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. The Walgreens did not get a lot of traffic. It was not located on the corner of the intersection, and not really visible from Emerson. Meanwhile the CVS there is huge and right on the corner. I am guessing a lot of people drove by a million times and never knew the Walgreens was there. Although, with the new Walmart market going in, that area could really see a lot of increase in traffic soon.

  2. You folks don't have a clue. There is a legal way to enter this country and to get aid. This left unchecked could run us to ruin quickly. I also heard that 'supporters' were getting major $$ to take them in? Who's monitoring this and guess who pays the bill? I support charitable organizations... but this is NOT the way to do it!

  3. Apparently at some time before alcohol has been served at the fair. The problem is that beer or wine used to be a common drink for people before soft drinks and was not thought to be that unusual. Since many folks now only drink to see how much they can drink or what kind of condition they can end up in it becomes more problematic. Go to Europe and its no big deal just as if you had sodas of milk to drink everyday. Its using common sense that is lacking now days.

  4. To address the epic failure of attracting race fans to both the Indy 500 and Brickyard 400 would take too much of my time to write. Bottom line Boles is clueless and obviously totally out of touch with the real paying fan base. I see nothing but death spin coming for the Brickyard, just like Indy. Get somebody in a place of power that understands what race fans want.

  5. I am a race fan through & through. It doesn't matter if it's Indy cars or Nascar. I love a great race. I go to several other tracks each year and you can see the entire track. I know Indy has tradition, but fans want to see the entire race. I sit in the Penthouse, am almost 60 years old, and would like to see a better TV screen in turn 1 so you can see the entire race. Then I think Indy needs to install an escalator so us old folks can make it up to the Penthouse and down again if we want more options to purchase food and drinks. Just a race fans opinion. Lights won't make the race any better, but you might be able to see the TV better at night. Turn 1's screen needs replaced with a better and bigger screen.

ADVERTISEMENT