IBJNews

Q&A

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As an Eli Lilly and Co. lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Jay Bonitt is hoping the Congressional “super committee” charged with trimming the federal budget doesn’t turn to the Medicare prescription drug program, known as Part D, to do so. Bonitt, Lilly's vice president of federal affairs, said the program is under budget and helps spur drugmakers to further innovation. While Lilly does not reveal how much revenue Lilly gets from the program, its biggest stars get the biggest boost from the program: Zyprexa, Cymbalta, Humalog and Evista.

IBJ: Cuts to Medicare are clearly one of the options as the super committee tries to find $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years. Can you give your best sense for what’s on the table about Medicare Part D at this point in time?

A: I wish I could. As you can imagine, this town is just rife with rumors and speculation. Sen. [Max] Baucus (D-Montana) said he put $3 trillion out there: $1 trillion of that was in revenue raisers, another $500 billion was in Medicare [cuts]. But my understanding it was no more than a one-page plan. So we don’t know the details.

IBJ: President Obama released a plan in September that would require drugmakers to give Medicare the same generous rebates for low-income patients they give the Medicaid program. How would those price cuts—estimated at $135 billion over 10 years—impact Lilly?

A: That would be a substantial impact. We haven’t been able to determine the exact number. To impose these rebates would have a devastating impact on the industry and on innovation. If we incur a lot more cost, with the imposition of Medicaid-type rebates or a tax, then that’s less revenues that will be available for innovation.

IBJ: Medicare Part D is only six years old, and clearly Lilly and its peers did plenty of innovating before the program was created. How would scaling back its payments put innovation at risk?

A: When I first came to Lilly back in 1994, I think most of the studies showed that it cost you around $300 million to bring a drug to market. Today, the most recent Tufts University study that I’ve seen put it at about $1.2 billion now. It’s just a very, very expensive process, and it gets more expensive.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These liberals are out of control. They want to drive our economy into the ground and double and triple our electric bills. Sierra Club, stay out of Indy!

  2. These activist liberal judges have gotten out of control. Thankfully we have a sensible supreme court that overturns their absurd rulings!

  3. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing money at the IRL or whatever they call it now. Probably should save that money for actual operations.

  4. For you central Indiana folks that don't know what a good pizza is, Aurelio's will take care of that. There are some good pizza places in central Indiana but nothing like this!!!

  5. I am troubled with this whole string of comments as I am not sure anyone pointed out that many of the "high paying" positions have been eliminated identified by asterisks as of fiscal year 2012. That indicates to me that the hospitals are making responsible yet difficult decisions and eliminating heavy paying positions. To make this more problematic, we have created a society of "entitlement" where individuals believe they should receive free services at no cost to them. I have yet to get a house repair done at no cost nor have I taken my car that is out of warranty for repair for free repair expecting the government to pay for it even though it is the second largest investment one makes in their life besides purchasing a home. Yet, we continue to hear verbal and aggressive abuse from the consumer who expects free services and have to reward them as a result of HCAHPS surveys which we have no influence over as it is 3rd party required by CMS. Peel the onion and get to the root of the problem...you will find that society has created the problem and our current political landscape and not the people who were fortunate to lead healthcare in the right direction before becoming distorted. As a side note, I had a friend sit in an ED in Canada for nearly two days prior to being evaluated and then finally...3 months later got a CT of the head. You pay for what you get...

ADVERTISEMENT