A Democratic congresswoman and Republican congressman are edging forward in the effort to change how Medicare pays doctors.

Also: The FDA warns about bone-strengthening drugs; Washington will pay primary-care doctors more; and a patients’ pain group folds hours after senators announce a probe.

Here’s what’s making news this morning: Advocacy groups are finding patients for drug trials. (WSJ).  The matchmaking comes as shortages of volunteers have slowed trials of new treatments for cancer and other diseases. Researchers identify the part of the brain that concentrates attention on a particular speaker. (WSJ). The finding explains the accidents people can have while multi-tasking during driving or the failures to observe events within one’s field of vision. Measles deaths world-wide drop by 74%, saving 9.6 million kids between 2000 and 2010. (AP). The drop, reported in Tuesday’s Lancet, is the result of vaccination campaigns, but fails to meet a World Health Organization target of a 90-percent reduction. Social Security will exhaust its reserves three years earlier than had been estimated. (WSJ). Funds for the retirement and disability benefits will run out in 2033, increasing the pressure on Washington to find a fix.

How did last month’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the health-overhaul law shift public opinion? Not much, it turns out. Some 43% of respondents in an April poll carried out by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation had an unfavorable view of the health law — up from 40% in March. Forty-two percent had a favorable view, up from 41% the previous month. That’s all within the poll’s +/- 3 percentage-point margin of error, which had 1,210 respondents. Feelings about the least popular aspect of the overhaul — a requirement that individuals buy insurance or pay a fee, which is also the centerpiece of the constitutional challenge to the law — are also virtually unchanged. Some 30% say they support the requirement, and 70% oppose it, up from 32% and 66%, respectively, in March. More people knew the requirement is in the law: 74%, up from 64% in March. And feelings about the Court itself have changed among Republicans. After oral arguments, 43% of respondents who identified themselves as Republicans said they had confidence in the justices, up 19 percentage points from the previous month. Only 29% of Democrats, however, said in April that they had confidence in the justices, almost unchanged from March. What’s more, few respondents said the Court’s ruling would change their opinion of the law anyway. Some 81% said that however they feel about the law now, it would be the same if the court rules that the individual mandate is constitutional. For both political parties, that means doubling down on their messaging heading in to the general election, whether it’s fighting to overturn the provisions of the law, in the case of Republicans, or to protect them, in the case of Democrats.

Three days of arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul kick off Monday morning. A ruling is expected in late June. The White House and allies say the law must be upheld to ensure that Congress can make comprehensive moves to tackle national problems. Critics say the federal government should be restricted in what it can require of citizens. WSJ’s Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin provide a comprehensive overview of what’s going on and what’s at stake, and here’s a handy primer on the issues from Louise Radnofsky. Track events live, inside and outside the court on Washington Wire’s live blog. Image source: iStockphoto

PARLKAND (CBS4) – A Florida congressman is proposing a bill that would ban Chinese drywall from being imported into the United States. Congressman Ted Deutch announced the legislation at a news conference Tuesday in Parkland, where many homes were built with the tainted product. “The families dealing with the havoc of Chinese drywall deserve justice,” Deutch said. The bill, co-sponsored by a Virginia congressman, would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to “declare drywall manufactured in China a banned hazardous product.” The bill would also urge the Secretary of State to make the Chinese government force the manufacturers of the product sit down and negotiate a settlement with victims. “One of the most important things that this does is it makes it official United States policy to call to account the Chinese companies and the Chinese government to force them to sit down at the table,” Deutch explained. Attending the news conference were several victims of tainted Chinese drywall, like Barbara Tutin and her husband. They built their dream home in Delray Beach in 2001. Tutin said she quickly started noticing the telltale signs of tainted Chinese drywall — like damaged air conditioning coils…a funny odor…and silver items turning colors. She and her husband are suing the makers of the drywall but have gotten nowhere, they said. “China’s not doing any thing and our government really isn’t doing much,” Tutin said. “We have a lot of people suffering. It’s very frustrating.” The thousands of victims, like Tutin, whose homes were built with tainted Chinese drywall hope that Congressman Ted Deutch’s proposed legislation will help others from being victimized. But Tutin is not sure the bill goes far enough. She believes Congress should set aside money for victims to rebuild their damaged homes. “We bought in good faith,” she said. “This was our retirement home. We can’t afford to move out and rebuild on our own.” Another thing this bill would do — regulate the way the tainted chinese drywall is disposed of. Deutch says there have been reports that the tainted drywall has made it back into housing products. Deutch said there is discussion about bringing a similar piece of legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Penalties for selling fake medicines would double if a bill passed last night by the U.S. Senate becomes law. The counterfeiting bill, which has not passed the House of Representatives, would boost the maximum penalty for importing and marketing forged drugs in the U.S. from 10 years of imprisonment and a $2 million fine for individuals to $4 million and 20 years behind bars. Companies implicated in counterfeiting crimes could face steeper fines. Under current law, the penalties for trafficking bogus pharmaceuticals are the same as selling other counterfeit goods, such as electronics and clothing, according to the office of Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat who sponsored the legislation, putting suppliers of knockoff Versace purses on the same shelf as say, vendors of fake cancer drugs. Sen. Bennet’s press release said the recently discovered fake Avastin vials, a fraudulent version of Roche Holding AG’s cancer drug which regulators said recently reached U.S. physician practices, shows the danger of counterfeiting. Unlike a knockoff handbag — or even fakes of Pfizer’s Viagra, the erectile dysfunction treatment favored by counterfeiters of an earlier generation – the product is meant to extend life. By its nature, faking cancer drugs puts “Americans at risk,” Bennet’s press release said . Just this morning, the WSJ reported that the Canadian businessman who did bring that phony Avastin into the U.S. is, along with an associate, now under scrutiny by U.S. investigators in connection with separate crimes related to illegally importing drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Subpoenas recently probed California physician offices who bought their products for documentation of their business dealings with the man’s companies. But, authorities don’t believe he knowingly sold the counterfeit drugs. Sen. Bennet’s office confirmed that the change of law would only apply to those who purposefully peddle fakes. Image: iStockphoto

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan proposes changes to Medicare’s benefit structure. The latest poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds most people want to keep Medicare’s basic benefit structure as it is today — though those on both side of the argument can potentially be swayed. When originally asked whether Medicare should continue as it is today — with the government guaranteeing a certain set of health benefits for seniors — or be changed “to a system in which the government would guarantee each senior a fixed amount of money to put toward health insurance,” 70% of survey respondents wanted to keep it as is, with 25% preferring a change. That proposed change to the government insurance program is what has been suggested by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as well as by two members of Congress : Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. Seniors would be able to use a subsidy to purchase traditional Medicare or private coverage. Some of the initial opposition to such a change — which existed even among a small majority of Republicans — has the potential to melt away in the face of certain arguments, though. Of the 70% who backed the current structure, half said they were “more interested” in the proposal if told that without the change, “Medicare’s costs will be unsustainable and the program will go bankrupt.” Respondents were a tad less swayed by arguments about the benefit of having private plans compete for seniors’ business and the fact that today’s seniors wouldn’t be subject to the proposed changes. The 25% of those who initially supported the proposed change could also be persuaded to change their minds — more than half of those folks were less interested in the proposal if told that “it will turn Medicare into a voucher program and give the insurance industry too much influence over seniors’ health care.” The notion that the change saves money by shifting costs to seniors and the argument that if the change is made, “Medicare as we know it will no longer exist” had the potential to change the minds of a slightly smaller percentage of original supporters. The poll covered a nationally representative sample of 1,519 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Photo: Associated Press

By Joe Palazzolo A federal rule that requires tobacco companies to display pictures of diseased lungs or other graphic images on cigarette packs is unconstitutional, a judge in Washington ruled Wednesday. Regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would have required tobacco companies to display the images on the top half of cigarette packs, front and back. It was scheduled to take effect in September. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the Obama administration failed “to convey any factual information supported by evidence about the actual health consequences of smoking through its use of these graphic images.” The rule, he said, violates companies’ First Amendment protections against government-compelled speech. Several tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Liggett Group, filed a lawsuit against the FDA in August, challenging the rule, which stems from the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The government can compel companies to disclose factual, uncontroversial information, to protect consumers from deception or confusion. But the compelled speech can’t be overly burdensome. Other images were of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a kiss from his or her mother; a diseased mouth afflicted with what appears to be cancerous lesions; and a man breathing into an oxygen mask. In his ruling, Leon said that “the graphic images here were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.” Leon said the government could have used far less heavy-handed means in its anti-smoking campaign, such as boosting its own anti-smoking advertisements, requiring companies to place smaller warning labels on their products and changing the images so they convey factual information. “Unfortunately, because Congress did not consider the First Amendment implications of this legislation, it did not concern itself with how the regulations could be narrowly tailored to avoid unintentionally compelling commercial speech,” Leon said. The FDA hasn’t responded to a request for comment. (This post originally appeared on the WSJ’s Law Blog.)

NEW YORK (AP) — Planned Parenthood said Wednesday that it received more than $400,000 from 6,000 donors in the 24 hours after news broke that its affiliates would be losing grants for breast screenings from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer foundation. Komen, meanwhile, incurred heated criticism from some members of Congress, numerous liberal advocacy groups and some newspaper editorial writers. But it was applauded by many conservative religious and anti-abortion groups that abhor Planned Parenthood for its role as the leading U.S. abortion provider. Planned Parenthood says the funding cutoff was a result of Komen succumbing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen, in a statement issued Wednesday evening, denied that politics played a role and reiterated that its decision was based on newly adopted criteria for issuing grants. The criteria bar grants to any organization that’s under local, state or federal investigation. Planned Parenthood is being investigated for alleged financial improprieties by a Republican congressman acting with the encouragement of anti-abortion groups. “We regret that these new policies have impacted some long-standing grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics,” the Komen statement said. It pledged to ensure that women who need breast-health services can still have access to them. Dr. Eric Winer, a breast cancer specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who is chairman of Komen’s scientific advisory council, said he was confident that breast-screening availability would not be jeopardized. “The last thing in the world that anyone at Komen wants to do … is to decrease the resources that are available to those women,” he said. Nonetheless, some members of Komen’s nationwide network were unsettled. The Komen affiliate in Connecticut posted a notice on its website saying it has enjoyed a “great partnership” with Planned Parenthood of Southern New England and noting that the funding decision was made at Komen’s national headquarters. “We understand, and share, in the frustration around this situation,” the notice said. “We hope that any investigation prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving Komen grants is promptly resolved.” Planned Parenthood said the Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, going to 19 of its affiliates for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services. According to Planned Parenthood, its health centers performed more than 4 million breast exams over the past five years, including nearly 170,000 as a result of Komen grants. Andrea Hagelgans, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, said the organization was grateful for the outpouring of support since Tuesday evening, when The Associated Press first reported Komen’s decision. “People respond powerfully when they see politics interfering with women’s health,” she said. “These donations will continue to help expand Planned Parenthood’s critical health care services nationwide, especially those affiliates impacted by the Komen cuts.” Several members of Congress who support abortion rights voiced dismay at the grant cutoff. “I was perplexed and troubled to see the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut off funding for lifesaving breast cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood because of a political witch hunt by House Republicans,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. “I truly hope that they will reconsider this decision and put the needs of women first.” The progressive group MoveOn.org launched an online petition calling on Komen to maintain its grants to Planned Parenthood. It said 60,000 people had signed in a matter of hours. Komen won praise from anti-abortion activists such as Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. “The work of the Komen Foundation has lifesaving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death,” said Yoest, a breast-cancer survivor. She said she had stopped running in Komen’s Race for the Cure because of its ties with Planned Parenthood, but “in the future, I’ll be racing with them to support this courageous decision.” Komen, based in Dallas and founded in 1982, has invested more than $1.9 billion since then in research, health services and advocacy while becoming the largest breast-cancer charity in the nation. Its Race for the Cure fundraising events have become a global phenomenon. Editorials about Komen’s decision were published by several newspapers. “Komen caved to political pressure,” wrote editorial writer Tod Robberson in the Dallas Morning News. “The next time Komen for the Cure comes asking us for an editorial supporting one of their local events, I’m going the think twice.” The Star-Ledger in New Jersey took a more nuanced view. “It’s hard to see who the winners are in this mess,” it wrote. “As so often happens when their bodies become a political battleground, women ultimately lose.” (©2012 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)