Will an Amendment be Offered to S. 959 Limited Compounded Medications For Animals?

An amendment may soon be offered on the Senate Floor ...

...that would limit available treatment options from compounded medications for dogs, cats and horses. The amendment is expected to be offered to S.959, legislation that is supposed to address the tragic situation where a rouge pharmacy acted like a manufacturer and violated numerous laws, resulting in the death of many people and making even more gravely ill.  But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), an organization created and funding by the big drug companies, is apparently trying to use this tragedy to eliminate competition and treatment options at the expense of our beloved pets.

The amendment that will soon be offered targets the availability of customized medications that a veterinarian believes is in the best interest of family pets and horses.  These important treatment options entail making specialized drugs fromactive pharmaceutical ingredients in a precise dosage amount, or in a form that a veterinarian believes would increase compliance and the ease of administration. For example, a bitter tablet might be altered to a flavored powder that can be sprinkled on food, or a pill a pet refuses to swallow might be converted to a cream that can be rubbed onto the animal’s skin). Your pet gets the treatment it needs and deserves, but the drug companies do not get the profits they seem to think they are entitled to get.

The amendment was temporarily pulled from S.959 when it was approved on May 22, 2013 by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. But as a lobbyist for AHI was recently quoted in a trade journal, ““We hope our absence from the bill is temporary.”
 

As published in an earlier draft of S.959 the proposal would do the following:

• Veterinarians would be limited to the compounded medications they can prescribe to a list of bulk ingredients that are on a positive list created by the FDA. Elephants, giraffes, hamsters and other “minor species” would not be limited. This would be the first time that a medical provider (veterinarians) and a group of patients (dogs, cats and horses) would be limited to treatment options to a positive list developed by the federal government. It also would stifle innovation, as any new treatments could not be considered, as they would obviously not be included on the positive list.
• The amendment would eliminate or drastically restrict the availability of compounded medications that are regularly stocked in veterinary offices for emergency or routine usage. This could delay or prevent treatment necessary to keep pets alive and healthy.
• The FDA is given expanded new authority to classify variations of drug company products, which is the very definition of compounded medications, as illegal copies, further threatening treatment options.  Veterinarians would still be able to prescribe some of these therapies under a limited exception contained in the bill, but FDA could impose new regulations and limitations that could make this difficult.

There is no legitimate medical reason to limit the treatment options for dogs, cats and horses while these same options would be available for zoo animals and other exotic pets. Yes, we want elephants and panda bears to live a long time.  But we also want our family pets and horses to enjoy the same treatments to help them survive and stay healthy. An older dog, cat or horse can suffer from conditions such as diabetes, cancer and rheumatism. We need our veterinarians to have all the options they need at their disposal to give them the best care possible.

While this proposal is highly restrictive, it may not be enough to satisfy the Animal Health Institute.  The same lobbyist quoted above talked about his disappointment with the “permissiveness” of the proposals listed above. Apparently it didn’t eliminate treatment options for dogs, cats and horses quickly enough....

quoted from here