Pelosi bill aims to negotiate Medicare prices on top 250 drugs, penalize manufacturers that don't

[mucifer]

Comply.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to release an ambitious drug-pricing bill as early as this week that would allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices on hundreds of drugs in Medicare that do not have competitors and would offer those prices to all consumers, according to a summary of the bill obtained by The Washington Post.

The House bill is a political marker for Democrats eager to show ahead of the 2020 presidential and congressional elections that they are willing to take significant measures to lower skyrocketing drug prices, which consistently poll as a top voter concern. The proposal is unlikely to gain support from Republicans — who oppose allowing the federal government to negotiate because they say it violates free-market principles — and is unlikely to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate.

Yet President Trump is eager to sign legislation taking action on drug prices as he ramps up his 2020 reelection bid. The White House has engaged with Pelosi’s office on the drug-pricing initiative for several months, but senior House Democratic aides said the discussions were to keep the White House informed, rather than engage in negotiations. It remains unclear whether Trump supports the House proposal and, if he does, whether he will be able to pressure Republicans to get on board.

The bill would allow the health and human services secretary to directly negotiate prices on the 250 drugs that pose the greatest total cost to Medicare and the U.S. health system that do not have at least two competitors. That would include some insulins, cancer treatments and specialty drugs. Those negotiated prices would then be available to all consumers, not just Medicare beneficiaries, according to the bill summary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/pelosi-bill-aims-to-negotiate-medicare-prices-on-250-drugs-penalize-manufacturers-that-dont-comply/2019/09/09/8b21bd6a-d358-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html


When moscow mitch refuses to bring it to a vote the dems can use that against him in his election.

[global1]

1. Why Stop At 250 Drugs?.....

Why throw a bone to the pharmaceutical companies to allow them to manipulate drug prices on those drugs beyond the 250?

This bill should include all drugs.

[ehrnst]

6. Did you read the text beyond the headline?

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2019, 08:16 AM - Edit history (2)

That would allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices on hundreds of drugs in Medicare that do not have competitors and would offer those prices to all consumers.

From the article itself:

The bill would allow the health and human services secretary to directly negotiate prices on the 250 drugs that pose the greatest total cost to Medicare and the U.S. health system that do not have at least two competitors. That would include some insulins, cancer treatments and specialty drugs.

This expands the negotiating power for Medicare, and will expand affordable access to those who are not on Medicare for drugs that only one or two pharmacuetical companies provide. That is the most urgent need right now, and its something that even the most hard line free market types would have a hard time arguing with.

In any case, this bill will never see the light of day prior to 2021 in the Senate. It also would create much less of a backlash from the powerful Pharma lobby going into the 2020 elections than if you say "The federal government is essentially going to take over the Pharmacuetical industry via pricing on all drugs." Can you imagine what the GOP would do with that in the 2020 elections. YOUR BUSINESS WILL BE NEXT IF DEMOCRATS WIN!


Also - you have to give them something to lose if they don't comply - that's why we make plea deals with criminals if they cooperate and have something valuable that we need.

The legislation would also use an international pricing index that would ensure U.S. consumers do not pay more than beneficiaries in other countries, where prices are often lower because their governments directly negotiate prices. That is similar to a more limited proposal the Trump administration has making its way through the rulemaking process, which would base the price of some drugs in Medicare on the lower prices paid by other countries.

The bill would impose severe penalties on drugmakers that do not reach an agreement with the government or refuse to participate in the negotiation. They would face a noncompliance fee equal to 75 percent of the gross sales of the drug being negotiated from the previous year.

Drug manufacturers would face an inflation rebate and would have to pay the U.S. Treasury money if they raise prices above the rate of inflation on the more than 8,000 drugs in Medicare Part B, which covers expensive physician-administered drugs for cancer, dialysis and other illnesses, and Part D, its prescription drug benefit. If the manufacturer has raised the price above the rate of inflation since 2016, it can either lower the price or pay the price above inflation back to the Treasury, according to the summary. The proposal also aims to use its anticipated savings to cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors, according to the summary.

[KPN]

2. If only the M$M would give this the attention

that they gave to any one of the — what, 89? — GOP House votes to repeal the ACA.

[Vinca]

3. Not good enough. Prices need to be lowered on everything for everyone.

People are dying for lack of insulin in this country.

[StarfishSaver]

8. We've got to start somewhere

Instead of making the perfect the enemybof the good, why not try to help get this passed?

[Vinca]

10. Because people are dying because they can't afford their insulin. We can do better.

I'm almost insulted by her proposal. Keep in mind the Medicare drugs she speaks of are only for people who can afford the cost of Medicare Part D in addition to the regular cost of Medicare Don't get me started on that nightmare. All kinds of different policies and you have to investigate each to be sure they cover whatever drug you're on. In addition, you have to be able to see into the future and known what illness you will get in the coming year and what drugs will be prescribed. The government needs to set price guidelines for ALL drugs available for sale in the United States. Have you seen the ad for the drug that you can have stuck to the back of your arm so you don't have to go to the doctor for an injection the day after chemotherapy? I looked up the cost of that particular drug and it's $7,500 a dose. People on chemo would need that in multiples. It's nuts.

[ooky]

12. Well said.

Its time we start prioritizing our efforts to reduce drug and health care costs for all those who need that help now and need it the most. Bringing down insulin costs for people 65 and over doesn't do a damn thing for those who are struggling to afford life sustaining insulin under the age of 65. It is tone deafness to just say "let's get a start with a certain group" while others are dying and going bankrupt now.

[joshdawg]

4. Moscow mitch will not bring this up for a vote.

Count on it!
After all, he is the "Grim Reaper."

[ehrnst]

7. The point of this bill is the 2020 elections. From the article:

“Speaker Pelosi put forward a more progressive bill than anticipated and one she knows is dead on arrival in the Senate,” said Chris Meekins, a research analyst at Raymond James, a financial services company and former Health and Human Services official."

[IronLionZion]

5. Dems need to take the Senate

Moscow Mitch openly boasts of his obstruction. Dems have passed great bills through the house that he won't even allow a vote in the Senate. Mitch even refers to himself as the "Grim Reaper of Socialism" because he kills everything.

[StarfishSaver]

9. I'm just here to see how many Democrats insist Pelosi's doing this all wrong

[Vinca]

11. This has nothing to do with whether we do or do not generally like or agree with Pelosi.

It has to do with people dying because they can't afford medication needed to sustain their lives.