User login
The House of Representatives passed a partisan drug pricing bill, a move that likely ends its legislative journey as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already signaled he will not bring it to the Senate floor.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3) passed Dec. 12 on a near party-line vote of 230-192, with two Republicans crossing the aisle to join the Democrats in support of the bill, and no Democrats voting against it. Four members from each party did not record votes.
“The American people are fed up with paying 3, 4, or 10 times more than people in other countries for the exact same drug,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J) said in a statement following the passage. “I’m proud that the House took decisive action today to finally level the playing field and provide real relief to the American people.”
H.R. 3 would give the secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate with drug manufacturers on the price of pharmaceuticals in Medicare Part D (and available in the commercial markets) using an international pricing benchmark and would penalize manufacturers who do not negotiate or fail to lower prices to be more in line with generally lower costs internationally.
Drug prices would need to be within 120% of the average price in a reference group of six nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Savings from the lower costs that result from negotiations would be reinvested into medical research.
Passage of H.R. 3 would “lower ... medication by 65%” per year for women with breast cancer, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) said during the floor debate.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the drug price negotiation provision would lower spending on pharmaceuticals by $465 billion over the next 10 years, offset partially by an increase in spending by $358 billion associated with provisions to provide dental, vision, and hearing coverage.
The bill also includes mandatory rebates to the federal government when a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation. It includes an annual cap on out-of-pocket spending on pharmaceuticals of $2,000 for Medicare Part D participants.
The bill was contentious from its introduction, which erased bipartisan work across the committees of jurisdiction, including a number of individual bills that passed at the committee level with bipartisan support.
The price negotiation scheme, using the international benchmark, was a key point of objection, which some argued was more akin to price-setting.
“Government price setting will kill innovation in clinical areas where it is most needed,” Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) said during the floor debate. “The pricing scheme outlined in H.R. 3 would disincentivize research and development for drugs that are first in their class, such as the future cure for Alzheimer’s.”
The CBO estimates that if the bill were enacted, “8 fewer drugs would be introduced to the U.S. market over the 2020-2029 period, and about 30 fewer drugs over the subsequent decade.”
An amendment offered by House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) attempted to replace the language of H.R. 3 with substitute language that collected all the individual drug pricing–related bills that had previously passed with bipartisan support at the committee level, but that was voted down by 223-201 vote with 12 members not voting.
Rep. Walden noted that policies within his substitute “unanimously passed the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year. They would have unanimously passed on this House floor had a poison pill not been put in up in the Rules Committee.”
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) countered that Rep. Walden’s amendment “doesn’t tackle the fundamental problem, which is reducing drug prices. This amendment fails to solve the main problem of actually lowering drug prices.”
The House of Representatives passed a partisan drug pricing bill, a move that likely ends its legislative journey as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already signaled he will not bring it to the Senate floor.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3) passed Dec. 12 on a near party-line vote of 230-192, with two Republicans crossing the aisle to join the Democrats in support of the bill, and no Democrats voting against it. Four members from each party did not record votes.
“The American people are fed up with paying 3, 4, or 10 times more than people in other countries for the exact same drug,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J) said in a statement following the passage. “I’m proud that the House took decisive action today to finally level the playing field and provide real relief to the American people.”
H.R. 3 would give the secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate with drug manufacturers on the price of pharmaceuticals in Medicare Part D (and available in the commercial markets) using an international pricing benchmark and would penalize manufacturers who do not negotiate or fail to lower prices to be more in line with generally lower costs internationally.
Drug prices would need to be within 120% of the average price in a reference group of six nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Savings from the lower costs that result from negotiations would be reinvested into medical research.
Passage of H.R. 3 would “lower ... medication by 65%” per year for women with breast cancer, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) said during the floor debate.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the drug price negotiation provision would lower spending on pharmaceuticals by $465 billion over the next 10 years, offset partially by an increase in spending by $358 billion associated with provisions to provide dental, vision, and hearing coverage.
The bill also includes mandatory rebates to the federal government when a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation. It includes an annual cap on out-of-pocket spending on pharmaceuticals of $2,000 for Medicare Part D participants.
The bill was contentious from its introduction, which erased bipartisan work across the committees of jurisdiction, including a number of individual bills that passed at the committee level with bipartisan support.
The price negotiation scheme, using the international benchmark, was a key point of objection, which some argued was more akin to price-setting.
“Government price setting will kill innovation in clinical areas where it is most needed,” Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) said during the floor debate. “The pricing scheme outlined in H.R. 3 would disincentivize research and development for drugs that are first in their class, such as the future cure for Alzheimer’s.”
The CBO estimates that if the bill were enacted, “8 fewer drugs would be introduced to the U.S. market over the 2020-2029 period, and about 30 fewer drugs over the subsequent decade.”
An amendment offered by House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) attempted to replace the language of H.R. 3 with substitute language that collected all the individual drug pricing–related bills that had previously passed with bipartisan support at the committee level, but that was voted down by 223-201 vote with 12 members not voting.
Rep. Walden noted that policies within his substitute “unanimously passed the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year. They would have unanimously passed on this House floor had a poison pill not been put in up in the Rules Committee.”
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) countered that Rep. Walden’s amendment “doesn’t tackle the fundamental problem, which is reducing drug prices. This amendment fails to solve the main problem of actually lowering drug prices.”
The House of Representatives passed a partisan drug pricing bill, a move that likely ends its legislative journey as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already signaled he will not bring it to the Senate floor.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3) passed Dec. 12 on a near party-line vote of 230-192, with two Republicans crossing the aisle to join the Democrats in support of the bill, and no Democrats voting against it. Four members from each party did not record votes.
“The American people are fed up with paying 3, 4, or 10 times more than people in other countries for the exact same drug,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J) said in a statement following the passage. “I’m proud that the House took decisive action today to finally level the playing field and provide real relief to the American people.”
H.R. 3 would give the secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate with drug manufacturers on the price of pharmaceuticals in Medicare Part D (and available in the commercial markets) using an international pricing benchmark and would penalize manufacturers who do not negotiate or fail to lower prices to be more in line with generally lower costs internationally.
Drug prices would need to be within 120% of the average price in a reference group of six nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Savings from the lower costs that result from negotiations would be reinvested into medical research.
Passage of H.R. 3 would “lower ... medication by 65%” per year for women with breast cancer, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) said during the floor debate.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the drug price negotiation provision would lower spending on pharmaceuticals by $465 billion over the next 10 years, offset partially by an increase in spending by $358 billion associated with provisions to provide dental, vision, and hearing coverage.
The bill also includes mandatory rebates to the federal government when a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation. It includes an annual cap on out-of-pocket spending on pharmaceuticals of $2,000 for Medicare Part D participants.
The bill was contentious from its introduction, which erased bipartisan work across the committees of jurisdiction, including a number of individual bills that passed at the committee level with bipartisan support.
The price negotiation scheme, using the international benchmark, was a key point of objection, which some argued was more akin to price-setting.
“Government price setting will kill innovation in clinical areas where it is most needed,” Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) said during the floor debate. “The pricing scheme outlined in H.R. 3 would disincentivize research and development for drugs that are first in their class, such as the future cure for Alzheimer’s.”
The CBO estimates that if the bill were enacted, “8 fewer drugs would be introduced to the U.S. market over the 2020-2029 period, and about 30 fewer drugs over the subsequent decade.”
An amendment offered by House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) attempted to replace the language of H.R. 3 with substitute language that collected all the individual drug pricing–related bills that had previously passed with bipartisan support at the committee level, but that was voted down by 223-201 vote with 12 members not voting.
Rep. Walden noted that policies within his substitute “unanimously passed the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year. They would have unanimously passed on this House floor had a poison pill not been put in up in the Rules Committee.”
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) countered that Rep. Walden’s amendment “doesn’t tackle the fundamental problem, which is reducing drug prices. This amendment fails to solve the main problem of actually lowering drug prices.”