A federal bill that would have halted sales of silicone breast implants ran into a costly lobbying effort from implant maker Mentor, but not from its arch-rival, Allergan.
Irvine-based Allergan focused last year’s $520,000 lobbying effort on Medicare issues related to other Allergan products, according to filings Allergan made at the U.S. Senate’s public records office.
In contrast, federal filings listed $340,000 in spending by Mentor of Santa Barbara, much of it focused on H.R. 2503, the “FDA Scientific Fairness to Women Act.”
That bill, which died in committee last year, would have required the Food and Drug Administration to block sales of silicone breast implants unless manufacturers could prove the implants are safe over the life of the device.
When the FDA allowed sales of silicone implants to resume in 2006, it required Allergan and Mentor to continue studying silicone leakage for 10 years, and to watch for health problems such as chronic pain. The FDA also told people with silicone implants to get regular MRI scans to check for leaks.
Mentor’s lobbying expenses came in for criticism from some women’s groups. For example, critics of breast-implant safety at the blog “Beauty and the Breast” said the bill died “because the voices of women’s health advocates supporting the bill have been completely drowned out by the shower of Mentor’s hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Mentor declined to comment on the issue.
Allergan, which makes Botox, specialty drugs, breast implants and other products, reported spending $200,000 on lobbyists in 2006.
Allergan spokeswoman Caroline Van Hove said the company’s spending on lobbying hasn’t changed much from year to year, but changes in federal rules about such disclosures could create an impression that lobbying expenses rose.
Some 2007 filings by Allergan’s lobbying firms were more specific than Allergan was about the focus of their work.
Arnold & Porter cited “issues related to Medicare reimbursement for orphan drugs, Medicare drug reimbursement, and Medicare coding” in its early-2007 filing. The McManus Group cited the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007″ and “Clarification of scope of Medicaid rebates for physician-administered drugs in Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.” Jeffrey Kimbell and Associates cited “research dollars” and other issues.
(Updated Friday afternoon to include Mentor’s “no comment.”)
