[ad_1]
Amy Goldstein
Reporter covering health policy and other social policy issues
The country's top health official on Monday suggested that pharmaceutical companies be required to include the list price of drugs in consumer TV ads – the most audacious element in a series of government efforts. Trump aimed at reducing spending on drugs.
According to a major change introduced by Alex Azar of Health and Social Services and drafted as a new federal rule, drug manufacturers should list the price of a 30-day supply of any drug covered by Medicare and Medicaid and $ 35 a month.
"Sometimes the government has to take the first step, disrupt a broken system and set new rules of the road," said Azar, a typical advocate of market-based approaches, said Monday in a speech to the National Academy of Medicine
This change, which will be debated for months before the proposed change in regulation takes shape, intensifies a stand-off between the pharmaceutical industry and an HHS secretary from its ranks, striving to dispel any alignment printing. with his former colleagues pharmacists.
The proposed settlement is Trump's and Trustees 'latest effort to compel pharmaceutical companies to disclose the advertised prices of drugs in television ads – a strategy that would test the proponents' hypothesis that consumers would become more price sensitive. slowing drug price increases, which have been the main factor in recent years for unusually high health care spending in the United States.
A few hours before the HHS Secretary's speech to the National Academy of Medicine, the leading pharmaceutical lobby group announced a new voluntary action that would direct consumers to companies' websites containing price information.
The PhRMA announcement, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, was seen by experts as an attempt to postpone more aggressive federal regulation. Prior to his speech, Azar had issued a statement in which he stated that "the pharmaceutical industry remains opposed to real price transparency" and that the government needs to go beyond what it has called a "small step in the right direction" of the industry.
[Trump promises to ‘derail the gravy train’ and lower drug prices in ‘American Patients First’ plan]
The industry also faced the pressure of Congress. A bipartisan proposal that would have required the inclusion of the price of drugs in television commercials was passed by the Senate, but was removed from a House appropriations bill last month.
The industry's voluntary action, which will come into effect by April 15, would provide patients with a variety of price information, including the advertised price of a drug, the projected drug costs, and the programs. patient assistance available. .
[Mother, wife, million-dollar patient]
Steve Ubl, president of PhRMA, argued that disclosure of the current price of a drug in a television commercial would be "very confusing, misleading, lacking appropriate context and is not what patients want or need". He predicted that the price, which would not reflect what most people would pay, could deter patients from seeking medical care because the costs paid by patients vary according to their insurance plan.
Rachel Sachs, an associate professor of law at the University of Washington Law School in St. Louis, did not say how or why price disclosure in ads would reduce the price of drugs.
"That aside, what PhRMA does here is obviously an attempt to remove some of the public's concerns," Sachs said. "Realistically, how many patients are going to the site? And if they go, the extra information could be even more confusing. "
The website raises many questions: the "list price" of the drug may vary depending on the dosage and formulation of the drug, and companies must choose how to publish the price in this case. The cost of medication can vary depending on the patient's diet, sometimes ranging from $ 0 to the total price of the drug. It is therefore unclear whether an estimated price range or average cost would be significant for patients.
At a press call, Ubl said that there would be a potential for First Amendment and legal problems if the administration proposed a rule requiring that pricing information be included in an advertisement. , signaling that the proposal of such a requirement could trigger a long legal battle between the two parties. US government and one of the most powerful lobbies in the country.
Sachs said that if the issue were to lead to a legal battle, it could siphon the administration's greater efforts to reduce the cost of drugs, which included a blueprint of dozens of political ideas.
"It's unfortunate if the agency chooses to spend its legal capital on regulations that clearly have no impact on the price of drugs," Sachs said. "There are so many actions that the administration could undertake. . . this would make a significant difference for patients. "
[ad_2]
Source link
