The AP covered the news conference this morning at the NAM on the new cost study, and the story gets right to the point. From “Global gap on costs narrows for US manufacturers“:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Costs that hamper the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers have fallen in recent years compared with those of foreign producers, but high corporate taxes and other expenses still put domestic products at a distinct disadvantage in global markets, an industry group said Thursday.

The National Association of Manufacturers reported that structural costs, which include expenses such as health care, taxes and expenditures on environmental issues, have fallen since 2003 relative to the United States’ nine largest trading partners.

U.S. manufacturers now face a 17.6 percent disadvantage because of the structural costs, down from 22.4 percent in 2003, and 31.7 percent in 2006, according to the study comparing the U.S. with Canada, Japan, Germany, Korea and the United Kingdom.

NAM news release on the study is available here.

And the full 2008 cost study, “The Tide Is Turning: An Update on Structural Cost Pressures Facing U.S. Manufacturers,” is available at: www.nam.org/coststudy.

UPDATE Reuters, “High US corporate tax hurting manufacturer competiveness.”

On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Wyeth v. Levine, a major case dealing with pre-emption, that is, whether federal rules governing such products as medical devices or prescription drugs take precedent over state regulation. Generally speaking, businesses support the principle of pre-emption because a national regulatory regime — one that includes a single safety standard — provides for consistent legal treatment and predictability in costs.

Trial lawyers and self-proclaimed consumer activists dislike pre-emption because, they contend, state enforcement can encourage safer products and injured parties should not lose access to the state courts. Preemption also limits the number of venues where the trial lawyers can cash in on outrageous jury verdicts, it reduces the opportunity to play “Jackpot Justice.”

(The Wyeth case actually deals with drug labeling. The NAM’s Legal Beagle summary of the case is here; and earlier Shopfloor.org posts here.)

Anyway, a review of the news coverage previewing Monday’s oral arguments. Now, we haven’t read the articles yet in order to test a thesis: Just in time for Tuesday’s election, the articles will feature references to a “pro-business Supreme Court,” framed in the context of court appointments by the next President. So here goes…

• Marketplace Radio, “Product liability case closely watched“
• Bloomberg, “One-Armed Musician, Wyeth Clash on Patient Lawsuits“
• Associated Press, “Amputee awaits high court, wants musical glow back“
• Legal Times, “High Court Case Turns Political Spotlight on Pre-emption“
• Wall Street Journal, “In Drug Case, Justices to Weigh Right to Sue“
• Reuters, “PREVIEW-Drugmakers seek lawsuit limits at top US court“

Nope! (He said, cheerfully acknowledging error.) The stories all play the issue straight, not trying to fit the issue into a predetermined line about Obama v. McCain’s court appointments needed to fix the one-sided, anti-consumer Supreme Court.

Included in several is a very silly comment from a Fordham law professor , Ben Zipursky, commenting on the effect of a ruling in of Wyeth: “That effectively would cut off virtually all pharmaceutical liability for prescription drugs.”

The coverage does acknowledge a legitimate political angle, though, that is, Congressional Democrats have supported legislation to allow state lawsuits. Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee last week released a “report” on FDA career staffers objecting to the agency’s support for pre-emption. Because apparently some people believe mid-level agency staffers should have determine regulatory policy, no matter the results of an election.

Walter Olson has a post at Point of Law on pre-emption, with many links, including to several examining the Waxman document.

From John Tierney, the TierneyLab blog at The New York Times, “‘Misleading’ Research From Industry?”

In 2005, The Journal of the American Medical Association cited “concerns about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored research” to justify its stricter standards for any such research to be considered for publication. The new policy, requiring researchers with no financial connections to the sponsor to vouch for the data and perform statistical work, was promptly criticized in an editorial in The British Medical Journal as “manifestly unfair” because it created a “a hierarchy of purity among authors.”

Now some researchers have looked to see what kind of hierarchy actually exists. After analyzing weight-loss research conducted over four decades, they’ve found that the quality of data reporting in industry-sponsored research does seem to be different from that in other research: It’s better.

If the purpose of the research is to help develop products that industry makes a profit on, it makes sense that a premium be placed on studies’ accuracy and quality. Profits trump politics.

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds)

The issue of drug reimportation came up in conversations last week at the Health Care at Risk conference in Orlando, just about the same time that the presidential campaigns of Sens. Obama and McCain signaled their willingness to take a closer look at their policy positions. From Reuters:

[Recent] scares involving chemical-laced batches of baby formula and the blood thinner heparin — both made in China — have raised new concerns that safely bringing in additional medical products from overseas could be tougher than expected.

“Both candidates were in favor of reimportation and sort of subsequent to the heparin incident (there’s) a lot less enthusiasm,” said Dora Hughes, a health policy adviser to Democratic candidate Obama.

“We have a better understanding of the challenges that go along to support the importation,” she said, speaking before the Generic Pharmaceutical Association’s (GPhA) annual conference in Washington.

Neither adviser said their candidate had abandoned reimportation, but had realized it would be more difficult.

“We now realize the challenges for doing that are greater than before,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Republican candidate McCain, told reporters at the conference.

It’s good news that the McCain and Obama campaigns are revisiting this important consumer issue.  Importing prescription drugs opens the door for dangerous counterfeit or adulterated medications, drugs that are not only ineffective but often toxic to consumers.  Costs sure aren’t saved when people get sick from taking bad drugs.

We all want to reduce health care costs, and there are other reform initiatives that will yield significant returns for the American people if enacted, like the implementation of health information technology. Let’s focus our efforts on moving this bipartisan initiative forward.

And for more information on counterfeit drugs, I suggest you visit http://www.safemedicines.org/, a resource-rich website sponsored by the Partnership for Safe Medicines.

From the “America’s Health Care at Risk: Finding a Cure” conference last week in Orlando:

On September 17th and 18th, the White House Writers Group and the West Wing Writers hosted a conference entitled “America’s Health Care at Risk: Finding a Cure,” which brought together major stakeholders in the health care debate for a high-level dialogue to generate real and lasting solutions. Paul Howard, Manhattan Institute’s director for its Center for Medical Progress and managing editor of MedicalProgressToday.com, interviewed several of the panelists and speakers who participated in the conference.

The interview with NAM President and CEO John Engler is here.

Many other good interviews at the podcast page:

• David Gratzer, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
• Regina Herzlinger, professor, Harvard Business School, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
• Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush
• John Seffrin, CEO, American Cancer Society
• Tommy Thompson, former HHS Secretary
• William Winkenwerder Jr., senior advisor, Deloitte Center for Health Solutions

NAM President and CEO participated in the America’s Health Care at Risk: Finding a Cure conference in Orlando today, and the Miami Herald has a good report tied to the event,  “Experts debate how economy’s health affects healthcare.” The political analysis kicks it off:

Experts at a major healthcare conference Thursday debated whether severe pressures on the economy may postpone a massive healthcare reform, but many agreed there are plenty of other steps that can be taken to lower costs and improve quality.

”My sense is there are too many knives flying through the air right now,” longtime Democratic consultant James Carville said in an interview Wednesday night.

He believes America needs a huge reform ”because each of us is one disease away from financial disaster. But the bailout of AIG for $85 billion, $5.3 trillion to pay for mortgages” will sap a lot of energy and money out of the federal government. He thinks healthcare reform will have to wait for a “better economy.”

Karl Rove, a longtime conservative strategist, disagreed. He said the Republican healthcare reforms, helping the uninsured with tax credits, didn’t need Washington money to work. ”I think it’s very sell-able,” he said of the proposals of presidential candidate John McCain in an interview Wednesday night.

Verizon’s Ivan Seidenberg and Gov. Charlie Christ also spoke, and Gov. Engler put in a plug for Health IT.

President and CEO John Engler is on a panel discussion this week at the “America’s Health Care at Risk: Finding a Cure conference in Orlando.

In anticipation of the forum, Dr. James R. Bean, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, has an op-ed in the Ocala Star-Banner with good Florida-specific examples,  “Health care reform goes beyond cost, coverage,” observing:

Liability-induced doctor shortages are becoming endemic across the country, and they will only get worse if we follow the present course. More and more maternity wards will close as obstetricians give up delivering babies. More and more doctors in specialties at high risk of litigation – such as neurosurgeons, cardiac surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and trauma specialists — will retire early or stop performing life-saving but risky procedures.

Meanwhile, in the Jacksonville Times-Union, a letter about the state’s doctor shortage from Jay Millson, executive vice president, Duval County Medical Society, who comments, “Decreased payor reimbursements, increasing administrative hassles and failure to pass meaningful tort reform are encouraging physicians to leave Florida and go to states like Texas and California, which are overwhelmed with physician applications.”

Texas? Yep. From the El Paso Times:, “Doctors laud five years of malpractice relief.”

Almost 90 percent of the doctors responding to the survey said they felt more comfortable practicing medicine in Texas now than before medical liability laws changed in September 2003, the TMA reported.

“It definitely takes off a big weight. I can take care of patients without worrying that anything could lead to a lawsuit,” said Dr. Luis Linan, 48, an El Paso obstetrician-gynecologist who had three lawsuits filed against him in his 13-year-old practice. No lawsuits have been filed against him since the new laws took effect in 2003, he said.

The reduced liability exposure has allowed Linan to “take care of higher-risk patients rather than send them out” to a specialist as he was doing before the laws changed, he said. That allows patients to get more-complex care more quickly, he said.

Dan Pero has more comparing Florida to Texas’ legal climate for doctors at American Courthouse here.

Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute has taken note in the past of the work of Cardozo law professor Lester Brickman on mass screenings used by trial lawyers to “identify” victims of asbestosis, silicosis and similar ailments. At Point of Law today, Olson directs us to a new paper from Brickman, “The Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud?” From the abstract:

By my count, approximately 1,500,000 potential litigants have been screened in the asbestos, silica, fen-phen (diet drugs), silicone breast implant, and welding fume litigations. Litigation doctors found that approximately 1,000,000 of those screened had the requisite condition that could qualify for compensation, such as asbestosis, silicosis, moderate mitral or mild aortic value regurgitation or a neurological disorder. I further estimate that lawyers have spent at least $500 million and as much as $1 billion to conduct these litigation screenings, paying litigation doctors and screening companies well in excess of $250 million, and obtaining contingency fees well in excess of $13 billion.

On the basis of the evidence I review in this article, I conclude that approximately 900,000 of the 1,000,000 claims generated were based on “diagnoses” of the type that U.S. District Court Judge Janis Jack, in the silica MDL, found were “manufactured for money.”

And what do you know? The Google ads associated with the paper kick up items like:

Malpractice Lawyer Expert

Mesothelioma Lawsuits

Mesothelioma Center

From today’s The Hill, “Don’t let health IT legislation flatline“:

American manufacturers have a huge stake in health IT. Working Americans face soaring healthcare costs, and employers continue to struggle to provide health benefits. Health IT has the potential to save millions of dollars for working Americans. Technology has modernized the manufacturing industry by cutting waste on the shop floor, managing inventory more effectively and speeding delivery of products. Now it’s time for Congress to apply the same cutting-edge technology that has transformed manufacturing to our nation’s healthcare system.

The life-saving, cost-reducing benefits health IT legislation can deliver to the American public make its passage imperative this year. Next year, a new administration will take office and, in the shuffle, health IT legislation could stall, forcing Americans to wait even longer.

The NAM news release from a Capitol Hill presser on Tuesday is here.

The Senate Judiciary Commitee yesterday reported out S.2838, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, which would abrogate pre-dispute arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.

Trial lawyers have launched a major lobbying attack against arbitration laws this Congress, working to prevent the more affordable, expeditious and balanced outcomes that can result when you stay out of court. The plaintiff’s bar put most of its effort into the nursing home bill because the anecdotal arguments for the legislation pack more emotional and political punch, and once you get that bill passed, you have a precedent in place for the other arbitration bills.

The House version of the bill, H.R. 6126, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee at the end of July. With both bills ready for floor action, we may well see legislation sent to the President this month.

The American Health Care Association issued a news release and sent a letter to the Hill relaying broad-based opposition to the bill. From the letter:

We believe S. 2838 which is being taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would establish a dangerous precedent for the entire U.S. business community by eliminating the reasonable, intelligent use of arbitration agreements.

Specifically, S. 2838 would effectively eliminate the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by nursing facilities, assisted living communities and all housing service providers nationwide — even if the patient, resident or their family wishes to enter into such an agreement. The inherent right of every consumer to voluntarily arbitrate disputes should not be restricted.

We also believe that S. 2838 would weaken the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which has been in place for more than 80 years. The FAA appropriately recognizes the strong national interest in disputes being resolved in a forum other than the courts when both parties choose to do so

And on the other side of that national interest is a pecuniary one. The most recent (2Q) lobbying report for the American Association for Justice lists the following bills the group has lobbied:

• H.R. 3010/S. 1782 (Arbitration Fairness Act; to prohibit mandatory binding arbitration agreements in consumer contracts.)
• H.R. 1519 (American Homebuyers Protection Act; relating ot the inclusion of mandatory binding arbitration in homebuilding contracts.)
• H.R. 3512 (Automobile Arbitration Fairness Act); relating ot the use of arbitration agreements to resolve disputes arising under motor vehicle consumer sales or lease contracts.
• HR. 6124 (Food, Conservation and Energy Act; the Farm Bill); specific interest in lanugage in enrolled bill (now Public Law 110-246) relating to the use of arbitration to resolve controversies arising under livestock or poultry contracts; also similar language in H.R. 2419.