March 10,2020
ICYMI: Grassley Optimistic on Prospects for His and Wyden’s Prescription Drug Pricing Bill
Mark Tapscott
March 10, 2020
…
Getting
a handle on prescription drug prices is one of the few issues on which
Republicans and Democrats in Congress appear able to work together in a
bipartisan fashion. …
The
Grassley-Wyden “Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019” was approved
on a bipartisan vote by the finance panel last year, but its progress was
slowed by congressional Democrats’ impeachment campaign against President
Donald Trump.
Drug
price increases didn’t abate during the impeachment drive, however, as Grassley
noted during a March 5 Senate floor speech, concerning the period 2007 to 2018.
“List
prices on 602 medicines rose by 159 percent, or 9 percent annually. After
discounts and rebates, net prices increased by 60 percent, or 4.5 percent
annually,” Grassley told the Senate.
“That’s
3.5 times the rate of inflation. These are drugs for multiple sclerosis,
cholesterol, rheumatoid arthritis, chemotherapy, diabetes and many more
debilitating and life-threatening conditions,” he said.
The
figures Grassley cited accounted for discounts and rebates offered by drug
manufacturers.
The
problem is that prescription drug price increases are far outpacing wage gains
for most Americans, according to the Iowa senator.
“Meanwhile,
wages for the average American over the same time period increased about 30
percent in the private sector. That means wage growth is about half the rate of
growth in prescription drug prices—even after rebates and discounts,” Grassley
said.
Grassley
told The Epoch Times he believes that because 2020 is a campaign year, it helps
his proposal “because in every Senate race, [drug pricing] comes up as one of
the top three or four issues that people are interested in and demand action by
Congress and demand their candidates to take a strong position on.”
The
crux of the problem is what Grassley calls “a perverse incentive for companies
to increase the price of drugs year-over-year,” thanks to current Medicare
regulations on how much the federal government pays manufacturers.
“We
limit it to the Consumer Price Index, which would be about 2.3 percent for last
year,” Grassley said. “That’s why particularly Republicans ought to be joining
on this bill because it’s very conservative to save the taxpayers money.”
Two
of the most recent senators to sign on as co-sponsors—Republicans Martha
McSally of Arizona and Joni Ernst of Iowa—face tough reelection fights this
year.
Manufacturers
should be able to recoup their initial investment and research and development
costs, but “once that’s set up, they should not have a perverse incentive to
increase their profits by gouging the taxpayers,” Grassley said.
Doug
Badger, a former White House health care policy adviser who is now a visiting
fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times the
Grassley-Wyden proposal could save taxpayers a lot of money with its
restructuring of Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit.
“The
program relies on private Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to negotiate rebates
and other price discounts from drug manufacturers, then offer drug plans to
seniors, competing over premiums and formularies. Seniors choose the plan that
is best for them,” Badger said.
“While
Part D has cost far less than government estimators predicted, federal spending
on the most expensive ‘specialty’ drugs has risen sharply in recent years.
Drugmakers and PBMs have exploited a flaw in the program’s design that shifts
the burden of the most costly medicines onto taxpayers,” he said.
By
restructuring the program “to require manufacturers and PBMs to bear more of
the cost,” taxpayer costs would be reduced by “tens of billions of dollars.”
The proposal also caps a senior’s prescription spending each year.
“Both
are significant improvements over current law,” Badger said.
…
The
biggest obstacle facing the proposal is opposition from the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which Grassley calls “the same
folks who loved Obamacare because it mandated another revenue stream for their
products.”
Next Article Previous Article