[Pharmwaste] RE: Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County - who should pay?

Fri Dec 14 10:12:17 EST 2012

Setting aside the "obscene" issue, I do not have a problem with ROI and profit on risk taking (R&D with no guaranteed profitable outcome in this case). And, yes, product stewardship does strive to recover valuable (or not quite so valuable) resources at product end of life.  To speak to a point Barry made below:

"But when a waste is a waste, there is no product stewardship... you're just looking for someone else to carry the economic burden of disposal."

Yes, indeed, we are "looking for someone else [other than government which means all of us] to carry" that burden. That "burden of disposal" should be placed on the consumer of the product.  Product stewardship assigns most or all of the disposal cost to the manufacturer who, in some way or other, includes it into the price of the product.  In the end, the consumer who gets the benefit from the product pays the full cost, including proper disposal.  Contrast that with me using and getting the benefit from the wonder drug and then I put it in the trash or take it to a government funded drop off program. You did not use the wonder drug but you, as a rate payer or taxpayer, end up helping pay for its disposal and, if there are negative environmental consequences, you help pay for the cleanup/remediation too even though you did not contribute to the problem.

To the extent possible, I believe that whomever buys, uses and gets the benefit from a product should pay the full costs including proper disposal/recycling. This is a fairness issue.  If I have 5 TVs in my house and you have 1, I should pay for the recycling of 5 TVs and you should pay for the recycling of 1. we both take our TVs in = 6 TVs. The way it is with government TV recycling programs that don't charge a recycling fee on drop off, we are both ratepayers so split the costs evenly: I would pay for the recycling of 3 and you would pay for the recycling of 3.  You get the short straw: you pay the costs for 2 TVs that I enjoyed.

Besides the fairness issue, we need to include any costs of environmental degradation or resource depletion (so called externalities) into the cost of all the products and materials we consume.  Most of those costs now are ignored in the pricing equation and business accounting principles.  Ignoring those externalities assumes we can trash our planet and extract resources indefinitely.  At some point, the trash will overwhelm us and resources will be depleted. Then what? The more we can include these external costs into the price of the product/material, the closer we are to taking care of our planet for us and our kids and grandkids. Product stewardship helps move us in that direction.

Yes, profits and ROI may be decreased for products like medications that have no value at end-of-life.  Deal with it.

Off my soapbox now, Jack

John L. (Jack) Price
Environmental Manager
Waste Reduction MS 4555
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL  32399-2400
Phone:850.245.8751
Fax: 850.245.8811
john.l.price at dep.state.fl.us<mailto:john.l.price at dep.state.fl.us>
www.dep.state.fl.us/waste<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste>
Please Note:  Florida has a very broad public records law.  Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request.  Your e-mail is communications and may therefore be subject to public disclosure.

Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from the department by clicking on this link. DEP Customer Survey<http://survey.dep.state.fl.us/?refemail=John.L.Price@dep.state.fl.us>.
From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us [mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Barry Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:28 PM
To: Joel Kreisberg; Fred Miller
Cc: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County

Quite a bit has been mentioned about profits and revenues, as if that were the measuring stick by which responsibility should be assigned.  To the best of my knowledge, pharmaceutical companies do not prescribe their drugs nor create the conditions by which pharmaceuticals become waste. Demand for these medications creates competition and profits become R&D funding for the next treatment or cure. The high cost can be, in part, attributed to sometimes onerous regulatory hurdles required to bring solutions to market.  If a private company and its shareholders are willing to risk investigating a drug that might take more than a decade to reach the consumer, I say they've earned whatever obscene ROI the free market is willing to pay them.

On the issue of electronics, paint, batteries, tires and other take-back programs mentioned, most of these end of life products still have value.  To that end, there is a profit to be made on the back end from which program costs can be offset. Often a recycled component can be reused.  Not so with pharmaceuticals. But more to the point, just because these programs are imposed in other industries/products, doesn't make it right.  I do understand the mission of encouraging manufacturers to recycle raw materials as a good thing for both the environment and natural resources. I get it. But when a waste is a waste, there is no product stewardship... you're just looking for someone else to carry the economic burden of disposal. Nothing is gained in the way of resource conservation or waste diversion. But I think Fred's point was lost among all the rhetoric and injured egos.  Alameda County is but a single municipality.  Imagine if all of the 3009 counties, 64 parishes, 16 boroughs and 41 independent municipalities in the US decided to adopt similar measures. The cost of prescription drugs, insurance and healthcare would skyrocket unnecessarily. As Fred correctly stated, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with household generated waste and who pays for it.

The taxpayers of Alameda County now have to shoulder the cost of costly litigation which will overshadow, by orders of magnitude, the cost of a few pounds of waste medicine. No winners there.

Regards,
Barry

From: Joel Kreisberg [mailto:drkreisberg at teleosis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:16 PM
To: Fred Miller
Cc: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us<mailto:pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us>
Subject: Re: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County

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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us> [pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us<mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us>] on behalf of Heidi [Heidi at calpsc.org<mailto:Heidi at calpsc.org>]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:25 PM
To: Fred Miller; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:617-236-4822> (ph)
617-236-4766<tel:617-236-4766> (fax)
scott at productstewardship.us<mailto:scott at productstewardship.us>
www.productstewardship.us<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us>
SEND MAIL to the list server at:  pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us<mailto:pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us>

--
Dr. Joel Kreisberg, DC, MA, CCH
drkreisberg.com<http://drkreisberg.com>
teleosis.org<http://www.teleosis.org>
foundation.metaintegral.org/centers/integral-health-medicine-center<http://foundation.metaintegral.org/centers/integral-health-medicine-center>
drkreisberg at teleosis.org<mailto:drkreisberg at teleosis.org>
510-558-7285 Ext 102<tel:510-558-7285%20Ext%20102>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20121214/da9276e9/attachment.htm