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.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
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.
Hesitancy in MENA Nations to Adopt WHO Biosimilar Guidelines Hinders Market Development
July 17th 2024The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new guidelines for biosimilar approvals aim to save time and money for manufacturers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but hesitancy among nations to adopt the guidelines is stifling market development of biosimilars.
BioRationality: Time to Get Rid of PBMs if Biosimilars Are to Succeed
July 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the challenges with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that plague the biosimilar industry and new legislation that attempts to reform their practices and encourage biosimilar adoption.