DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Introduced Bill to Help Company Days After Buying Stock

Washington (CNN)Rep. Tom Price last year purchased shares in a medical device manufacturer days before introducing legislation that would have directly benefited the company, raising new ethics concerns for President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.

Price bought between $1,001 to $15,000 worth of shares last March in Zimmer Biomet, according to House records reviewed by CNN.

Less than a week after the transaction, the Georgia Republican congressman introduced the HIP Act, legislation that would have delayed until 2018 a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulation that industry analysts warned would significantly hurt Zimmer Biomet financially once fully implemented

Zimmer Biomet, one of the world's leading manufacturers of knee and hip implants, was one of two companies that would been hit the hardest by the new CMS regulation that directly impacts the payments for such procedures, according to press reports and congressional sources.

After Price offered his bill to provide Zimmer Biomet and other companies relief from the CMS regulation, the company's political action committee donated to the congressman's reelection campaign, records show.

If confirmed, Price will be a key player in Trump's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Trump last week said a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare will be submitted "as soon as" Price is confirmed. He will appear before the Senate health committee this week, but must also appear before the Senate Finance Committee.

The new revelation is the latest example of Price trading stock in a health care firm at the same time as pursuing legislation that could impact a company's share price. The issue has become a major liability for the congressman after The Wall Street Journal reported last month that he traded roughly $300,000 in shares over the past four years in health companies while pursuing legislation that could impact them.

The purchase of the Zimmer Biomet shares is the latest such example, raising new concerns among ethics experts that Price may have inappropriately used inside information while purchasing shares in a company. Concerns over insider trading on Capitol Hill -- where members of Congress allegedly traded stock based on intelligence gleaned from the legislative process -- prompted the enactment of the STOCK Act in 2012 aimed at combating the practice.

"It clearly has the appearance of using your influence as a congressman to your financial benefit," Larry Noble, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group, said of Price's transaction. "If he believed in the bill, he should not have purchased the stock."

Phil Blando, a Price spokesman, did not initially respond directly to questions about the HHS nominee's purchase of Zimmer Biomet shares, instead pointing to a broader review of Price's holdings completed by the US Office of Government Ethics last week.

"Dr. Price takes his obligation to uphold the public trust very seriously," Blando said. "The Office of Government Ethics has completed an exhaustive review of Dr. Price's financial holdings and just as Dr. Price was compliant with congressional disclosure rules, Dr. Price will comply fully with the recommendations put forward by the ethics office."

After CNN's report published, Blando said: "Any effort to connect the introduction of Dr. Price's legislation, cosponsored with Democrats, to a campaign contribution is demonstrably false. Dr. Price is fully complying with the recommendations put forth by the Office of Government Ethics."
Zimmer Biomet is included in a broker-directed account and that the stock was purchased without his knowledge, a Price aide said after the story published.

But CNN asked Price's office before the story published if there was a broker involved in the transaction.

A spokesperson for Zimmer Biomet did not respond to an inquiry seeking comment.
To avoid the appearance of conflicts-of-interest, Price announced last week that he would divest from 43 companies -- including Zimmer Biomet -- within 90 days of Senate confirmation. He said he will "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter" on an issue that could affect any of those companies if he has not yet fully divested from them.

But as a congressman, Price did not appear to adhere to such strict limits, including with Zimmer Biomet. As one of the prominent GOP voices on health care, Price sat on an influential Ways and Means subcommittee that directly oversees health care policy.

And over the last year-and-a-half, Price raised objections to the CMS regulation that proposed major changes to how providers and manufacturers are paid and reimbursed for hip and knee implants through Medicare.

But medical device manufacturers, in particular, were poised to be hit the hardest by the new regulation, according to industry officials and congressional sources. And that posed a significant threat to Zimmer Biomet, which bills itself as a worldwide leader in hip and knee replacements. A report from trade publication Fierce Biotech last year said that the company's hip and knee implants account for 60 percent of its revenue.

In September 2015, Price spearheaded a letter to Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator of CMS, asking that the regulation be delayed because it "represents a significant change to our healthcare delivery system which could have a negative impact on patient choice, access and quality."

Two days after the letter, Zimmer Biomet's PAC cut Price's reelection committee a check worth $1,000, according to campaign finance filings.

When CMS didn't listen to Price, the congressman unveiled his legislation to delay implementing the regulation until 2018, with the bill coming days after investing in the company, whose shares were worth $103.59 at the time.

Three months after he introduced the bill, the company's PAC cut Price's campaign committee another $1,000 check, according to records.

Noble, the ethics law expert, said that Price's motivations may have been pure, but the timing of the stock purchase raises eyebrows.

"When you join the government, you are held to a higher standard," Noble said. "And you are supposed to work for the public and not for yourself."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, responding to the CNN story, called for an ethics investigation into Price.

"This new report makes clear that this isn't just a couple of questionable trades, but rather a clear and troubling pattern of congressman Price trading stock and using his office to benefit the companies in which he is investing," Schumer said in a statement. "The Office of Congressional Ethics needs to conduct an immediate and thorough investigation into these potential violations of the STOCK Act before Rep. Price's nomination moves forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/tom-price-bill-aiding-company/

I don't know if it's true or not, but I have heard that he did not control his investments at that time, so it wasn't actually him doing the buying, but the person in charge of his investments.

Hopefully we'll find out what the truth is.

True or not, in control of his investments or not, these people need to divest themselves of any investments while in office. One of the reasons I believe in term limits so much.

Only way I know how to get people in office that actually represent their constituents.

I don't disagree with you, in principle, but the rules should be the same for everyone in DC. He was in compliance, from what I understand, with the rules for a Congressman. This makes it sound like he was not. I am not 100% sure what the difference is in the rules from Congressman to Cabinet Secretary, but those on the left should not complain about those on the right following the rules they passed. (and visa versa)

I agree with you but there is the letter of the law and then there is the spirit of the law. I have always been a big advocate of the spirit of the law and under the spirit of the law, this looks shady as hell. This whole notion that the dems and/or reps are putting laws in place to govern themselves when they already know how to get around them and can claim "technical compliance" is exactly the reason the people don't trust them.

Yeah, I don't disagree. I just think that they should have the same rules across the board. People should not be able to personally take advantage of their offices, no matter which office they hold. They also should not be expected to sell off everything they own in order to serve. There has to be some middle ground standard that would work well, instead of people playing gotcha all the time.

Isn't a blind trust a middle ground solution?

Not if it doesn't apply across the board. If a person followed the rules as a Congressman or Senator, then he should be fine when moving to an administration role. The lunacy of gotcha politics is why so many good people never even consider running for office in the first place.

Well, at least he isn't a plagiarist.

This would still be insider trading or something close to it. Pretty sad if this is true.

Y'know what sucks? Part of the reason people voted for Trump was to 'burn the system down', and this guy was part of the reason people were tired of the system.

Tell ya what Donald, when you said drain the swamp, nobody thought you meant you were going to take the sludge out and put it 'over' the swamp.

Which is why, the day after the election, I predicted that there would be 'buyer's remorse.' It was not a case of sour grapes, but an acknowledgement of how politics really works in this country.

There will be no 'complete and total ban on all Muslims entering the country 'til we figure out what the hell is going on.' That has already been partially walked back, both my Trump and his surrogates.

There will be no mass deportation of 11M illegals. Walked back from "all" to "those with criminal records"... which is basically a continuation of the 'Deporter In Chief's' 2008-2016 policy.

"It's gonna be a big, beautiful wall.... and Mexico's gonna pay for it." Except now, parts might be only a fence. And parts might be 'figurative' in the form of increased drone activity, more border guards, etc.

"On Day One, we're gonna get rid of Obamacare. Day One, folks."... except there are elements of the ACA that if rescinded, will cause widespread citizen revolt- and those in Congress with experience (and a vested stake) understand that.

The R's have the reigns to this stage coach, but even they are not 100% lockstep in line with PEOTUS 45's campaign positions. Some are not even on-board with Trump's cabinet appointees. For those voters who bought his campaign platforms hook, line and sinker- there will be disappointment and disillusionment, just like the folks who bought100% into 'Hope & Change/2008.'

Bernie Bros were setting themselves up for the same results, had the D's campaign brought their boy to 1600 Penn. Hillary Huffers, too.

It's just how politics works: the most passionate of voters are the ones who feel most shafted when reality takes over. And everybody at one time or another will complain about the pace of (their particular brand) of 'progress.'


.02

I still can't fathom how Trump can be president of thE US while maintaining ownership of Trump enterprises. That is a much higher level of conflict than the Price stuff.

How can you expect a man with such a wide ranging business empire to just sell it all off at whatever the loss, in a matter of a few months?

He is turning over control to his kids. I see that no different than if he was President and his kids had a business, and I also guess that he could have sold it to them, but would that really make any difference?. There would certainly be a possibility of corruption, just like there is when a relative of a Congressman or Senator has a relative with a business.

Trump has said that he will instruct his sons to take any monies from any foreign government,paid to stay at a Trump property, and give it to the treasury. That's a pretty big step right there. Frankly, I'll be hoping that all foreign government officials stay at Trump properties exclusively.

I am curious as to how you think that Trump should have dismantled his empire in a few months?

I wanted to add that Presidents, dating back to Washington, had business interests that could have come up before them, not the least of these was slavery. There are always going to be potential conflicts with anyone who has any business interests, either their own, or in their extended family .... or in their investments. I think that we have to be realistic about how we treat our politicians. We sometimes swing so far to one side or the other than good people refuse to run.

So you had zero problems with the Clinton foundation then?

It's possible to have issues with how the Clinton foundation operated while not having an issue with the fact that it exists or that Bill and Hillary were involved in it.

Just like the post that started this... I don't have issues with the fact that this guy has investments but the timing of this particular investment looks awful sketchy..

I thought Bill and Hillary had said they would remove themselves from the board "when" Hillary was elected. Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly?

Regardless, no Hillary supporters I can think of had a problem with her being elected and having the foundation. (this was prior to the election, by the way)

But, Hillary didn't get elected.

Trump did.

Now, how is he supposed to dissolve or sell his business enterprises in the time period afforded? He can't.

Next best thing: get someone else to run them.

He made that "person" his kids, so it's logical to assume he'll still be involved in major decisions, just not day to day type things.

Yeah, he's going to be the executive producer of The Apprentice, be involved in major decisions regarding his business and be the President of The United states. Part time at three jobs at the same time. Wonderful!