Analysis-U.S. move to negotiate drug prices a rare defeat for Big Pharma
Send a link to a friend
[August 13, 2022]
By Ahmed Aboulenein
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Big Pharma spent more than any other industry to
lobby Congress and federal agencies this year, a Reuters analysis shows,
but still suffered a major defeat after failing to stop a bill that
allows the government to negotiate prices on select drugs.
Despite the pharmaceutical industry's spending at least $142 million on
lobbying efforts, the $430 billion Inflation Reduction Act to change
climate, health and tax policies will become law. It cleared its largest
hurdle last week with passage in the Senate, without any Republicans
joining Democrats in voting for the bill, followed by passage by the
U.S. House of Representatives on Friday. [nL1N2ZO2OV]
President Joe Biden will sign it into law next week.
The bill's imminent enactment represents a rare legislative defeat for
the pharmaceutical industry and sets a precedent for curbing drug prices
in the world's most lucrative market for medicines, according to
congressional and industry officials.
"This is a major first step forward," Democratic Senator Patty Murray,
chair of the Senate's health committee, told Reuters. "It is the first
time we've been able to make this kind of step to lower prices on
pharmaceuticals ... which will set the stage for us to do more." Health
policy experts say the bill reflects the pharma industry's weakening
influence on the Democratic Party and that its main argument against
price negotiation -- that it stifles innovation -- is no longer
persuasive for the public.
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in October found that 83% of Americans,
including 95% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans, want the federal
Medicare health plan for seniors to negotiate prices, a provision of the
bill.
"The pharma guys upped the ante in throwing everything but the kitchen
sink against this," said Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat who chairs the
finance committee.
The industry's powerful trade association, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), urged senators in a public letter to
reject the bill. Its president, Stephen Ubl, told Politico that
lawmakers who vote for it would not "get a free pass."
"Few associations have all the tools of modern political advocacy at
their disposal in the way that PhRMA does," he said.
A PhRMA spokesperson said the group would continue to work with all
lawmakers. He did not address Ubl's comments about holding lawmakers
accountable.
"We may not agree on every issue, but we believe engagement and dialogue
is important to promoting a policy environment that supports innovation,
a highly-skilled workforce and access to life-saving medicines for
patients," said spokesperson Brian Newell in an email.
PHARMA'S PLAN A Reuters analysis of lobbying and campaign contribution
data from OpenSecrets shows that the pharmaceutical industry spent at
least $142.6 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the
first half of 2022, more than any industry, and at least $16.1 million
on campaign contributions during the current mid-term election cycle
that started in January 2021.
[to top of second column]
|
Almost two-thirds of the money spent
on lobbying, around $93 million, came from PhRMA and its member
companies.
The pharma campaign argued that prescription drugs
do not contribute to inflation, citing an average 2.5% rise in drug
prices in the past year compared with a 17% rise in health insurance
prices.
Critics say the figures combine high-priced brand name drugs with
much lower-cost generics, masking the impact on patients' costs. A
KFF study estimated that prices increased faster than inflation for
half of all drugs covered by Medicare in 2020.
The industry has long warned that price curbs in the U.S. market
would hamper companies' ability to invest in developing new drugs.
With help from Democrats backed by the industry, the bill's
provision for drug price negotiations was scaled back in November,
allowing Medicare to focus on an annual maximum of 20 of the
costliest medicines by 2029, instead of an initial proposal to help
reduce prices for 250 treatments.
Opponents to the more dramatic curbs included Senator Kyrsten Sinema
and Representative Scott Peters, two of the biggest recipients of
industry donations, at more than $201,000 and $320,000,
respectively, according to OpenSecrets data.
"We created a good space for investors to be able to recoup their
investment which continuously has set out to develop new drugs,"
Peters told Reuters.
"I still think they came out okay on this."
WHAT NOW?
Democratic staffers, industry executives and policy experts said
that the bill's broad popularity, combined with pressure on
Democrats to pass meaningful legislation ahead of midterm elections
in November, helped overcome the pharma industry campaigning.
"With this vote I would imagine Pharma realizes they do not have a
lot of friends left among Democrats," said Larry Levitt, vice
president for health policy at KFF. "Pharma sees this as the camel's
nose under the tent, and it probably is."
The industry will likely try to mitigate the effects of the bill as
much as possible, policy experts said.
"They will prosecute this through the courts. And they will, I
suspect, try and alter the legislation" in the future, said Mark
Miller, a former government health policy official who is now
executive vice president of healthcare at Arnold Ventures.
The extent to which the bill might stoke fear for investors remains
to be seen, given that many view pharmaceutical stocks as among the
safer bets during an economic downturn.
"Sentiment is at a multi-year high for the US Pharma and we do not
view the IRA drug reform as significantly changing investor
positioning," a note from JPMorgan analysts said.
(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein; Additional reporting by Richard
Cowan in Washington and Lewis Krauskopf in New York; Editing by
Michele Gershberg, Deepa Babington and Leslie Adler)
[© 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |