Robert H. Gifford Deficient act this kind of activity can be greatly strengthened by preliminary work in getting managerial endorsement and understanding. The administration of the State Technical Services Act is a failure as far as small business is concerned in the opinion of Henry J. Capello, a consultant for the National Small Business Association. "The present concept leads to a fractionated, diffused, and highly duplicative effort, and fails to utilize available federal funds in a way that contributes to dissemination of technical information to small business," he says. He believes that the program should be reoriented to look like this: • Individual universities should be given responsibility to serve as a clearinghouse and to compile publications and data in one or more technological areas within their special competence. Each such institution would be responsible for two publications: a yearbook setting forth in reasonable detail all recent accomplishments in the selected field, and a looseleaf codified service which compiles abstracts and citations on a continuing basis similar to services provided by Commerce Clearing House, and the like. • The program should provide consultants for small business. They would work with individual firms and suggest specific new technology to improve operations. • Matching funds now provided to state industrial development commissions by OSTS should be earmarked for direct consultant services to small business. Information policies of federal agencies doing large amounts of R&D also
were attacked. Mr. Capello thinks that the concepts and procedures involved in existing programs are sound but that very little of it is either readily available or useful to small business. "Much of this information is so voluminous or disorganized that the average small businessman does not have time to dig for useful nuggets of technology," he says. Mr. Gifford also believes that the technical service programs of such agencies as NASA, AEC, and other research agencies are not very useful for small business. The reason is that they are too complicated. For example, he says that AEC's program has taken on a strong characteristic of exchange on a bilateral basis at a high echelon. "It is more oriented to information exchange among the federal agencies, major information centers, and on an international basis than to the American businessman," he says. Another problem is complexity. Information centers are moving toward more sophisticated techniques using microfilm and computer tapes. Frequently this information is too obscure and too inaccessible for the small businessman. Mr. Gifford thinks that regional centers might work out some technique like the bookmobile where potential users receive information in their own environment. The committee last week scheduled another round of hearings at which NASA and OSTS were slated to rebut the criticisms.
Sen. Long agrees to changes in generic drug bill Sen. Russell B. Long indicates that he is willing to stand still for some major changes in his controversial bill to encourage the prescription of drugs by generic name in federally supported health programs. The concessions he offers, however, are not likely to appreciably improve the bill's chances for approval this year. At this point, these chances are virtually nil. The firebrand Louisiana Democrat offered his concessions as his Senate Finance Committee wound up public hearings on the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. The Long bill (S. 2299) is being proposed as an amendment (266) to the House-approved measure (H.R. 12080) to increase social security benefits. It calls for establishing a nine-man "Formulary Committee" to draw up a list of drugs for which patients would be reimbursed under medicare and federal welfare programs. The bill directs the committee to bar from the "National Formulary" any drug preparation it
determines to be "unnecessary or therapeutically duplicative." The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare then would set a price ceiling for each of the committee-approved drugs. Patients would not be reimbursed if they paid prices above the ceiling. Sen. Long now says that he is willing to go along with an amendment to the bill to reimburse the patient for the full cost of any drug, "regardless of whether it was included in the formulary," provided the physician specifies on the prescription that he wants the product of a particular manufacturer. The physician would have to write the generic name of the drug first and then specify after it the manufacturer. Sen. Long also offers to extend the effective date of the measure, from July 1, 1969, to July 1, 1970, to give agencies time to "tool up." Sen. Long's concession on brandname drugs took drug industry representatives on hand completely by surprise. At press time, the industry apparently still hadn't recovered from the shock sufficiently to comment on the proposed amendment. Administration spokesmen also would not comment officially on the concessions. The Administration opposed the Long proposal in original form on the grounds that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to administer, and could eliminate competition in the drug industry. HEW Secretary John Gardner earlier had urged the committee to delay action on the measure until at least next June, when HEW's Task Force on Prescription Drugs makes its final report. He submitted the task force's report on problems posed by the Long proposal which are now being studied. In addition to the problems of administration, costs, and competition, the task force points out that the concept of generic (or therapeutic) equivalency on which the bill is based "may not exist in fact." It could also result in delaying introduction of drugs and a reduction in drug quality. And the job of determining relative drug quality "would require the efforts of the most highly qualified medical scientists over a period of years in work that offers little promise of advancing medical knowledge," it says. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association also wants to defer action on the Long proposal until the HEW task force study is completed. PMA says the proposal would "reduce the quality of medical care for social security beneficiaries, interfere unduly with physicians providing the best possible medication under social security programs, and jeopardize the ability of quality, research-oriented pharmaceutical companies to perform effectively." OCT.
2, 1967 C&EN
19
