An Open Letter to Newt Gingrich from Daniel Hines, Publisher, www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com and www.BoomersNewsOnline.com

 Dear Mr. Speaker:

I recently had the privilege of attending the launch of your Missouri state initiative as a part of your Center for Health Transformation.

There were many positive things that you said during the meeting and I must admit that my friends—who like me disagree with many of your political leanings—were right when they described you as likely the most intelligent, creative thinker on the national scene.

I particularly liked your comments about the need for change in the health care system, the use of electronic record-keeping (similar to the VA system of which I am a beneficiary, and is, frankly, the best example of just how so-called ‘socialized’ medical delivery systems can work), and the appeal for consensus building rather than dogmatic agreement with a particular philosophical approach about the role of government or public expenditures.

With all of that said, there were some things that happened after that indicate that there might be a way to go yet in practicing what was preached.

There were several specific instances that stood out. 
The first was after the luncheon when I asked your CEO, Ms.  Nancy Desmond—a lovely and obviously talented lady who hails from Central Illinois where I too was raised—about the role of access to safe, affordable prescription medicines from outside the U.S.

I fully expected a reasoned answer that would reflect that in her role as CEO, Ms. Desmond had examined the elements of the issue such as chain of custody, the fact that the overwhelming majority of our prescriptions come from plants outside the U.S., the rights of U.S. citizens to be able to purchase prescription drugs from licensed, registered pharmacies that operate under oversight of their respective governments that exceeds—or at least matches—our own FDA. 

If she had concerns about the safety of those medicines, I anticipated at least an answer that reflected that some consideration had been given to these issues, and if it had not, opening the door to the dialogue you had just talked about so eloquently.

Instead, the door was slammed shut with an answer that would be, were it not so completely irrelevant, humorous: “We’re afraid the same thing will happen that happened to the pet food from China,” was her answer. 

There are some points I’d like to make here:

--As one who has worked for nearly five years on this issue (and, yes, I favor the rights of citizens to have access to safe, affordable prescriptions from licensed, registered pharmacies outside the U.S.), I found the answer to be condescending, almost in a manner that suggested that I was unable to make such decisions about such choices.  There was no indication that just perhaps I knew something about the issue that could contribute to the consensus-building for which you has just appealed.

--I am not sure how in her mind the contaminated gluten issue was moved from pet food to the manufacture of prescription medicines under FDA oversight at plants outside the U.S.

--The question of drug safety is an important one.  Only a few days after the Senate voted on a poison pill amendment requiring ‘certification’ by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the safety of each and every prescription from outside the U.S., Avandia joined a host of other prescription medicines approved by the FDA and sold in the U.S.  None of these required such certification as Senator Thad Cochran put forth in his bill. 

So the issue is larger than a throw-away line that doesn’t address the issue.  As Bernie Sanders says: “Show me the dead Canadians.”

--I attended your press conference.  I found many of your answers—continuing your theme from the luncheon—appealing.  Consensus-building…discussion…involvement…personal responsibility.

But, I was interested in your response to a question implying that in the public’s eye, the Republican Presidential candidates don’t have the same interest in health care policy as the Democrats.

You indicated that it was the fault of the media, citing the Romney and Schwarzenegger initiatives and your own involvement as example of the GOP commitment to solving the healthcare crisis in the U.S.  A good answer, but then you reverted to observations that belied the positive message of the day.

Do you really believe that Senator Obama knows nothing at all about healthcare issues?  Do you really believe that John Edwards is a socialist? 

And, what about those of us who might support one or the other?  Are we clueless like Obama or are we socialists like Edwards? 

I make these observation only because I fear the door that you had been working so hard to open had once again slammed shut.  I guess you can take the dog out of the fight but not the fight out of the dog, and the old political instincts returned.  But it was like mixing oil and water…they just don’t go together.

And your answer about drug prices coming down through Medicare Part D was just wrong.  You called for allowing seniors more freedom to make their own choices, but failed to touch upon the continuing devastating impact of the Doughnut Hole, or how Homeland Security seized  prescription medicines from seniors, threatening them with legal action if they continued to order such medicines (even though they were never tested for authenticity or safety by Homeland Security and all came from legitimate, licensed pharmacies).  This was nothing more than  a carrying out of the scare tactics of pharma and those whom they have supported financially ranging from a College of Pharmacy instructor in Texas to Presidential-aspirant Guiliani who say that Canadian pharmacies are a potential terrorist threat. 

Also a clarification on the formulary issue is called for.  You mentioned that the reason that the VA was able to have lower prices was not because of price negotiation, but because it did not offer full formularies like the Part D plans. 

While there is a kernel of truth to that observation, the fact is that many Part D plans have altered their formularies, removing certain prescription medicines from the formulary after seniors have enrolled. 

Also, as regards the VA: I once had a medicine for blood pressure changed to a lower-cost medicine, but when I told my primary care provider that I was noticing adverse conditions, she immediately requested that the previous medication be restored, a request that was honored immediately also.

You have laid out some bold goals.  You have called for a coming together of divergent groups.  Much of this has been made possible by the extensive support you have received from a number of industry groups.  Several so-called progressive groups have criticized you for that.  I don’t. 
As one with a broad background in communications for leading corporations, I long ago recognized the benefits that can occur because of corporate responsibility. 

There are those of us who want to be a part of a process to help effect many of the same changes for which you have called.  But for that to happen, there will have to be true consensus building, open discussion, respect for the views of those who have different perspectives and viewpoints, and a belief that one just really doesn’t know from where that next beneficial idea might come.