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.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
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.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.
Rising Biosimilar Adoption for an Italian Payer Will Benefit National Health Care System, Patients
April 9th 2024Data from 2021 and 2022 indicates increasing biosimilar use in an Italian health care company, with potential for full adoption in the future, benefiting both the National Health System and citizens through efficient and sustainable health care policies.