In the past two years, we have informed public policy debates on numerous and varied issues. Some notable examples include:

In the United States:

• Supported the Physician Payments Sunshine Act legislation (PDF 249KB). Merck supports the creation of a uniform, national program for disclosing certain financial relations between industry and physicians. We believe that such a program, implemented in consultation with industry and the physician community, could provide helpful information to the public.
• Supported efforts to strengthen anti-counterfeiting laws, including the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act.
• Supported increased federal and state funding for vaccine programs.
• Supported legislation creating an independent entity that conducts science-based comparative effectiveness research as a means to achieve greater value and efficiencies in the U.S. health care system. For more information, click here.
• Opposed legislation that would legalize the importation of pharmaceuticals from certain industrialized countries. Merck opposes importation because we believe it would compromise public trust in the manufacture and distribution of our medicines and harm the incentives that encourage Merck and other research-based companies to conduct the high-risk research and development that leads to new medicines. Merck medicines in other countries cost less than the same medicines in the United States for several reasons. The most significant is that many foreign governments artificially reduce our prices and sales through direct and often arbitrary government price controls and by denying their citizens access to the newest medicines. For more information, click here.
• Opposed legislation that would require the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to interfere in private sector negotiations between drug manufacturers and the private prescription drug plans that provide Medicare beneficiaries with their drug benefit. The Congressional Budget Office, the Department of HHS and private economists have stated that the removal of the non-interference provision would generate negligible savings and the private sector design of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage is more effective in reducing cost to beneficiaries and the government. For more information, click here.
• Opposed state legislative proposals that would unnecessarily regulate and/or restrict the ability of Merck professional representatives to interact with health professionals. Rather than pass different regulations in multiple states, Merck supports strong provisions in industry codes of conduct that govern the interaction of pharmaceutical representatives with health professionals. In 2008, we supported strengthening the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Code concerning the training and conduct of company sales representatives. Merck's rigorous compliance program ensures that all Company sales representatives receive comprehensive training about applicable laws, regulations and industry codes of practice. Merck supports the creation of a uniform, national program for disclosing certain financial relations between industry and physicians.

Internationally:

• Promoted health care system reform, including initiatives to address pricing and reimbursement conditions for innovative products in the European Union, Asia Pacific and Latin America. In Europe, for example, Merck supports many of the policies advocated by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries (EFPIA).
• Supported strong intellectual property protections in Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America.
• Advanced increased access to innovative medicines in many countries by supporting bilateral and multilateral trade agreements promoting more open and transparent markets. For example, Merck supports the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which, if ratified by both countries, would address discriminatory barriers to innovative pharmaceuticals in South Korea.
• Supported working with global health leaders on policies and projects to improve health care delivery systems in the developing world. See Merck's Program on Pharmaceutical Policy Issues for examples.
• Promoted policies that would support innovation and competitiveness in Mexico and other Latin America countries. For example, Merck supports the Global Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness.
• Supported systemic changes to improve the quality and timing of regulatory review in Japan.

Advocacy Performance Data Summary 2005-2007

Merck KPIs	2007	2006	2005
Corporate political contributions (US, CAN, AUS) US$*	US:$470,625 AUS:$19,195 CAN:$58,396	US: $611,975 AUS: $20,292 CAN: $45,765	US: $337,140 AUS:$12,137 CAN:$46,700
Portion of dues that the major U.S.- based trade associations report to us as being used for advocacy and/or political activities in the U.S.(U.S.$) where dues are > $ 50,000**	$6.9 million paid to 8 groups	n/a	n/a
Compliance with political contribution evaluation criteria used by the Center for Political Accountability***	10 out of 11 principles	n/a	n/a

---

*Totals reflect corporate contributions; employee contributions through the Merck PAC are not included. Political contributions in the United States, which are for state candidates, are always much greater in even-numbered calendar years, because that is when the overwhelming number of states hold their elections for state legislatures and governors.

** Because the U.S. tax law that requires this reporting does not apply outside the United States, trade associations that are not subject to this do not provide break-outs of lobbying expenditures from membership dues. Thus, at this time, Merck is unable to report these data for such lobbying expenses in other countries.

***Merck was in compliance with 10 of the 11 Center for Political Accountability criteria. We plan to address the 11th principle — The Company shall report annually on our website on adherence to our code for corporate political spending – in 2009.

The content on this page was last modified on October 24, 2008.