Recently, an email was forwarded to me that Kirk Adams’ wife, JaNae, sent to her friends. In that 8/22/2012 email, Ms. Adams repeated the following falsehoods that have been repeated continuously by Kirk Adams and his campaign.
Ms. Adams stated:
“Here are the facts:
1. Matt Salmon lobbied for Obamacare.
2. Publicly available disclosure documents prove this fact.
3. The Salmon campaign has not disputed the veracity of these documents. Instead, they’ve chosen to personally attack my husband.”
I will continue calling out these lies as long as Mr. and Mrs. Adams and the Kirk Adams campaign keep repeating them.
Ms. Adams considers federal disclosure forms to be solid evidence that her assertions are true. She stands by this document, that form, that piece of paper. She adds it all up to a gold standard of Truth.
Sometimes, documents tell a story. Not this time.
Why? Because The Truth is that neither Matt Salmon nor anyone in his firm ever “lobbied for ObamaCare.”
The Truth isn’t what she’s after. Ms. Adams is desperate to prove that her husband isn’t a liar.
An Honorable Man’s Word means Nothing to Kirk Adams
There was a time when a man’s Word meant something. Matt Salmon asserted early on that he did not lobby for ObamaCare and has stated it in writing. Kirk Adams calls him a liar. Matt Salmon went so far as to send a certified letter to Kirk Adams advising him that he never lobbied for ObamaCare. Kirk Adams refused it.
John Haddow, a partner in Matt’s firm, stated very clearly in writing that neither he nor Matt lobbied for ObamaCare. Kirk Adams calls him a liar. Even Mike Eging, the former head of the Washington office of Lundbeck Phamaceutical Company, has stated in writing that Matt Salmon did not represent his company. Kirk Adams calls him a liar.
Ms. Adams has denigrated GilbertWatch:
"Gilbert Watch is a blog that promotes one writer’s individual opinions. The tone and tenor of that website would make many blush if they read some of its mean spirited claims. The site also claims Skymall Founder Bob Worsley is owned by the left, that former LDS leader Jerry Lewis is a liberal, and that Jeff Flake is a fake conservative. It is not a news site and it does not claim to be fair and balanced. This is someone’s personal site used to promote their ideas and opinions. Gilbert Watch is similar to the blogs listed below that do not support Matt Salmon or his lobbying activities, none of which are objective, but all could be called "researched."
I invite you to review the sites that Ms. Adams presents and compare them to GilbertWatch. GilbertWatch is a Conservative site, dedicated to conservatives. It is a “liberal-free zone.” It is a place where conservatives can come and see conservative views. Clearly stated on my home page is what I stand for: Low Taxes, Limited Government, Free Enterprise, and Personal Responsibility. My name is available for anyone to see. I vet candidates and elected officials according to a Conservative standard. Some rate higher than others, and I frequently point out their differences.
I have made GilbertWatch provocative, so that people will read it. At the same time, my opinions are well researched, and I strive for the Truth.
Ms. Adams criticizes my “tenor and tone.” John Haddow recently engaged in what he had hoped would be a civil discussion with commenters from East Valley Politics, the Facebook group that is made up of primarily supporters of Kirk Adams. These commenters never revealed their identities, preferring to remain cloaked in anonymity. One of them took the handle, “GilbertWatch is a Joke,” to ridicule me.
This is the statement that John Haddow finally made to them:
“What amazes me about this entire discussion is the lack of civility that seems to be occurring in this race. If Kirk Adams told me that he did not do something I would take him at his word because I assume he is an honest man. I have repeatedly stated that Matt did not lobby on behalf of these two clients, and others have corroborated this information. Yet in the Adams campaign they continue to call everyone liars. Both are conservative Republicans who differ very little on the issues. This anger does no one any good. I have tried to be civil in this discussion and have been repeatedly told that I was not telling the truth.”
Where is the Truth? Did Matt Salmon or any of his partners lobby for ObamaCare?
The Truth is Found in the People Who Were There. These people recognize the reality that, while they may despise the federal government’s interference in the free market system, the fact is, the federal government has its crushing boot on the neck of the entire health care industry. ObamaCare has been steamrolling its “provisions” into place for over two years. We have been living under its mandates.
So, as a profit-making business entity, do you hope and pray that Congress will don its Superman cape and reverse the entire monstrosity? Or do you fight to protect yourself from destructive provisions, should all or portions of “ObamaCare” remain?
Congressmen and Senators were There
Kirk Adams never asked just one Congressman or Senator to come forward and state, on the record, that Matt Salmon lobbied them on Obamacare. It will never happen, because Matt Salmon did NOT lobby them on ObamaCare.
Mike Eging was there
I was the head of the Washington office from 2009-2012 for Lundbeck Pharmaceutical company, which retained Policy Impact Communications and later Upstream Consulting in Washington, DC. John Haddow was our consultant from this firm. His background in health care while serving as a staff member of the key health committee was the driving force in our retaining him. Our first goal was to allow the health reform bill to fail but absent that we had to make a critical change. John was tasked to assist in changing the onerous language pertaining to Section 340B, particularly as it applied to Orphan products. Our team was successful in reversing the changes negotiated by the hospitals and the Obama administration.
Matt Salmon did not work on our account.
John Haddow was there (This is one of the statements he made to anonymous commenters from East Valley Politics, which they mocked)
“I was Matt’s partner while at both Policy Impact and Upstream Consulting. I had both Lundbeck and Millennium as clients before Matt joined the firm. As a small firm it was customary to list all the lobbyists on the forms, more as a form of protection from the very onerous reporting requirements and penalties that are now in place. You err on the side of safety.
With respect to those two clients I was the only person in the firm that met with these two clients and had the technical background to understand the issues before them. I have repeatedly stated that Matt Salmon did not lobby on these clients behalf and that in fact we did not support ObamaCare since it was harmful to almost all small pharmaceutical companies. We did vigorously engage to ensure that the treatment of Orphan products in the bill was corrected to ensure that patients using these products would have continue access to them to keep their quality of life at the level they currently enjoy.
There are some clients that Matt was working for that I was listed for but in fact did no work on as well.
The major health insurance companies all cut a deal with the Obama administration to support the bill. They did this because the most crucial part of the bill, the mandate to buy insurance, was in their interests. Kirk Adams and his family insurance company sells health insurance policies. Should we now say that Kirk Adams was supporting ObamaCare since his insurance company and the companies they write policies for would benefit? That is the leap of logic that Kirk wants you to take with Matt Salmon but ignore with him.
I have advised the Adams campaign that Matt Salmon did no work for these clients and the head of their government relations office has also stated that they retained me and not Matt Salmon. Integrity is a key element in a member of Congress’ character. Given that Matt Salmon has always been a man that kept his word, even leaving Congress on his word, to now question that integrity in an effort to smear him and win a campaign is beneath Mr. Adams and he knows it. Parenthetically, did not Mr. Adams commit to serve his term in the State Legislature and then abandon that commitment when he thought a higher office might be available?
I am more than willing to discuss this issue with anyone that has a question, including the Adams campaign (I have offered this to them in the past) and can be reached on my office phone at 202-684-7157. If I am not there my assistant will connect you to me. Honesty and integrity are important in any election and now is the time to get the fact and know who is being honest and who is manipulating the facts just to win a seat in Congress.”
John Haddow explains very clearly what he did in Washington, DC:
“The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 was enacted to provide incentives for manufacturers to develop drugs for rare diseases that affect a small portion of the population, which is defined by the act as affecting fewer than 200,000 people.
Under the orphan program, the FDA may confer one of 2 classifications on a drug; an ”orphan designation” or approved for "orphan indication”. The process to receive orphan designation is fairly straightforward; manufacturers must show the FDA that the products use will be for a rare condition. Primary clinical trials are not necessary to receive this classification. As of January 2012, the FDA has granted 1782 orphan designations. To be approved as an orphan indication the manufacturers undergo a more rigorous process, which includes establishing the safety and efficacy of the drug via clinical trials. To date the FDA has granted 389 approvals for orphan indication.
The 340B drug pricing program is a federal program designed to reduce the amount that safety net providers spend on outpatient drugs. The patient protection and affordable health care act of 2010 was drafted to extend the eligibility for 340 B to critical access hospitals (CAHs) for all drugs except those designated as "orphan.” The hospitals have repeatedly attempted to expand the coverage of 340B as a means of cutting their costs. In the original draft of the legislation they had expanded the definition of hospitals that would be eligible for 340B pricing from 12 to 18 and sought to have orphans included in the program.
This would have dramatically altered the orphan drug world and made it impossible for some of them to continue to manufacture the drugs. The adverse impact on patients suffering from these rare diseases would have been immense.
The lobbying that I did, along with some others, was to educate the committee staff of the impact this would have on patients who rely upon these orphan products. This effort was strongly supported by the National Organization of Rare Diseases (NORD). What our efforts were aimed at doing was scaling back the expansion of this program as outlined in the ObamaCare bill and to keep the status quo in place. We were successful in this effort because the evidence was strongly on our side. We made it plain that as small companies we opposed the overall bill but in the event it were to be enacted into law this change had to be made.
Shortly after the passage of the bill the Department of Health and Human Resources issued the following:
Rationale for Rulemaking
The purpose of issuing this proposed rule is to clarify HHS’s stated effort in: (1) Providing clarity in the marketplace, (2) maintaining the 340B savings and interests to the newly-eligible covered entities; and (3) protecting the financial incentives for manufacturing orphan drugs designated for a rare disease or condition as indicated in the Affordable Care Act as intended by Congress.
First, HHS is aware of confusion in the marketplace, having been notified of such by affected parties, including covered entities and drug manufacturers. This confusion is due to varying interpretations of the statutory exclusion: whether the language prohibits these newly covered entities from purchasing all orphan drugs through the 340B Program or whether the language only prohibits purchase of orphan drugs when used for the rare disease or condition for which the orphan drug is designated. In response to this uncertainty, some manufacturers have ceased selling orphan drugs through the 340B Program to the newly- eligible covered entities to avoid best price implications. Other manufacturers are waiting for Federal policy before taking action, while still other manufacturers have stated that they will stop selling orphan drugs through the 340B Program to newly-eligible covered entities effective immediately. In addition, the affected covered entities are not sure if they are permitted to purchase orphan drug products and, if they are, at what price. These covered entities do not know if they can buy these orphan drugs using group purchasing organizations or if there are additional record-keeping requirements that they must meet for 340B compliance. Other 340B stakeholders such as wholesalers are also not sure which systems need to be in place to ensure compliance with this new statutory provision. HHS has received numerous requests from these affected rare condition or disease for which that orphan drug was designated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), are excluded from the definition of covered outpatient drug for the specified newly-eligible covered entity types for purposes of the 340B Program. This regulatory action details how these exclusions will be implemented under the 340B Program.
As you read that statement you see the clear logic that Congress came to see that passage of the expansion of the program would adversely affect the patients since several manufacturers would cease selling the drugs. It is also very clear that the efforts we engaged in were not expanding the program but exactly the opposite, we were blocking the expansion.”
Articles on this subject: