A study of campaign contributions by Big Pharma offers a telling lookinto why and how drugmakers spend their political-persuasiondollars.

The research report was released by the Washington, D.C.-basedconsumer rights nonprofit PublicCitizen to demonstrate that Big Pharma is throwing big bucks atelected officials who are opposed to the Obama administration’sattempt to overturn or revise key pieces of Medicare subsectionsthat address reimbursements forpharmaceuticals.

Medicare Part B has become a late-term target of theadministration, largely, political analysts say, because it wascreated by Republicans as a way of rewarding their Big Pharmasupporters.

But Big Pharma is not taking the threat to its profit marginslightly, the study shows.

Drugmakers and related corporations are donating, in general,much more generously to federal lawmakers who are opposed to theoverhaul. The “experiment” has been pushed by the Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a way to steer moreseniors to pharmaceuticaltreatments that have gone generic but are still on par with thebranded therapies.

This would result in smaller profits for both drugmakers andhealth care providers. Not surprisingly, physicians and hospitalmanagement groups have joined lawmakers in opposing the reformeffort.

Public Citizen’s analysis demonstrates the financial benefitsthat accrue to opponents of the reform. Overall, Big Pharma and itsplayfellows have donated $9.5 million to U.S. House ofRepresentatives members in the 2015-2016 campaign cycle. Those whohave signed at least one of two letters circulated opposing the CMSprogram got 82 percent more than those who didn’t sign.

Among the key findings:

• The 310 representatives who signed either of the two lettersopposing or critical of the proposed Medicare Park B demonstrationproject by the CMS received a combined $7,236,806 inpharmaceutical/health products industry contributions for their2016 campaigns, averaging $23,344 per representative.

• The 124 representatives (117 Democrats, seven Republicans) whodid not sign either letter received a combined $1,585,857 inpharmaceutical/health products industry contributions for their2016 campaigns, averaging $12,789 per representative.

• The 244 representatives who signed one letter written primarilyby the GOP opposing the proposal received a combined $5,499,620 inindustry contributions for their 2016 campaigns, averaging $22,539per representative.

• The 66 Democrats who signed the letter criticizing the programreceived a combined $1.7 million in contributions from theindustry, averaging $26,321 each.

Thus Democrats who broke ranks on the issue receivedconsiderably more than their GOP counterparts, apparently a rewardfor switching sides.

“Our findings illustrate a revealing pattern: Representativeswho side with the drug industry collected much more in campaigncontributions from the industry,” says Rick Claypool, a PublicCitizen research director. “This correlation raises seriousquestions about whose interests our elected representatives areserving.” But the advocacy group noted that while Big Pharma’s rolecan be clearly seen in the campaign finance data, the part playedby physicians is less transparent. They benefit directly from theprogram as it now stands, and would suffer financially if it wererevised along the lines of the CMS program.

“Reducing incentives for doctors to prescribe more costly drugsis a no-brainer,” says Public Citizen President Robert Weissman.“The finding that congressional opponents and critics of thisproject receive almost twice as much in campaign contributions asother members of Congress suggests the real motivation ofopponents.”