Ohio Pharmacists Association opposes Issue 2

Photo credit: El Dorado County Sheriff's Office

After putting together a blog last month on Issue 2 – the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act – it may still be confusing. Here is the very brief summary from the Ohio Pharmacists Assoc. with a link to the full article – which is accessible to any voter. It also contains a video message.

The Ohio Pharmacists Association (OPA) has joined a growing coalition of stakeholders, experts, and patients in opposition to Issue 2 the so-called “Ohio Drug Price Relief Act” - a proposal (referred to as an initiated statute) that will be on the November 2017 ballot in Ohio.

As part of the Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue coalition, OPA will be working hard to defeat a measure that could have serious negative consequences for pharmacies, payers, employers, veterans, and patients.

The "Ohio Drug Price Relief Act" is being pushed by controversial California activist Michael Weinstein, and would prohibit Ohio’s state government from paying any more for prescription drugs than the lowest price paid by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Their web page is here.

# # #

Issue 2 on Ohio ballots: pharmaceuticals (what IS this issue?)

image credit: MyDaytonDailyNews.com

Cleveland.com reported on the panel forum in Bay Village yesterday that presented pro and the con views of Issue 2, which will be on the ballot state-wide this November. The report was not all that illuminating, so here’s the actual language that voters will see on the ballot (via the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections):

Issue 2 To require state agencies to not pay more for prescription drugs than the federal Department of Veterans Affairs and require state payment of attorney fees and expenses to specific individuals for defense of the law Proposed Law Proposed by Initiative Petition To enact Chapter 194 of the Ohio Revised Code A majority yes vote is necessary for the law to pass. 

To enact Chapter 194 of the Ohio Revised Code, which would: 

• Require the State of Ohio, including its state departments, agencies and entities, to not pay more for prescription drugs than the price paid by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. 

• Establish that the individual petitioners responsible for proposing the law have a direct and personal stake in defending the law; require the State to pay petitioners’ reasonable attorney fees and other expenses; require the petitioners to pay $10,000 to the State if the law is held by a court to be unenforceable and limit petitioners’ personal liability to that amount; and require the Attorney General to defend the law if challenged in court. 

SHALL THE PROPOSED LAW BE ADOPTED?

An Ohio doctor, Dr. Mike Sevilla, posted his page on Issue 2, and it’s a resource to start with, with several links to proponents and opponents of the Issue. And here’s the take posted by the Ohio Pharmacists organization. For what it is worth, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed Issue 2.

# # #

art credit : avalonboro.net

All Election results are at Cleveland.com. Below are the results for the two Issues you've been reading about on this blog:

Issue 2, the Ohio constitutional anti-monopoly amendment, passed, allowing the Ohio Ballot Board to regulate future ballot measures dealing with monopolies. The votes:

Yes  157,155

No   148,421

Issue 3, to legalize marijuana, failed. The votes:

Yes  123,493

No   188,434

Good!

# # #

Election Day November 3, 2015 issues

art credit: montgomerynews.com

Election Day November 3, 2015

For a look at the ballot initiatives that residents of Cuyahoga County will vote on next Tuesday, see a sample ballot in PDF format at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website here.  (You’ll need to enter your ward number and precinct letter; you will have those details on the voter registration card you received in the mail from the BoE.)

Some of the issues on the ballot fall under the Tea Party Patriot platform of fiscal responsibility and free markets.

If you are already confused because ballot Issues #2 (anti-monopoly) and #3 (legalize marijuana in Ohio) seem to be in conflict with each other, below are remarks by Ohio Senator Larry Obhof (R-Ohio Senate District 22) on what voters need to know about Issues 2 and 3 (h/t Ohio Christian Alliance Click here for OCA Voter Guide):

Issue 2 is specifically limited to initiatives that would purport to grant a private interest or group of private interests a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect citizen-led initiatives, unless they are designed to give someone a monopoly or a special tax rate not available to similarly situated persons.
 

Issue 2 will protect the Ohio Constitution from special interests buying their way into the state’s foundational document.  Frankly, this is long overdue and should have been proposed after the casino amendment a few years ago.  Carve-outs for specific investors, protections from competition, the addresses of particular businesses … these things do not belong in the Ohio Constitution.  
 

Regardless of one’s position on the Issue, [some of the information being promoted concerning these issues is misleading or incorrect, as per below]:

1.   Statement: “There is no judicial review over the ballot board decision.”

This is simply wrong and is contradicted by the plain text of Issue. Section C clearly provides for judicial review and states that “The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.”

2. Statement: “This restriction could extend to issues such as ballot initiatives for workplace freedom, protection of life, etc.”  

Issue 2 would not affect a "workplace freedom amendment."  A workplace freedom amendment would not grant a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” and it would not specify a tax rate or commercial right or license that is not available to similarly situated persons.  And keep in mind that even under Issue 2, one could specify a tax rate or provide commercial rights or licenses.  Issue 2 only affects such initiatives if they would carve out a special tax rate for a small group of people that is not available to other, similarly situated persons.

[Senator Obhof] cannot think of any logical basis for saying that Issue 2 would affect an initiative related to “protection of life.”  It is hard to conceive of a pro-life ballot initiative that would also grant someone a monopoly, or a special tax carve-out or commercial license not available to similarly situated persons.     

3. Statement: “Consider this scenario:  If Issue 2 had been in the Constitution prior to now, the effort that many concerned citizens launched to limit strip clubs’ hours of operation and activities, should it have needed to be placed on the ballot, would be subject to Issue 2’s provisions, as it would be deemed to limit the commercial activity of a state license holder (alcohol establishments).”  

Issue 2 would not apply to this scenario.  Issue 2 only applies to attempts to “grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect an initiative to limit clubs’ hours or activities.  It would not even affect a ban on such clubs, unless the ban carved out specific clubs for special treatment (i.e., closing all clubs except for 10 of them, or closing all clubs except those owned by a specific operator or group of operators).   

4. Statement:  “If a citizen’s initiative goes before the Ballot Board there is no judicial recourse for the citizens to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court.”  

First, this contradicts the earlier statement that there is no judicial review over the ballot board’s decision.  Obviously, review by the Ohio Supreme Court is “judicial review.”   

Second, the scope of review is not more or less under Issue 2 than it is for any other party in Ohio’s court system.  What does it mean to say “there is no judicial recourse … to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court”?  When does anyone challenge a ruling by the Supreme Court?  On questions of state law, the Ohio Supreme Court is the court of last resort.  That is not any different under Issue 2 than it would be if you and I sued each other under state law.   

Thanks to Sen. Obhof for setting the record straight.

# # #