Why We Don’t Need More Regulation of Drug Ads

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This past legislative session, Missouri was one of 27 states to file legislation that would restrict pharmaceutical advertising. And a column in the Post-Dispatch a few weeks ago complained about pharmaceutical advertising’s possible adverse effects:

Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers are traveling the country, armed with presentations they say will educate sophisticated consumers responsible for more of their health care dollar.

But the effect could be the same as it has been with pharmaceutical commercials — more patients begging for the latest in medicine even if the science isn’t as good or a less expensive option would work just as well.

Now, Christie Raniszewski Herrera is blogging about the issue at StateHouseCall.org:

A Cornell study compared magazine advertising data with the reading habits of smokers and found that the more magazine ads smokers saw for the nicotine patch and other quit-smoking aids, the more likely they were to try to quit smoking and be successful — even without buying the products.

Reading this reminded me of another study demonstrating the benefits of prescription drug advertising. This wonderful paper by Alan Sorenson (who’s now at the Stanford business school) provides evidence that consumers use advertisements to shop around and save money on prescription drugs.

The Missouri Plan, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lawyers

Posted on by David Stokes

Missourians amended our state constitution in 1940 to change the ways judges were selected for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and Saint Louis City. This was done in response to public concerns about the power of political machines in electing judges under the previous system. Dubbed “The Missouri Plan,” it has been expanded to include circuit judges in Saint Louis, Clay, and Platte Counties. The amendment’s provisions replaced elections with a judicial commission, which reviews applicants for open positions and narrows the list down to three choices. The governor then selects a new judge from that panel. The system has worked very well for Missourians, taking some of the politics out of judgeships and efficiently filling vacancies. However, a few important changes could make the plan work even better.

The recent Supreme Court opening has raised to new prominence the simmering dispute over the true non-partisanship of the Missouri Plan. Allies of Governor Matt Blunt feel that the current appellate judicial commission has not fairly recognized the fact that he, not the commission, is the elected leader of Missouri. The current make-up of both the commission and its recently selected panel, which many conservatives feel is tilted toward the left, seem to substantiate this charge. This has led to calls from some legislators to do away with the Missouri Plan. While changes need to be made, doing away with the plan entirely would be going too far.

The most important change for the Missouri Plan is the elimination of six-year, staggered terms for governor-appointed positions. In theory, staggered terms might allow for more independence and less partisanship, but in reality they have served to allow outgoing governors to load up commissions with their supporters beyond their terms in office. For example, former governor Bob Holden made six appointments to various judicial commissions during the time between when Governor Blunt was elected and took office two months later. Stacking the deck with supporters of your own party is, I am confident to say, not what the framers of the Missouri Plan had in mind. Making the appointed positions’ term coincide with the governor’s own term would serve to respect the wishes of voters and whatever candidate they choose to elect.

The second change I recommend is to add one appointed position to each commission, making the number of appointments equal to the number of judges and attorneys on the commission. Currently, the appellate commission is made up of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, three lawyers elected by the bar association, and three gubernatorial appointments. Each of the county commissions is made up of that circuit’s chief judge, two elected lawyers, and two gubernatorial appointments. Adding an additional appointment to each commission would make the landscape for selection more balanced. Let us not delude ourselves about the goals of the lawyers who run for judicial commissions via bar association elections. They, particularly the activists within the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, are not always looking for the most qualified people to elevate to judgeships. Many of them are looking to support candidates who agree with their legal opinions.

Supporters of the Missouri Plan can point out that the retention votes appointed judges will face in the future act as a check and balance for the system. The retention vote is a good practice, but electoral history has shown it is almost impossible to get enough people to focus on the issue. Last year in Saint Louis County, a judge was handily retained by voters when an overwhelming number of lawyers, in a bar association survey, had advised against retaining her — a recommendation echoed by area newspapers. Perhaps we could improve the retention vote system by taking a page from Illinois and mandating a 60-percent vote in favor of retention in order for a judge to remain in office. I believe that is an idea worth debating.

Finally, the Legislature should take steps to make it clear to all that the various judicial commissions’ actions are covered by the state’s sunshine law. It astounds me that an appointed commission thinks it does not have to comply with Missouri citizens’ basic right to know what their government officials are doing. With these changes, I believe we can reach a fair compromise and retain the best parts of the Missouri Plan for judicial selections, without returning to the electoral problems that led us to create the plan in the first place.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute.

 

Finally, Some Push-Back on Red Light Cameras!

Posted on by David Stokes

It appears that some brave aldermen in the St. Louis County municipality of Northwoods are resisting efforts to install red light cameras within their city. They see cameras for what they really are: a naked attempt to collect more money for municipalities. I say bravo to the aldermen for resisting this attempt, and wish them all the best in their efforts!

School Choice Goes Way Back

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

How old is the modern school choice movement? If you’ve visited the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation website lately, you know it’s 52. Here‘s Milton Friedman’s original voucher proposal of 1955:

The arrangement that perhaps comes closest to being justified by these considerations — at least for primary and secondary education — is a mixed one under which governments would continue to administer some schools but parents who chose to send their children to other schools would be paid a sum equal to the estimated cost of educating a child in a government school, provided that at least this sum was spent on education in an approved school.

The Friedman Foundation has a lot of great information online, including research publications, the ABCs of School Choice, and the Advocate archives. But the best part of the site is the updated newsroom, where you can compare school choice programs and proposed legislation across states.

If Friedman himself were still alive, he would have just turned 95. The Show-Me Institute celebrated his birthday in partnership with the Friedman Foundation by cosponsoring a luncheon in Columbia. Here you can read William Poole’s speech about Friedman’s legacy. 

Ethanol Wins Out, Unfortunately

Posted on by Maurice Harris

An letter to the editor in today’s Springfield News-Leader laments the decision by Gov. Matt Blunt to keep a $42 million subsidy for ethanol production, rather than shifting that money toward water conservation in Southwest Missouri. The worst part of this state funding of ethanol production is that it would cause more water to be used by the plant, damaging the region’s groundwater:

The proposed Rogersville ethanol plant, just a few miles east of Ozark,
if built will use 1.3 million gallons of water a day! As will each new
subsidized plant built in Missouri.Hundreds of reliable Internet sources condemn ethanol production: for
its toxic emissions and effluents; as an ineffective gasoline
alternative; for dramatically raising food prices; but most
frightening, for its contamination and horrific waste of ground water.

Some politicians seem as though they’ve been led to believe that ethanol is the cure-all solution to our energy crisis. In reality, ethanol is more costly than gasoline; it takes more fuel to make a gallon of ethanol than that gallon produces for consumers. Also, ethanol’s environmental repercussions, as pointed out in the op-ed, make ethanol production a poor strategy for solving our foreign oil dependency. Instead of wasting tax dollars on a fuel that does more harm than good, let’s use it to conserve a substance we all need in order to live … water.

Ever Get The Feeling You’ve Been Cheated?

Posted on by David Stokes

Maurice posted yesterday on this infuriating story from the AP about the decision by state government five years ago to stop notifying businesses when they overpaid sales taxes. Befitting the fact that Maurice is a very nice young man, his post politely criticized this desision. I, on the other hand, would like someone to explain to me why this decision by the Holden administration is anything short of stealing. If somebody owes me $10, and they mistakenly give me a $20 bill, I have a moral obligation to return them the extra $10. Doesn’t the state have the same responsibility? The answer is obviously yes, and I commend the Blunt administration for changing this awful decision.

By the way, in order to get the full effect of this post’s title, you must say it with an Engllish accent and imagine looking over a crowd in San Francisco while uttering this famously appropriate summation to the end of one of the most awsome bands of all time.

No Child Left Behind, Take 2

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here‘s another article in the Post-Dispatch about No Child Left Behind. This one quotes Show-Me Institute board member Mike Podgursky:

"You’re not gonna hit 100 percent here," said Michael Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. The only way to make it would be to keep lowering the definition of proficient, he said.

The most important thing is that the scores show improvement, Podgursky said.

I may have been overly optimistic in my previous post on NCLB. As Tim pointed out to me, the requirement for adequate yearly progress encourages districts to focus resources on the students who score just below the desired level and to write everyone else off.

I Know Some People Can’t Fathom This, But …

Posted on by David Stokes

There are actually some people left in America who don’t want government assistance! Per this Columbia Daily Tribune article (via Combest), Missouri has the number one participation rate in the country among those eligible for food stamps. I guess we should be proud of that. The social workers in the article sure are:

"We credit a lot of our success to our frontline workers. They’re the ones out there meeting with the public," she said. "They give 110 percent effort day in and day out, and, you know, we have an office in every county and more than one in some places."

Hey — as social programs go, the food stamp program might be the best. So don’t take this as a knock on food stamps, or social workers. It’s just the tone of the article — and I have read others like it, although I searched and failed to find them (one was from the LA Times in Kausfiles last year, If I recall).

Some types, generally of the left-leaning persuasion, just can not understand that people eligible for government aid might still prefer to make it by on their own. That just goes against their entire worldview. So instead of writing that 29 percent of Missourians take a pass on government aid, we get articles that say more needs to be done to ensure that every person eligible is in the system, ’cause it is not possible that they don’t wish to be. That’s it. Rant’s over.

Missouri Kept Extra Sales Tax Revenues

Posted on by Maurice Harris

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for the past five years the state of Missouri has quietly kept extra funds that it netted from overpaid sales taxes. During that time, many consumers — and the businesses they patronized — did not know they were paying more than required:

[A]fter the AP’s inquiry, the Revenue Department also acknowledged
that it had stopped notifying businesses in 2002 that they had overpaid
state sales and use taxes.

"Those funds were simply kept by the state, and a taxpayer may not have known that he or she had overpaid," Browning said.

This ostensible oversight probably stemmed from the fact that Missouri was in the midst of a fiscal crisis, using every revenue stream it could find to balance the budget.

But "with the downturn in revenue, and how desperately the Holden
administration was trying to hold things together, I can see how that
could have happened and probably did," said [former state Senator Wayne] Goode, who now is on the
board of directors for the Consumer Council of Missouri.

Even though the state was facing a tough financial situation, which it could have prevented if the previous administration had spent wisely, officials should have reported overcharging and refunded overpayments immediately. Now, consumers have no way to get their money back, because state law does not require businesses to refund money for sales tax overcharging. Hopefully, legislators will learn from this and change state law to protect taxpayers from future instances in which Missouri government officials decide they don’t want to follow the rules.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging