New research by ProPublica shows that Big Pharma is paying docs hundreds of millions of dollars to pitch their product. Seven companies have now disclosed their payout information (only 36% of pharmaceutical companies). Those 7 companies doled out $257.8 million to about 17,700 providers from the beginning of 2009 through June of 2010. Almost 400 people received over 6 figures and 43 physicians made more than $200,000 — including two who topped $300,000.

Moving away from freebie spiffs like pens and ties, big pharma has relied more heavily on the people trusted most by doctors — their peers. Today, tens of thousands of U.S. physicians are paid to spread the word about pharma’s favored pills and to “advise” the companies about research and marketing.

According to a recent article, those doctors, “recruited and trained by the drug companies, those physicians — accompanied by drug reps — give talks to doctors over small dinners, lecture during hospital teaching sessions and chat over the Internet. They typically must adhere to company slides and talking points.”

For the pharmaceutical companies, one effective speaker may not only teach dozens of physicians how to better recognize a condition, but sell them on a drug to treat it. The success of one drug can mean hundreds of millions in profits, or more. Last year, prescription drugs sales in the United States topped $300 billion, according to IMS Health, a healthcare information and consulting company.

Here is one example of what’s happening:

Last summer, as drug giant Glaxo battled efforts to yank its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia from the market, Nashville cardiologist Hal Roseman worked the front lines.

At an FDA hearing, he borrowed David Letterman’s shtick to deliver a “Top Five” list of reasons to keep the drug on the market despite evidence it caused heart problems. He faced off against a renowned Yale cardiologist and Avandia critic on the PBS NewsHour, arguing that the drug’s risks had been overblown.

“I still feel very convinced in the drug,” Roseman said with relaxed confidence. The FDA severely restricted access to the drug last month citing its risks.

Roseman is not a researcher with published peer-reviewed studies to his name. Nor is he on the staff of a top academic medical center or in a leadership role among his colleagues.

Roseman’s public profile comes from his work as one of Glaxo’s highest-paid speakers. In 2009 and 2010, he earned $223,250 from the firm — in addition to payouts from other companies.

Avandia is more than twice as expensive as its generic counterpart, Glucophage.

That’s not all. A recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit against Novartis, the nation’s sixth-largest drug maker by sales, alleges that many speakers were chosen “on their prescription potential rather than their true credentials.”

Speakers were used and paid as long as they kept their prescription levels up, even though “several speakers had difficulty with English,” according to the amended complaint filed this year in federal court in Philadelphia. In several instances, those former employees say that physicians were told to push “off-label” uses for various drugs.

Other allegations include:

Allergan, the maker of Botox, created faux advisory boards solely “to reward hundreds of its top injectors,” federal prosecutors charged this month. More than 200 doctors, for example, were put up at an oceanfront resort in Newport Beach, Calif., in 2005 and 2006 and paid $1,500 to listen to presentations, according to their sentencing memorandum.

Allergan settled with the government for $600 million last month and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misbranding Botox. Allergan said in a statement that it is “committed to conducting its business with the highest ethical standards and in compliance with all applicable laws.”

Additionally,

Forest Laboratories created “preceptorship” programs in which physicians were paid up to $1,000 each to allow a sales rep to spend time observing their practice. “In reality, Forest sales representatives used the preceptorships to induce physicians to prescribe [anti-depressants] Celexa and Lexapro,” according to a 2009 complaint filed by federal attorneys in Massachusetts.

The reps filled out “return on investment” forms to justify the payments from 1999 until 2003. One rep noted that a psychiatrist’s prescription “numbers were trending up,” and “we need to keep a good thing going as long as we are still getting this kind of growth,” the complaint said.

Many more examples are now seeing the light of day thanks to a new law requiring all pharmaceutical companies to report their payments to doctors. That law takes full effect in 2013.

Congressman Salazar (D-CO) must be feeling the heat – or else he just does whatever Pelosi and the DCCC tell him. His latest attack ad accuses Scott Tipton of wanting to slap a 23% tax on all Americans. Whatever. Tipton’s position on taxes could be summarized like this: Lower taxes. Period. In fact, Tipton openly pledged to not raise taxes, and invited his opponent to make the same pledge. Salazar refuses. Tipton also pledged to NOT support the ADDITIONAL VAT that Pelosi is proposing, something Salazar also will not commit to doing. Salazar’s claims are so blatantly false – and so common among Democrats – that it has made national news.

The Hill reports that research by FairTax.org shows that Democrats in 16 districts have run at least 31 ads blasting Republicans for supporting a consumption tax. What they DON’T mention is that what is essentially a national sales tax would REPLACE the current federal tax system.

FactCheck.org also slammed the DCCC for the ads.

“Democrats are accusing Republicans of supporting a 23 percent sales tax on everything, which would be on top of all existing taxes… it’s misrepresenting by omission of the FairTax idea,” FactCheck.org director Brooks Jackson told The Hill.

The DCCC was forced to pull an ad off the air in Michigan’s 1st district because of its misleading nature. Philip Hinson, national spokesman for FairTax.org said “It just speaks to the desperation of the Democratic Party because they see an absolute tsunami developing and they can’t come up with anything better than this.”

Salazar doesn’t let the facts bother him when it comes to campaign ads. He sure doesn’t like it, though, when Tipton points out that Salazar voted for the budget-busting Obamacare, the failed stimulus plan and effectively RAISED TAXES on all Americans when he cast the deciding vote to adjourn rather than address extending the Bush tax cuts.

All in all, the truth seems to be quite the annoyance to him, doesn’t it? Shame on him. I’ll be the first to call on Congressman John Salazar to pull his inaccurate, deceitful ad, misrepresenting his opponent’s position on tax policy. Time to man up, Congressman, and do the honest thing. Pull ‘em today.

Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) claims to be a fiscal conservative. He assures voters they can count on him to rein in government spending but when his conservative GOP opponent Morgan Philpot talks about true reform, Matheson turns it into an attack ad. In August, Philpot talked about a plan to keep this country from plunging off the financial cliff. He has short-term, medium-term and long-term goals.

In the long term, Philpot knows we need to address entitlement programs. Right now, this “non-discretionary” spending, aka “entitlement spending”, uses up almost all of the money the federal government brings in. The rest of government is run on a credit card.

No one can call themselves a “fiscal conservative” when they refuse to address entitlement spending. NO ONE. Matheson obviously is NOT interested in really doing the heavy lifting required of true fiscal conservatives. Instead, he takes Philpot’s statements about reforming entitlement spending and sends out a mailer scaring senior citizens by telling them that Philpot wants to gamble away their retirement.

In fact, what Philpot said was that he wanted to address reforming Social Security that does not affect those currently receiving benefits while reforming the ongoing program for future generations ala Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America.”

Whatever it takes, eh Congressman?

Phantom Jim refuses to hold town halls because he can’t handle being asked to explain his positions. He finally got tracked down and asked about 84% of his campaign money coming from PACs. Utah’s “PAC-man” refuses to answer – but finally turns to his constituent and says “Shame on you“. No Jim. Shame on YOU. That sound you hear? That’s the Philpot Express coming up behind you and headed all the way to DC.

Congressman Jim Matheson is finally facing a potentially tight election- the first one since 2002 – and he’s getting desperate. He has been trying to fly under the radar, with zero town halls and only one live debate, held at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in St George. He avoids letting anyone know he’s a Democrat. (Try finding the letter D, a donkey, or any other symbol on his signs. Or his website. Not there.)

His votes finally have scrutiny, the blogosphere is paying attention and the price of ignoring the Internet is catching up with him. (Seriously – check out www.jimmatheson.com and see what I mean!)

In an amazing coincidence, pro-Philpot and anti-Matheson signs have been disappearing all over the district. Intersections have signs for local candidates, Senate candidates from both parties and plenty of Matheson signs – but no Philpot signs, even though they are replaced regularly. The prime targets for these illegal removals are the very visible Matheson=Pelosi signs that Utah volunteers have been placing all over the second district.

Last night, 4 separate groups of people, in 4 separate cities, were caught in the act of removing signs and with startling similarity, all told the very same story – they were doing it for the good of the community since they didn’t think they complied with city ordinances. St George, Lehi, Sandy and Murray and they all with the exact same story. What are the odds?!

Oh, and speaking of desperate freefall…….

Congressman John Salazar (D-CO) refuses to stand by his record of spend, spend, spend. He has apparently decided that the only way to boost his floundering campaign is to sling mud. And let’s be honest – it worked for him in 2004 when he swept into office as the “Gang of Four” flipped Colorado from red to blue. This year is different however. We have an engaged electorate who is not buying the tripe being shoveled their way from the party in power. At a recent debate Salazar claimed that Obamacare was a great deficit reduction plan – and the audience immediately burst into derisive laughter.

He is a man who will say anything to avoid his record – and who hopes no one is paying attention. He’s trying to fly under the radar as much as possible, with very few public appearances and even ditching a debate he initially agreed to attend. Sorry, No-Show – we’re paying attention, and “We the People” will be showing you the door.

Gun Owners of America, the new gold standard in protecting Second Amendment rights, has endorsed Scott Tipton in Colorado’s Third District.

Tipton is a strong defender of the Second Amendment, earning an “A” rating for his pro-gun voting record in the Colorado legislature.

In the statement released by GOA, Tim Macy, the vice-chairman, said:

His opponent, John Salazar, likes to pretend to be pro-gun, but his own voting record tells a different story. In 2009, Salazar voted three times against GOA’s efforts to protect gun rights in national parks.

He also voted for the massive ObamaCare bill, despite repeated warnings from GOA that the new law does not contain adequate safeguards to keep government bureaucrats from using a federal database of medical records to strip gun owners of their Second Amendment rights.

Given his anti-gun voting record, it should not come as a surprise that Salazar also voted for the so-called DISCLOSE Act—a bill that seeks to keep groups like GOA from publicly criticizing federal, elected officials.

And, of course, every two years Salazar votes for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The San Francisco liberal does not represent the views of pro-gun Coloradans.

Colorado gun owners and sportsmen deserve real leadership on gun rights issues.

The NRA has endorsed John Salazar.

If you can’t run on your record of voting for the stimulus,Cash for Clunkers, and Nancy Pelosi, then by golly, spin, spin, spin.

Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) is deflecting and twisting when he tells Utah Policy Daily that his conservative GOP opponent, Morgan Philpot “is saying things that are just not true – like his ad that says I’ve only sponsored two bills” in 10 years in the U.S. House. “That is demonstratively false – I’ve done a lot more than that.” Except what the ad actually said was that he had only PASSED two bills while in the US House.

Matheson also has a new ad out that says he knows “Every penny counts” – so surely that’s why he voted to raise the debt ceiling twice in the last year, or why he has twice earned the “Big Spender” rating from NTU. He also asserts that he didn’t vote for a bailout and while it’s true he didn’t vote for TARP, he DID vote for the stimulus package. And son of stimulus. And son of stimulus 2……

Matheson – whose campaign is almost completely funded by outside PACS – also sent out fundraising letters decrying FreedomWorks “coming to Utah.” These are people “who know nothing about what matters to Utah families.” Really? Really?! *I* am FreedomWorks in Utah, Mr. Matheson. I DO know what matters to Utah families. I write about what matters to Utah families. I advocate for what matters to Utah families – and guess what – it’s not more debt and failed stimulus programs. It’s surely not the Pelosi/Reid/Obama debacle Matheson so clearly favors. Larry Jensen is FreedomWorks in Utah. He lives in Salt Lake County and works for Utah families and their rights every single day. Darcy Van Orden is FreedomWorks in Utah. Becky Pirente is FreedomWorks in Utah. All Utah residents, all here, on the ground working to keep the freedoms you and your fellow Democrats seem so intent on wrenching from us. WE are the ones placing signs, walking neighborhoods and talking to people. And we do know Utah.

On Jan 1st, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. The child tax credit will be cut in half, the standard deductions and income credits decrease and the 10 percent tax bracket – aimed at non-wealthy taxpayers – goes away.

While wealthier taxpayers pay more in taxes and stand to lose more in total dollars, the impact on low-income taxpayers will be far greater since they live on much slimmer margins.

In a new report from the Tax Foundation, author Nick Kasprak points out that in spite of repeated promises that the cuts will be extended, “the current Congress has shown itself to be unusually susceptible to gridlock so the threat of automatic, full expiration of all these cuts is quite real.” In fact, even though we heard last year that the death tax would go away completely, ten months later, Democratic leaders have yet to follow through on that promise.

If predictions for Republican wins in the Senate races in Illinois and West Virginia hold true, those new members will be sworn in immediately. That will give the GOP 43 seats in the upper chamber and the Democrats will have a very difficult time getting the 60 votes they need to pass the legislation to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but let them expire for the “wealthy.” They will then be faced with the choice to extend the cuts for ALL, or do nothing and let them expire, hurting those at the lower end of the income scale.

“When comparing changes in after-tax income, low-income workers benefited substantially from the Bush-era tax cuts,” said Kasprak “and so they would pay much higher taxes if political gridlock allows the imminent expirations to occur on schedule.”

The report shows that inaction on these tax measures will cost a married couple with two dependents earning $40,000 about $2,643. Their after-tax income would drop from $41,513 (if the cuts are extended) to $38,870.

Those cuts could have been extended if the so-called Blue Dogs, including Colorado’s John Salazar, would have done something besides hide behind Nancy Pelosi’s skirts.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced an immigration bill a couple of days before the Senate adjourned until November 15th. There was, of course, no time to act on that bill except to refer it to committee where it will likely die. Republicans weren’t impressed.

According to a Politico article:

Republicans think the legislation is just a game to gin up the base, potentially in heavily Hispanic parts of the country.

The fall push for immigration reform is “for effect rather than reality,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who previously sponsored the DREAM Act but doesn’t support it now, called it nothing more than a “cynical ploy for votes.”

“Sooner or later, we’ve got to do it, but anything done in this time period is just for show,” Hatch told POLITICO. “Apparently, [Menendez] thinks there is some benefit, but it is cynical and it’s not right to do it at this point. And it’s very unlikely for it to have any success. In fact, it’s impossible.”

Ironically, Senator Hatch introduced his own lame-duck immigration bill the very next day. He said his bill would go a long way towards securing the border and clamping down on identity theft and drug cartels.

Not everyone was impressed with his efforts either. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

Eli Cawley, chairman of the Utah Minuteman Project, says he doesn’t believe Hatch is serious about the issue and overlooked the businesses that hire undocumented immigrants.

“I think he completely misses the boat when it comes to the real problem with illegal immigration,” Cawley said.

Without going after the businesses that hire the immigrants, and their connections with those who smuggle them across the border, the flow of immigrants will continue, Cawley said.

Ben Johnson, the executive director of the Washington-based American Immigration Council, says Hatch’s bill is simply more of the same rhetoric that’s been tossed around for a while and does nothing to move the debate forward.

“The reality is that there too many politicians, and I think, unfortunately, Senator Hatch is beginning to fall into that category, introducing legislation not in any effort to actually get it passed but to send messages to their constituents,” Johnson said.

Ya think?