JustCare

Tag: PhARMA

  • Trump’s executive order on prescription drugs does not reduce drug prices for Americans

    Trump’s executive order on prescription drugs does not reduce drug prices for Americans

    A new Arnold Ventures poll finds that nearly nine out of 10 voters believe the government should have the power to negotiate prescription drug prices. And, more than 75 percent say that it is very important for the government to reduce drug prices, including seven in 10 Trump supporters. Unfortunately, President Trump’s recent Executive Order on prescription drug prices and tariffs are likely to raise drug prices for Americans.

    More specifically, the vast majority of Americans support capping drug price increases to the rate of inflation and Medicare negotiating drug prices for all drugs. Indeed, 86 percent say that they do not want people with Medicare to pay more for their drugs than people in other wealthy nations. But, Trump’s executive order undermines Medicare’s limited efforts to negotiate drug prices, much less expand Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices.

    Bottom line: Your prescription drug costs are probably not coming down any time soon. President Trump’s tariffs on China could lead to higher drug costs for all Americans, as pharmaceutical manufacturers import ingredients from China. Meanwhile, Trump’s new Executive Order on prescription drug prices appears to favor the pharmaceutical industry’s interests, allowing drug companies to continue to set prices sky high and calling for changes to the Inflation Reduction Act that would drive up drug prices for people with Medicare.

    Here are some of the key provisions of the Executive Order.

    On a positive note, with caveats:

    • It aims to reduce the cost of insulin and injectable epinephrine at community health centers for uninsured and some low-income individuals. It’s not clear by how much.
    • It asks the FDA to make it easier for states to import drugs. But, it’s not at all clear that this provision will help Americans at the pharmacy. Today, the FDA has only granted permission to Florida to import drugs from Canada, and Florida appears not to have begun importing drugs. Moreover, Florida’s program is not designed to help its residents. It would only help lower the state’s costs a small amount for Medicaid recipients and for the state’s health and corrections departments.
    • It calls for more generics and biosimilars–lower-cost alternatives to brand name drugs. But, the Trump administration has cut FDA staffing drastically. It eliminated the office that was tasked with speeding up generic drug approvals,  slowing down drug approvals. Moreover, the administration has also cut NIH funding, which supports virtually all new drug development. So, while the president’s goal is laudable, it does not seem doable. 

    On a negative note:

    • It is projected to drive up Medicare drug costs by $6 billion and force people with Medicare to pay $1.5 billion more for their drugs. How? The Executive Order buys into a pharmaceutical industry claim that the Inflation Reduction Act discriminates against pills. Discriminates? Well, let’s just say that the law gives license to pharmaceutical companies to charge high prices for injectable drugs for a longer period of time than for pills. The IRA permits drug price negotiation over pills on the market for nine years and injectable drugs on the market after 13 years. The Executive Order asks Congress to allow pharmaceutical companies the same 13 years of protection for pills as for injectables. If the Republican majority complies, more than half the drugs for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is negotiating lower prices would no longer have lower negotiated prices.
    • It calls for better transparency around the fees drug middlemen receive from pharmaceutical companies, which does not bring down drug prices for Americans.

    The Trump administration also ended a Biden initiative that would have permitted people with Medicare to buy generic drugs for $2. And, it is denying Medicare coverage of anti-obesity drugs, as the Biden administration had proposed.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • President Trump threatens Pharma with tariffs

    President Trump threatens Pharma with tariffs

    President Trump has spent his first few weeks in office undoing much of what President Biden had put in place, but he is not (yet) prepared to undo the Medicare drug price negotiation provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. In fact, in a meeting with pharmaceutical company executives, he threatened to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical companies if they did not relocate their manufacturing to the US, reports Tristan Manalac for Biospace.

    “Pharmaceuticals, it’ll be 25 percent and higher, and it’ll go very substantially higher over [the] course of a year,” said President Trump. These tariffs would drive up drug prices substantially for working Americans. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed under the Biden Administration, penalizes drug companies for raising Medicare and Medicaid drug prices more than the rate of inflation.

    President Trump has still not said what he will do about Medicare drug price negotiation. Among other things, the IRA calls for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees Medicare, to negotiate the price of 15 prescription drugs that drive high Medicare spending in 2025.  In 2024, CMS negotiated the price of 10 high-cost prescription drugs. Those new drug prices are set to take effect in 2026.

    Pfizer, Lilly, Merk CEOs all attended the meeting with President Trump. Their trade association, PhRMA, has been trying to undo the provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act that reduce drug company profits. The drug companies have sued the government, so far unsuccessfully, claiming that lower drug prices are effectively a taking of their property. Of course, the only reason they can charge the prices they do in the US is because our government has given them monopoly pricing power on patented drugs, unlike the governments in every other wealthy nation.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • If confirmed as head of HHS, RFK Jr. could end Pharma’s direct to consumer ads

    If confirmed as head of HHS, RFK Jr. could end Pharma’s direct to consumer ads

    If Congress confirms RFK Jr. to head the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), it might keep us from receiving needed vaccines, endangering our own health and the public health. But, it could also spell the end of direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs, reports Andrea Park for Fierce Pharma. And, that’s good news for Americans, as the ads, much like the Medicare Advantage ads, can be extremely deceptive.

    When he was running for president several months ago, RFK Jr. declared that he would ban pharmaceutical company advertisements on TV through an executive order. President-elect Trump could follow his lead. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies will challenge this act, claiming it abridges their first amendment right to free speech, and they could prevail. That said, not until 1983 did pharmaceutical companies begin advertising their drugs to consumers on TV. Before that, they marketed their drugs exclusively to doctors and pharmacists.

    Today, Pharma spends buckets marketing their prescription drugs. And, for good reason. Their return on investment is tremendous, as much as five times for some drugs.

    The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that permit direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs.

    It’s still unclear whether RFK Jr. will take on Pharma’s ads or direct his attention to US food policies. But, Trump’s pick to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is under HHS control, could also act to end Pharma consumer ads. Dr. Martin Makary published a study ten years ago finding that “Further investigation of provider advertising, its effects on quality of care, and potential oversight mechanisms is needed.”

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Importing drugs from abroad should be legal

    Importing drugs from abroad should be legal

    In a new paper, Stephen Salant, a professor at the University of Michigan, makes a compelling case that people in the US should be able to import drugs from abroad and that it is safe to do so.

    Salant explains that people in the US spend much more than people in other wealthy countries for the identical brand-name drugs. Drug prices are lower in other wealthy countries because their governments negotiate with drug manufacturers. The lower prices abroad are still a lot higher than the cost of producing the drugs. And, drug manufacturers invest millions to sway Americans to believe that it’s unsafe to import drugs from abroad.

    We typically pay three and a half times more for a brand-name drug than people in other countries. Most other wealthy countries use price controls to keep prescription drug prices down. They either value a drug based on its cost-effectiveness. Or, they use reference pricing to bring drug prices down.

    Other countries still pay prices than can be as much as 100 times more than the cost of producing drugs. Western Europeans pay a minimum of $40,000 for a 12-week course of Sovaldi to treat hepatitis C. But, Sovaldi costs its manufacturer $68-$136 to produce that course of treatment.

    At the same time, Pharma relies on non-profit shill groups to argue that imported drugs could be counterfeit and unsafe and sway public opinion. Consumer protection is a pretext, an argument to keep drug prices high and generate enormous profits for drug companies. Pharma hired former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s firm to say that importing drugs would “open a new, unregulated pipeline into the United States.” But, at the time, 16 states simply were proposing to import drugs from highly regulated prescription drug markets abroad.

    People can already buy drugs from abroad when they travel abroad, as well as online. And, big retail outlets like Amazon and Costco theoretically could bulk purchase drugs from abroad safely and sell directly to people in the US. All the evidence suggests that these drugs are as safe as drugs people buy in the US.

    Here’s the truth: “The FDA has never reported a death or adverse reaction suffered by any patient in the U.S. who has personally filled his valid prescription online or in person from a pharmacy licensed in another high-income country.” The government has never prosecuted people in the US for importing drugs for personal use, even though it is illegal. But, the government does take action against companies that try to buy drugs abroad for resale in the US.

    “Asking sick people to finance drug innovation, which is of value not only at home but abroad, is ethically indefensible,” argues Salant. “The burden falls heaviest on sick Americans since our prices are by far the highest. People currently in good health should shoulder more of the burden. Increased subsidization, financed by general taxes at home and abroad is, in my view, a step in the right direction.”

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Medicare names 10 drugs subject to price negotiation

    Medicare names 10 drugs subject to price negotiation

    It’s beyond even my imagination that Medicare’s ability to negotiate just 10 drug prices as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act is a big deal. There are more than 19,000 prescription drugs, and the IRA still leaves people with Medicare paying far more than people in other wealthy countries for these drugs–if they can afford to. But, in this crazy country, the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful, the Biden administration and its allies are celebrating this accomplishment and concerned that Pharma’s legal challenges could upend it.

    The Inflation Reduction Act gave Medicare the right to negotiate the prices of 10 brand-name drugs that have been on the market for some time and do not have generic competition, beginning in 2026. The goal is to save both Medicare and Medicare patients money. Unlike every other country, the US effectively confers monopoly pricing power to pharmaceutical corporations for their patented prescription drugs and, consequently, we pay higher prices for medications than every other wealthy country.

    Over the next four years, Medicare will have the right to negotiate prices for up to 60 prescription drugs, if the pharmaceutical industry does not prevail in its lawsuits to prevent the government from negotiating drug prices. After that, Medicare will be able to negotiate the price of up to 20 drugs each year. President Biden hopes that older adults will support his and other Democrats’ candidacies in 2024, as a result of, and to ensure the lasting benefits of, this achievement.

    In particular, millions of people with Medicare should see significant savings on several drugs that treat diabetes. In addition, beginning this year, diabetics with Medicare pay no more than $35 a month for each insulin drug they use. And, important vaccines, like RSV, are free. But, if voters don’t re-elect Democrats, it’s more than likely that a Republican Congress and President will try to undo these savings they refused to support.

    The $99 billion in projected savings from drug price negotiation over 10 years is going towards an annual out-of-pocket limit of $2,000 for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D.

    How will the drug price negotiations work? Pharmaceutical companies will need to agree to negotiate the prices for their drugs on the government’s list of 10. If they agree, the pharmaceutical companies must share data with the government to be used in negotiating the price. If they do not agree to drug price negotiation, they will pay a large penalty tax that can be as high as 95 percent of their sales of that drug, or they could withdraw the drug from the Medicare and Medicaid markets.

    In February 2024, the government will propose a price for each drug. The pharmaceutical companies can propose an alternative.  Negotiations will ensue. The government will announce final prices in September 2024, but the negotiated prices will not take effect until January 2026.

    In February 2025, the government will announce the next 15 drugs to have their prices negotiated.

    The drugs subject to price negotiation fall into two buckets, explains Dylan Scott for Vox:

    1)  Seven expensive drugs for diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions that millions of people use:

    • Eliquis, for blood clots ($561 list price for one month’s worth of treatment that cost Medicare around $16.5 billion over the year ending May 2023)
    • Entresto, for heart failure ($545 list price)
    • Farxiga, for diabetes, heart disease, and chronic kidney disease ($549 list price)
    • Januvia, for diabetes ($586 list price)
    • Jardiance, for diabetes and heart failure ($570 list price)
    • Xarelto, for  blood clots and heart disease ($542 list price)
    • Insulin injectors and the products used to refill them: Fiasp, Fiasp FlexTouch, Fiasp PenFill, NovoLog, NovoLog FlexPen and NovoLog PenFill

    2) Three extremely expensive drugs that tens of thousands of people with severe and sometimes life-threatening conditions use and that cost Medicare about $2.6 billion each over the year ending May 2022:

    • Enbrel, for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis ($1,762 list price for one week’s dosage)
    • Imbruvica, for blood cancers ($13,546 list price for one month’s worth of tablets)
    • Stelara, for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease ($25,497 list price for eight weeks of use) 

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • FDA is confiscating some imported life-saving prescription drugs

    FDA is confiscating some imported life-saving prescription drugs

    NBC News reports on the Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to block importation of prescription drugs. The FDA is helping the pharmaceutical industry and harming Americans who can’t afford to buy the life-saving drugs they need in the US. Allegedly the FDA is trying to keep fentanyl and opioids from being shipped into the US. Really? The FDA found just 33 packages of these controlled substances out of 53,000 it intercepted in 2022.

    The quickest way to ensure drug prices in the US are fair and not two to four times higher than what people in other wealthy nations pay is to open our borders to drug imports from verified pharmacies abroad.  The pharmaceutical industry uses its considerable influence to prevent drug importation, claiming safety risks.

    There are always risks to importing prescription drugs from abroad, just as there are risks to importing food from abroad. But, on a risk benefit analysis, the danger of being harmed from a drug imported abroad–for which there are no reported cases–is far outweighed by the danger of preventing people from getting the drugs they need because they cannot afford them.

    If the FDA’s goal is keeping opioids from entering the US, its current strategy of seizing packages with drugs from abroad is misplaced. The data show that few opioids are in the shipments the FDA intercepts. Almost all of the drugs in these seized shipments were prescription drugs people had ordered from abroad for personal use. The FDA confiscated mostly drugs to treat asthma, diabetes, cancer and HIV, as well as a lot of drugs that treat erectile dysfunction.

    Still, the FDA continues its efforts, at a huge cost to the health and well-being to the Americans who need the drugs they import. The FDA has the right to confiscate drugs without US labeling or packaging.

    While it is technically not legal to import prescription drugs from abroad, millions of Americans do so every year. No one has ever been prosecuted for doing so.  What’s particularly interesting is that both Republican and Democratic governors in Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire and New Mexico want to allow drug importation.

    The Biden administration has not yet approved state applications to import drugs. It’s unclear why not. Pharma has tried through a lawsuit, and failed, to block this Trump administration initiative.

    Why is Congress giving the FDA $10 million to intercept controlled substances from abroad, when the vast majority of the drugs it intercepts are for personal use, to keep people alive? “The nation’s fentanyl import crisis should not be conflated with safe personal drug importation,” argues Gabe Levitt of PharmacyChecker.com. PharmacyChecker.com reports prices from verified pharmacies in dozens of countries for a wide range of drugs.

    In December, Congress told the FDA that it should focus on intercepting controlled and counterfeit drugs from abroad and drugs that pose “a significant threat to public health.” That alone is not likely to stop the FDA from confiscating drugs that Americans are importing to treat their cancer, asthma and heart drugs. As Koontz of the FDA said, “Importing drugs from abroad simply for cost savings is not a good enough reason to expose yourself to the additional risks,” he said. “The drug may be fine, but we don’t know, so we assume it is not.”

    The FDA claims, based on Pharma-supported congressional testimony, that imported drugs have an eight to ten percent chance of being counterfeit. It’s not at all clear this is accurate. And, based on the evidence, it is not at all accurate when it comes to drugs bought from verified pharmacies around the world. The  U.S. Customs and Border Protection data show that it found just 365 counterfeits out of  more than 30,000 drugs it inspected in 2022.

    So, is it safe to import drugs from verified pharmacies abroad? If you hear ads from the Partnership for Safe Medicines about the dangers of drug importation, ignore them. The Partnership for Safe Medicines is a pharmaceutical industry front group. The ads are paid for by Pharma, whose profits depend on keeping drug importation illegal.

    “We have never seen a rash of deaths or harm from prescription drugs that people bring across the border from verified pharmacies, because these are the same drugs that people buy in American pharmacies,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works. “The pharmaceutical industry is using the FDA to protect their price monopoly to keep their prices high.”

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Get ready for more prescription drug price hikes

    Get ready for more prescription drug price hikes

    We know pharmaceutical companies are greedy. Most, if not all, companies are greedy and will do what they can to maximize profits. But, Congress continues to allow that greed. As long as it does, we will pay increasing amounts for our prescription drugs.

    It’s no surprise that Accountable.us, a government watchdog group reports that the big Pharma companies are prepared to raise prices significantly on more than 350 drugs. However many billions the pharmaceutical companies earned in 2022 is irrelevant if they can make more in 2023.

    For example, Pfizer is raising prices on more than 90 drugs.  Ibrance and Xalkori, cancer drugs, will see 7.9 percent price increases. Why would Pfizer want to put an end to soaring profits in 2021 and 2022 if it does not have to?

    Higher drug prices allow the pharmaceutical companies to say that they can invest more money for research. The truth is that these companies put more money into stock buybacks and dividends than on research. And, when they conduct research, the research generally focuses on drugs that are similar to what’s already on the market, where they know they can find huge demand, rather than drugs for rare conditions that have no treatments available.

    The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is unlikely to pick up where their predecessors left off on drug price negotiation, in the Inflation Reduction Act. Pharma gives oodles of money to them to make sure. So, for now, we have simply the possibility of Medicare negotiating drug prices for 60 drugs over the next several years–if Pharma does not succeed at blocking those negotiations.

    One reform, with some bi-partisan support, that Congress has a small chance of enacting, would allow Americans to import drugs from around the world from verified pharmacies. Ideally, the proposal would also require insurers to cover those drugs, as they would cost a lot less than the same drugs in the US.

    Today, millions of Americans import drugs from abroad for personal use, with no reported safety concerns, although it is not legal for them to do so. At the same time, tens of millions of other Americans can’t afford the drugs they need in the US, compromising their health.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Pharma pours money into telehealth

    Pharma pours money into telehealth

    One upside of the Covid-19 pandemic is that it has become much easier to see a doctor, if you’re willing to go online. Medicare and many insurers will cover your care without an in person visit. With telehealth, it’s also much easier for Pharma to ensure you get the prescriptions they’re marketing, regardless of whether you need them.

    Katie Palmer reports for Stat News on the benefit of telehealth for pharmaceutical companies. They can reach patients directly online and offer access to health care providers who can prescribe their drugs. You don’t need to see your PCP to fill a prescription.

    The one-two punch of pharmaceutical company online ads and telehealth can boost sales for Pharma. So, Pharma is investing a lot in telehealth. In addition to more drug sales, Pharma can collect a lot of data on people. The question becomes are patients getting overprescribed, what are the risks, and who’s paying attention?

    Currently, the federal government, through the FDA, determines what prescription drugs are approved, what goes on their labels and how they can be advertised. States, in turn, oversee the health care providers who prescribe the drugs and the pharmacies that distribute them. With telehealth, ads and distribution go together. It’s not clear whether states or the federal government is in charge.

    Many states do not allow “the corporate practice of medicine.” But, it’s easy enough for pharmaceutical companies to invest in, or otherwise collaborate with, separate entities to do the prescribing and have patients click on a button to reach a virtual doctor on a separate web site. The pharmaceutical companies can then claim that these entities are acting independently when they prescribe their drugs.

    Telehealth enables the pharmaceutical companies to move from “ask your doctor” about this or that prescription drug to “click here to talk to a doctor now.” It enhances the likelihood that patients will fill the prescription drugs advertised. Any doctor can prescribe you a medicine. It doesn’t have to be your PCP.

    Of course, if managed care companies were actually managing your care, they could intervene in the process if you were being prescribed a drug that was not appropriate. But, it’s not as easy as it might appear. They generally should rely on the doctor to determine whether you need a drug.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Drug industry funnels money to Republican candidates who deny legitimacy of Biden’s election

    Drug industry funnels money to Republican candidates who deny legitimacy of Biden’s election

    Ed Silverman reports for Stat News on pharmaceutical companies’ support for Republican candidates who falsely deny the legitimacy of Biden’s election in 2020. In 2022, Pharma, the trade association representing the drug companies, donated more than $1 million to Republicans running for state offices. These campaign contributions buy Pharma political power.

    Elected officials help ensure that Pharma can continue to charge exorbitant prices for prescription drugs. So, one would expect these large campaign contributions. They’re a drop in the bucket relative to the profits pharmaceutical companies generate from having virtually free reign to set prices.

    Pfizer appears to have led the way with its campaign contributions to Republicans, donating $600,000.  GSK, Eli Lilly and Novartis contributed $235,000 or more each. Astellas Pharma, Johnson and Johnson and Merck each donated $125,000 or more.

    The pharmaceutical companies donated directly to either the Republican State Leadership Committee, the Republican Attorneys General Association, and the Republican Governors Association.

    Money from these Republican groups was directed to some individual campaigns, such as Ashley Moody’s re-election campaign for Florida attorney general.  Moody had urged the Supreme Court in 2020 to  rule on a lawsuit designed to invalidate Presidential election results in four states.

    The Republican Governors Association invested more than $5 million in an ad campaign in Arizona opposing Katie Hobbs, the Democrat running for governor against Kari Lake.  Lake claims the 2020 election was stolen, notwithstanding the lack of evidence supporting her claim. The RGA also invested $15 million in Ron DeSantis, who supports Lake. (Notwithstanding these donations, Hobbs was just elected.)

    The contributions by the pharmaceutical companies highlight their lack of concern for the integrity of our democracy and the democratic process. Perhaps their employees, along with Americans, will take note and stand together in support of Congressional action to end monopolistic drug pricing in the US and establish fair drug prices, on a par with what other wealthy countries pay.

    To be fair, the pharmaceutical companies use their campaign contributions to befriend legislators in whatever party. So, it should come as no surprise that they donated to Democratic committees as well, although at somewhat lower levels than Republican committees.

    Pharmaceutical companies claim that their donations are intended purely to support their particular policy goals related to prescription drugs and should not be seen as support for other issues.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Senator Manchin must support lower drug prices in Build Back Better Act

    Senator Manchin must support lower drug prices in Build Back Better Act

    On November 19th, the House passed the Build Back Better Act. Among the bill’s most popular provisions are several steps towards lowering prescription drug prices. Now, the bill goes to the Senate. It is a moral and political necessity for Senate Democrats to pass Build Back Better into law swiftly and without weakening any of the drug pricing provisions.

    Not surprisingly, the PhRMA lobby hates the drug pricing reforms in Build Back Better. Currently, pharmaceutical corporations can charge as much as they’d like for prescription drugs, and they are desperate to keep it that way. Any delay in passing Build Back Better into law gives PhRMA lobbyists more time to weaken it.

    That’s why Senator Joe Manchin’s threats to delay a Build Back Better vote until 2022 are so dangerous. Manchin has already undermined Build Back Better by demanding the removal of one of the bill’s most popular policies — expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision coverage. However, Manchin claims to support drug pricing reform. If he means it, he must support holding a vote on Build Back Better as quickly as possible.

    It isn’t just Democratic voters who support Build Back Better’s drug pricing reforms. They are extremely popular among Republican and Independent voters as well. Not only is lowering drug prices a moral imperative, it’s also a political necessity.

    Build Back Better would give Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices on 30 of the most expensive prescription drugs. This is an important step towards giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices on all drugs. Ninety-three percent of Democratic voters support this policy — as do 81 percent of Independents and 78 percent of Republicans.

    In the last decade, drug prices rose three times faster than the rate of inflation. Build Back Better would effectively prevent this from happening in the future by requiring drug companies to pay a fine when they raise prices faster than inflation. This means that regardless of if you are on Medicare or private insurance or uninsured, no drug price will go up faster than the rate of inflation. This provision is supported by 92 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Independents, and 78 percent of Republicans.

    Additionally, Build Back Better would add a $2,000/year cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug spending for Medicare beneficiaries. This would transform the lives of seniors across the country, who are currently forced to choose between filling their prescriptions and paying their rent. Eighty-four percent of Democrats support this cap. So do 77 percent of Independents and 74 percent of Republicans.

    No prescription drug shows the depths of Big Pharma’s greed better than insulin. Pharmaceutical corporations are colluding to raise the price of insulin, which has tripled in the last decade. Build Back Better would save and improve the lives of Americans with diabetes by adding a $35/month cap on insulin co-pays, as well as giving the government the power to negotiate a lower price. Ninety-four percent of Democrats support this plan, along with 84 percent of Independents and 82 percent of Republicans.

    Together, Build Back Better’s drug pricing reforms are a strong first step towards addressing the outrageous prices of prescription drugs. A promise to lower drug prices was central to President Biden’s presidential campaign, and to the campaigns of Democrats across the country. By passing Build Back Better into law, Democrats will ensure that they can go back to voters before the 2022 midterms and tell them they’ve kept that promise.

    I take Sen. Manchin at his word that he wants to address the outrageous drug price inflation that we have been living under for decades. But, if he holds up Build Back Better from passing the Senate, even for a day, then he will show himself to be a liar about taking on Pharma.

    This article was originally posted on DataforProgress on November 29, 2021.

    Here’s more from Just Care: