse of controlled drugs such as cannabis, amphetamine and other drugs stated in the Act. The Act attempts to prevent the misuse of drugs by making it a criminal offence to be in possession or supply, manufacture, import and export drugs (Drugscope, 2015). The Act also gives the Home secretary authority to ban new drugs and increase the penalties associated with them.

What is best for pharmaceutical companies or gun manufacturers, for example, is not necessarily what is best for the public. According to a joint study by the Associated Press and The Center for Public Integrity, printed by US News Online, “Drug companies and allied advocates spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade; by comparison, a handful of groups advocating for opioid limits spent $4 million. The money covered a range of political activities important to the drug industry, including legislation and regulations related to opioids” (US News Online 3). Four million is derisory compared to upwards of a billion dollars. It is no conjecture whose agenda

The purpose of this bill was to make alterations to the Social Security Act allowing pharmacists to be recognized as healthcare providers. Pharmacists would practice, under the direction of CPAs, with in the Medicare Program (part B) (U.S Surgeon General Report 2011). The legislation motion illustrated the value of pharmacists at the lawmaking level. The bill was cleared from the books. There was a second attempt in August of 2001. The bill was referred to a subcommittee on health but eventually was also cleared form the books. In August of 2004, a new bill, the Medicare Pharmacists Practitioner Service Coverage Act was presented to the House of Representatives. The goal was also to allow pharmacists to provide practitioner services within the part B Medicare program. There was some progress with this bill because the modification that would add pharmacists to the lists of non-physician practitioners that are currently being reimbursed for services was considered. Unfortunately just like before, the bill was referred to the subcommittee of health and there was no further actions taken. Since July of 2011, there have been three pharmacy‐related bills that have been introduced into the 112th Congress, 1st Session (Appendix 2). All of the bills push to allow pharmacists to be more involved in clinical care through the expansion of their current scope of practice. The Medication Management Therapy Benefits Act of 2011(H.R. 891) is a bill that was designed again to propose a change to the part D Medicare portion of the Social Security Act. This act suggests that medication therapy management (MTM) and prescription drug plans (PDP) be handled by qualified medical professionals including pharmacists. In order for this to happen, pharmacist would have to be recognized as healthcare

In the letter, they asked Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell to exert her power to allow patients to purchase expensive drugs at a cheaper price abroad. On a more local playing field, state governments have started to increase accessibility to drug imports. When Maine created a legal way for businesses to buy medicine and resell it in the United States, the move was challenged by PhRMA immediately. After being passed two years ago, the law was struck down in February because the state was not legally allowed to pass a law that violated federal