Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, a co-sponsor of the amendment, placed blame on pharmaceutical companies for using their influence to block the measure.
US lawmakers have been in a hurry this week to deliver the first set of 2019 appropriations bills to the President for approval. In an effort to deliver on a piece of the administration’s drug pricing blueprint, a bipartisan provision that would have required drug manufacturers to include list prices in direct-to-consumer television ads was expected to be included in the bill. The provision was subsequently blocked by House Republicans.
Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, a co-sponsor of the amendment, placed blame on pharmaceutical companies for using their influence to block the measure. “For some reason, someone on the other side is trying to block this common sense, truly bipartisan policy. When are we going to stand up to Big Pharma and actually do something about sky high prescription drug prices? Transparency in advertising is the very least Congress can do,” said Durbin, as reported in Regulatory Focus.
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the other co-sponsor of the amendment, took to Twitter to announce his disappointment with the amendment’s exclusion, stating “It is EMBARRASSING to bow to BIG PHARMA at expense of consumers... If we can agree why are lobbyists fighting?”
Industry did indeed take issue with the amendment; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America(PhRMA) spoke out against the proposal in its July comments to HHS on the administration’s drug pricing blueprint, saying “FDA should not pursue any required disclose of list prices in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Such a requirement could confuse patients since the list price often does not represent what they would actually be required to pay.”
Exclusion of the amendment appears to counter public sentiment; a recent poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 76% of the public supports the inclusion of list prices in television ads.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cordavis Report Outlines Strategies for Biosimilar Development, Access in the US Health Care Market
May 8th 2024Cordavis, a CVS Healthspire company, released a report detailing the current hurdles faced in developing and commercializing biosimilars in the US and highlighting efforts by the organization to enhance access and affordability for these products.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.