During his time in the House, Rogers received over $670,000 from pharmaceutical/health products industry. Rogers was a “major recipient” of pharmaceutical money. Rogers even took a Novartis private jet to a fundraiser. Rogers was described as a “champion” of the Pharma industry and pushed for greater access to opioids.
Rogers opposed and voted against allowing drug reimportation, taking the position of Big Pharma. Lansing State Journal editorial criticized Rogers for blocking cheaper drugs. Rogers supported a drug program that explicitly barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices, another position of Big Pharma.
Rogers voted against and opposed allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
During His Time In The House, Rogers Received $673,390 From Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry. [OpenSecrets, accessed 5/1/24]
June 2003: Novartis Took Mike Rogers On A Corporate Jet To A Fundraiser. According to USA Today, “Frist and Hastert are not the only lawmakers to take advantage of the convenience of drug companies' corporate jets. A spokesman for drugmaker Novartis, Sheldon Jones, confirmed that company lobbyists were aboard for three trips carrying lawmakers in 2003 and 2004. One, in June 2003, took Reps. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y.; Mike Oxley, R-Ohio; and Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to a Republican fundraiser in New York City. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., also took trips on the Novartis Learjet.” [USA Today, 4/26/05]
Rogers Was A “Major Recipient Of Pharmaceutical Money.” According to the Associated Press, “Drug companies gave generously to many Michigan lawmakers this election, but those who oppose the reimportation of drugs from Canada got a much larger windfall than others. Fifteen drug companies gave a total of $134,744 to ten U.S. House and Senate members from Michigan as of Oct. 13, according to federal campaign finance records compiled by The Associated Press and the nonpartisan group PoliticalMoneyLine. Ninety-five percent of that total - $128,189 - went to five U.S. House members who oppose reimportation. The rest went to lawmakers who support reimportation, including four House members and Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Drug companies, along with President Bush and the Food and Drug Administration, oppose reimportation because they say there's no way to guarantee the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. Supporters say that's a scare tactic designed to protect drug companies' profits. […] Two other Michigan members of the Energy and Commerce Committee also were major recipients of pharmaceutical money. Rogers, a Republican from Brighton, took in $38,214 and Upton, a Republican from St. Joseph, took in $33,000.” [Associated Press, 10/27/04]
Pharmaceutical Companies Were Top Industry Contributor To Mike Rogers. According to the Livingston County Press, “At a briefing in Washington, D.C., last week, Rogers and Green were joined by pharmaceutical executives and a representative of the National Associations of Boards of Pharmacy. Health professionals and pharmaceutical companies were the two top industry contributors to Rogers' campaign war chest in the 2006 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, donating $118,954 and $75,589 respectively. But Rogers said only ‘people who have political motivations might say that’ those contributions relate to his introduction of the bill.” [Livingston County Press, 4/2/07]
Headline: Mike Rogers Vows To Fight Drug War, But Urged Opioid Access In Congress [Bridge Michigan, 8/29/24]
Drug Companies Considered Rogers As A “Champion” Of The Industry. According to Bridge Michigan, “Yet Rogers’ support of the drug industry was notable enough that he is referenced in at least one book about the opioid crisis, as well as multiple newspaper retrospectives of the epidemic. Rogers acknowledged in 2006 that drug companies considered him ‘a champion’ of their industry.” [Bridge Michigan, 8/29/24]
Rogers Was A Leading Advocate For Greater Access For Pain Medication, Usually Opioids, While He Was Taking Thousands Of Dollars From The Pharma Industry. According to Bridge Michigan, “A Bridge Michigan investigation revealed that while in Congress from 2001-2015, Rogers was a leading advocate for greater access to pain medications, which are typically variations of opioids. He received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the same drug companies that now are paying billions of dollars in national opioid settlements for their roles in causing the epidemic.” [Bridge Michigan, 8/29/24]
2003: Rogers Voted Against Allowing The Re-Importation Of Prescription Drugs From Several Foreign Countries, Such As Canada. In July 2003, Rogers voted against a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require[d] the Food and Drug Administration to establish a program that would [have] allow[ed] the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from FDA-approved facilities in the European Union, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 243 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 445, 7/25/03; Congressional Quarterly, 7/25/03; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2427]
Lansing State Journal Editorial: “Citizens In Mid-Michigan Might Want To Ask Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, And Dave Camp, R-Midland, Why They Think Reimportation Is Such A Bad Idea.” According to a Lansing State Journal editorial, “Citizens should be clear about something: Should Congress legalize the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere, America's drug cost crisis will not end. But there was no fundamental reason to vote against the measure, which cleared the House last week. So, citizens in mid-Michigan might want to ask Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and Dave Camp, R-Midland, why they think reimportation is such a bad idea. Proponents' arguments are simple. Certain prescription drugs used by millions of Americans sell at lower prices outside America's borders than inside them. This fact spurred the creation of a "gray" market in which senior citizens would ride buses into Canada to buy drugs, or purchase them on the Internet. This has freaked out the pharmaceutical industry, which has pressured Congress, the White House and the Food and Drug Administration to keep the practice illegal.” [Editorial – Lansing State Journal, 8/4/03]
Rogers Defended His Vote And Said “Reimported Drugs Can Be Extremely Unsafe And Neither Of Us Is Willing To Take That Risk With Our Own Parents Or Yours.” According to a Mike Rogers and Dave Camp op-ed in the Lansing State Journal, “A Lansing State Journal editorial describes legislation we voted against as not perfect but ‘worth a look’ (‘Let drugs in,’ Aug. 4). If anyone truly believes that, would they be willing to have their own older parents take reimported drugs? What if they knew the risks involved? Would any American family be willing to put their parents at risk of counterfeit, misbranded, fake or outdated prescription drugs? We certainly are not. Consider: * Two American children - a 15-year-old and an 18-month-old - died from misbranded, unapproved drugs smuggled from another country. * A 33-year-old mother died of an overdose of painkillers ordered without a prescription from an Internet pharmacy of unknown origin. * A senior citizen worsened after a bus trip to Canada to purchase a medication which failed to perform. * An Internet site, ‘Canada's Number One Pharmacy,’ actually originates in Barbados. * A Canadian television station purchased drugs from Mexico and Brazil, with no government oversight, despite law enforcement projections that 25 percent to 50 percent of medications sold in those two countries are counterfeit. * Federal law enforcement investigations uncovered offshore prescription drug shipments in U.S. postal facilities - many with no active ingredients, others outdated and some mislabeled. * A 1998 Canadian Solicitor General report said organized crime there had become heavily involved in the sale of counterfeit pharmaceutical products. The list of concerns could go on, but the bottom line is this: Reimported drugs can be extremely unsafe and neither of us is willing to take that risk with our own parents or yours.” [Mike Rogers and Dave Camp Op-Ed – Lansing State Journal, 8/8/03]
Rogers Complained That The Canadian Government Would Not Guarantee The Safety Of The Drugs One Of Its Stores Is Selling. According to the Detroit News, “The state of Michigan may follow the lead of hundreds of Michigan senior citizens who regularly save money by purchasing their prescription drugs from Canada. A spokesman for the Michigan Department of Community Health said Gov. Jennifer Granholm is interested in recent moves by Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa to investigate buying drugs from Canada for state workers and Medicaid recipients. Granholm wants state officials to study the results of investigations now under way in those three states and determine whether a similar plan could work in Michigan, T.J. Bucholz said Tuesday. […] Larry Wagenknecht, chief executive officer of the Michigan Pharmacists Association in Lansing, said the state Department of Consumer and Industry Services has not acted on his group's complaint that the American Drug Club is not a licensed pharmacy and has no licensed pharmacist on staff. Elizabeth Boyd, a Granholm spokeswoman, was not able to determine the status of the complaint Tuesday. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, sent Granholm a letter Monday urging her to take action against the Lansing outlet because ‘the health of our constituents is at risk.’ Rogers complained the Canadian government will not guarantee the safety of the drugs the store is selling.” [Detroit News, 10/1/03]
Rogers Said “Price Controls From Canada Will Not Work.” “Rogers: Government price controls don’t work, where we have seen real progress in the pricing of is when we introduce the free market. The Medicare part D was actually 8 billion dollars less than we thought. Why? Because the private market was competing on plans, and what happened? The costs of those plans went down. We actually have a plan that will save Michigan 13.05 a plan and have access to prescription drugs and 300,000. are subsidized. It is exciting it is amazing and you know what is working on that? Not government price control, health savings accounts, it is the only provision in health care today were cost are being reduced why because the consumer is involved on the decisions on health care. And it provided about 3 million American citizens with health care that never had health care before, so one thing and the things we know are working are the private sector, price controls, bigger government, price controls from Canada will not work, the private sector is working and we ought to expand that sector.” [2006 Mike Rogers Congressional Debate – accessed via Oakland University archive, 2006]
FDA Week: “Rogers Does Not Support Reimportation And Held A Briefing On Drug Counterfeiting With Industry Security Experts And The National Association Of Boards Of Pharmacies.” According to FDA Week, “Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) made a pitch Tuesday (July 25) for his bill to increase penalties for drug counterfeiters and touted the legislation as a bridge between supporters and opponents of reimportation. Despite saying he did not want the briefing on drug counterfeiting to turn into a reimportation debate, talk inevitably turned to Internet prescription drugs from Canada. Rogers does not support reimportation and held a briefing on drug counterfeiting with industry security experts and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacies to reveal a prescription drug climate rife with dangerous counterfeiting at a time when Congress is considering proposals that would halt reimportation enforcement. Opponents of reimportation, which FDA views as illegal, claim opening the door for cheaper prescription medications from other countries also leaves huge security gaps for terrorists and counterfeiters to infiltrate the American drug supply chain.” [FDA Week, 7/28/06]
Rogers Said “What We Are Doing Is Throwing Open The Gates To Every Counterfeiter In The World.” According to Congressional Quarterly, “Critics argued that the language, barring the Food and Drug Administration from enforcing a ban on prescription imports, would make Americans vulnerable to unreliable and even dangerous medications. ‘What we are doing is throwing open the gates to every counterfeiter in the world,’ said Mike Rogers, R-Mich.” [Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/07]
Rogers Claimed That The Federal Government “Shouldn't Be Engaged” In Drug Price Negotiations. According to the Michigan Advance, “According to audio obtained by the Michigan Advance, Rogers said that when it came to negotiating drug prices, it was his belief that the federal government ‘shouldn’t be engaged in that.’" [Michigan Advance, 10/2/24]
Rogers Claimed That The Plan To Allow The Federal Government To Negotiate Drug Prices Was “Sugar High Politics” And Claimed That It Was An Election Season Gimmick. According to Michigan Advance, “He then went on to say that Democrats’ support for drug price negotiation was a campaign gimmick. ‘So this sugar high politics that you get, I’m going to throw it right at you and this is going to help you,’ he said. ‘It’s going to take a hundred dollars off this month, but it’s going to cost you $10,000 in the next five years. We shouldn’t be engaged in that. I call ’em political cicadas. Everything that you see, the Democrats doing it now. They come out, they pop their head out of the hole. It’s election season, right? They’re going to throw money at you and tell you they’re going to stay here, save Medicare and Social Security, all of this stuff and then you don’t see ’em again for four years, right?’” [Michigan Advance, 10/2/24]
Rogers Supported Legislation That Explicitly Barred Medicare From Negotiating Bulk Discounts. According to a Lansing State Journal editorial, “Michigan has launched a new prescription drug discount program to reach as many as 200,000 low-income residents. These citizens will be eligible for discounts because the state is able to buy drugs in bulk, allowing it to negotiate discounts. The idea is so simple, so positive, it is hard to believe that any policy-makers would reject it. Yet that's what Congress and President Bush did last year with the Medicare prescription drug law. That law - supported by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, Dave Camp and Vern Ehlers - explicitly barred Medicare from negotiating bulk discounts. And with tens of millions of clients, you can imagine how much clout Medicare could have had with the pharmaceutical firms.” [Editorial – Lansing State Journal, 9/27/04]
Roger Repeatedly Voted Against Allowing Medicare To Negotiate Lower Prices With Drug Manufacturers. According to the Michigan Independent, “Over seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan Republican U.S. Senate nominee Mike Rogers repeatedly voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers.” [Michigan Independent, 8/16/24]
Lansing State Journal Editorial: “Medicare Can’t Negotiate Because Drug Company Lobbyists Said They Didn't Want It - And Carried The Day.” According to a Lansing State Journal editorial, “Now, we have yet to hear a single policy argument for why bulk purchases are bad for the public; or why the Medicare law carries the discount prohibition. And state policy-makers just can't be that much smarter than their national counterparts. That means there has to be another explanation; an explanation that goes beyond the public interest, that goes beyond the skill of Congress. The only one that fits is that Medicare can't negotiate because drug company lobbyists said they didn't want it - and carried the day. It is not a pleasant thing to accuse elected officials of out-and-out rejecting a public benefit. But if Michigan is right to negotiate discounts for its needy citizens, than Washington has to be wrong in not doing the same for Medicare. Right?” [Editorial – Lansing State Journal, 9/27/04]
Lansing State Journal Editorial: “The Program Is A Giveaway To Pharmaceutical Firms Because Congress Barred Medicare From Negotiating Deep Discounts In Drug.” According to a Lansing State Journal editorial, “The program is a giveaway to pharmaceutical firms because Congress barred Medicare from negotiating deep discounts in drug prices - a practice used effectively in other government programs. And now we can see the program is overwhelmed by the administrative burden of trying to keep track of so many seniors with widely different medical and financial needs. It could have been different, of course. A drug benefit targeted solely to the neediest seniors - as established by personal income and drug use - is feasible. It wouldn't overwhelm the Treasury or government computers. It could be in operation now, had Congress not, instead, endorsed the existing, flawed law - thanks in large measure to mid-Michigan Congressmen Dave Camp, Vern Ehlers and Mike Rogers.” [Editorial – Lansing State Journal, 1/18/06]
2007: Rogers Voted Against Requiring Negotiation Of Prices For Prescriptions Drugs In Medicare Part D. According to the Livingston County Press, “U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, voted against four out of the six major bills approved by the new Democratic House majority. The only two parts of the Democrats' so-called "first 100 hours" agenda that Rogers supported were a proposal to lower interest rates on student loans and approval of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. The other measures passed by the Democrats were an increase in the federal minimum wage; allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; requiring negotiation of prices for prescription drugs in the Medicare Part D program; and eliminating some tax breaks for oil companies.” [Livingston County Press, 1/22/07]
2007: Rogers Voted Against Requiring The Secretary Of Health And Human Services To Negotiate Prices Of Prescription Drugs In Medicare Part D. In January 2007, Rogers voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] require[d] the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department to negotiate with drug companies the prices of drugs covered under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 255 to 170. The bill was then sent to the Senate, where no further action was taken. [House Vote 23, 1/12/07; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/07; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]