[Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County

Wed Dec 12 20:15:40 EST 2012

I have to agree with Heidi. I'm not sure what is informing your
"definitive" tone.    Indeed currently the "company" called consumers are
paying for this service.  So they are invested at this point.  While the
are many more stakeholders in healthcare then in electronics and paint, and
indeed no one prescribes paint or cell phones, the stakeholder making the
largest profit here is the manufacturer.  As well, pharm sales continue to
rise about 6% a year, in part because of the for profit system.   In a
closed system such as Kaiser, the corporation is actively working on
reducing waste in terms of prescribing patterns and adherence patterns.  In
the free market system, the incentive to consume and dispose begins with
the publicly traded pharmaceutical manufacturer (look at those numbers
Fred).  Sure the profits move down the line, but again, the biggest profit
is up front and the smallest is sales at retail.   Yep, creating incentives
for improving compliance and reducing overprescribing is necessary, perhaps
these would be better invested in a for profit system if the biggest money
makers had a cradle-to-cradle design system.  This ordinance is an attempt
to create that structure.

Its actually easier then you and manufacturers are making it out to be.
That's why when I check with three economists I get three different
answers, so your point isn't clear.  And your point about human
nature--thank you for your sharing--It's helps us all in understanding what
we are up against in our collective attempt to create an equitable system
of ecological health.

I think Heidi's point was that to date, most on this list serve were in
support of cradle-to-cradle solutions to ecological issues.  Product
stewardship is the current best practice, not the only solution.  At least
for me, I'm glad you are reminding me of the hubris of human nature that is
never far off.

We'll keep working on it.

Joel

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Fred Miller <millerfl at tricity.wsu.edu>wrote:

> Jennifer,****
>
> In my second paragraph I was speaking not to product stewardship but
> rather law, politics, and human nature. ****
>
> ** **
>
> You provided “Companies faced with managing their own waste invest in ways
> to reduce it” and I couldn’t agree more.  Where we differ is what
> constitutes a “company” in this problem.  I see the pool of prescribing
> professionals, dispensing outlets, and consumers as the “company” and fates
> of their wastes to be something THEY must invest in before anything else
> matters.  Where’s their incentive to do better if they’re not paying for
> waste management in a tangible way?  Hidden costs rarely influence behavior
> of such a “company” because it soon gets shuffled into the background as an
> unavoidable cost of doing business.  When it’s turned into a cost center
> they must deal with, management (consumers, physicians, pharmacists)
> suddenly start paying attention because it’s something they can control
> directly.  Don’t take my word for it.  Ask any economist.****
>
> ** **
>
> As I said, mileage may vary.****
>
>
> Servus****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Volkman, Jennifer (MPCA) [mailto:jennifer.volkman at state.mn.us]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:46 AM
> *To:* Heidi; Fred Miller; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda
> County****
>
> ** **
>
> I think Fred's first paragraph is interesting and I'm curious to see how
> this plays out.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I don't have the energy to point out everything wrong with the second
> paragraph, but if you have no understanding of the concept of product
> stewardship, then the argument is lost anyway. Alameda was brave to stand
> up to big PhRMA. They did something that many other states and local units
> of government have been trying to do for several years. There is national
> legislation that I've heard is not likely to go anywhere, but it is there
> because people are tired of industry dumping on government and the
> taxpayers. We all know everybody pays for this, there is no away, be it
> through taxes or user fees. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Please consider the real benefits of a great product stewardship program,
> programs that are in place in other nations: the cradle to cradle system
> between manufacturers, retail and customer is maintained with no government
> "out". Companies faced with managing their own waste invest in ways to
> reduce it, to make products and components that are less toxic and which
> can be better recycled; they learn what doesn't work (over-prescription or
> wasting of certain less tolerable drugs), in this case, they develop better
> ways to deliver drugs/target a problem; they develop transport
> efficiencies. Those interested in less government should be interested in
> helping companies get their resources back to the point of manufacture for
> reuse. I've been in solid waste for 25+ years and government can no longer
> manage the waste burden. Private industry needs to step up and apply their
> fabulous brains and resources to this problem. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Nice way to step up PhRMA. They will spend more on this lawsuit than they
> would have spent on giving the program a try.****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us [
> pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] on behalf of Heidi [
> Heidi at calpsc.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 6:25 PM
> *To:* Fred Miller; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
> *Subject:* RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda
> County****
>
> Fred – wow.  Calling Supervisor Miley and the county supervisors pandering
> politicians is completely irresponsible and unprofessional.  I’m sorry this
> type of post is allowed on this listserv.****
>
>
> Heidi****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us [
> mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us<pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us>]
> *On Behalf Of *Fred Miller
> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 1:24 PM
> *To:* pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
> *Subject:* RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda
> County****
>
>  ****
>
> After reading the filing I believe the plaintiffs will prevail on
> constitutional grounds.  Some of their other claims are suspect but the
> challenge is based upon constitutional law where they stand on fairly firm
> and clear ground.  To go back up the channel beyond the party who imports
> into a jurisdiction is clearly a violation of the ICC, and even that step
> is very likely to be slapped down.   They can’t even give
> manufacturers/distributor the option of not doing business in the
> jurisdiction without violation of the ICC.  Political subdivisions may tax
> activities which occur within their jurisdiction but they can’t reach
> beyond those geographical bounds.  To implement such a program would
> require federal action to keep from running afoul of the ICC.****
>
>  ****
>
> I believe these programs should be a function of government.  That allows
> a tax to be imposed upon retail sales within each jurisdiction which is
> clearly allowed.  As this ordinance stands, Alameda County is trying to
> grab a free ride off the rest of the nation.  Their pandering politicians
> lack the courage to tell people we all bear responsibility for what we
> consume.****
>
>  ****
>
> Fred****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us [
> mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us<pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us>]
> *On Behalf Of *Scott Cassel
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:08 AM
> *To:* pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
> *Subject:* [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks to one of our members for the attached  11-page complaint filed in
> federal court by PhRMA, GPhA, and BIO against Alameda County's Safe Drug
> Disposal Ordinance. The lawsuit provides a concise summary of the law. It
> is also a broad rebuttal against the concept of producer responsibility,
> arguing that drug-take back programs should be a government function. ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ____________________________
> *Scott Cassel*****
>
> Chief* *Executive Officer/Founder
> *Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.*
> 29 Stanhope Street
> Boston, MA 02116
> 617-236-4822 (ph)
> 617-236-4766 (fax)
> scott at productstewardship.us
> www.productstewardship.us****
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email****
>
> *Click to follow us on **Facebook*<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Stewardship-Institute/224328115936?ref=ts>
> * and **Twitter* <http://twitter.com/productsteward> *and* *Blog<http://productstewardshipinstitute.wordpress.com/>
> * ****
>
> ---
> Note: As a courtesy to other listserv subscribers, please post messages to
> the listserv in plain text format to avoid the garbling of messages
> received by digest recipients.
> ---
> TO SUBSCRIBE, go to:
> http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharmwaste
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, DO NOT REPLY TO THE LISTSERV. Please send an e-mail to
> pharmwaste-unsubscribe at lists.dep.state.fl.us -- the subject line and body
> of the e-mail should be blank.
> If you believe you may be subscribed with a different email address,
> please visit the subscriber listing at
> http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/mailman/roster/pharmwaste
> FOR PROBLEMS:  Contact List Administrator Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us
> SEND MAIL to the list server at:  pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
>
>

-- 
Dr. Joel Kreisberg, DC, MA, CCH
drkreisberg.com
teleosis.org <http://www.teleosis.org>
 <http://www.teleosis.org/>
foundation.metaintegral.org/centers/integral-health-medicine-center
 <drkreisberg at teleosis.org>drkreisberg at teleosis.org
510-558-7285 Ext 102
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20121212/c6c04a5e/attachment.htm