Simple fact Checker: Would negotiating drug costs direct to less choices?

Table of Contents EvaluationConclusionConditions A tv ad by the Pharmaceutical Analysis and Suppliers of The…

A tv ad by the Pharmaceutical Analysis and Suppliers of The us (PhRMA), a trade group symbolizing drug corporations in the U.S., has aired in Cedar Rapids and throughout the state stating that Medicare negotiating prescription drug price ranges would lead to much less possibilities for Medicare Part D patients.

Reducing the value of prescription medications for People in america is a priority for some in Washington, D.C., including the way Medicare negotiates rates.

The Pharmaceutical Investigate and Makers of The usa, or PhRMA, a trade group representing U.S. drug firms, is pushing back again on people proposals in a television advertisement broadcast nationally and in the Cedar Rapids market this month.

The advertisement features a female named Sue who says she relies on Medicare for her diabetic issues medicine. In the 30-second clip, she states “some in Congress” want to make it more durable for Medicare patients to receive the medications they require.

“They want to repeal a safety in Medicare that safeguards accessibility to my medications,” Sue suggests in the advertisement, which was initially posted on the web Aug. 5. “They simply call it negotiation, but it actually indicates the authorities decides what medications I can get. That would make it more challenging for people on Medicare to get the medications we have to have.”


At the heart of the discussion is the non-interference clause, a provision that helps prevent the federal federal government from having a immediate position in negotiating rates for medication included by Medicare Part D.

At this time, people selling prices are negotiated amongst manufacturers, private overall health programs and pharmacies, but not by Medicare.

In 2019, the U.S. Home handed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Charges Now Act, which would permit the Wellness and Human Expert services secretary to negotiate costs for a choose selection of medicine that do not have a generic choice. The laws also would give the secretary the capability to impose an extra tax on companies that do not get to an settlement.

The PhRMA advert was based on proposals within just the legislation, but PhRMA famous in an electronic mail to Reality Checker that the advert also pertains to other proposals from Capitol Hill and the White Home.

Pharmaceutical lobbyists probable see these initiatives going additional this calendar year immediately after President Joe Biden issued an Govt Purchase on Aug. 12 expressing his administration supports “aggressive legislative reforms that would reduced prescription drug costs, like by permitting Medicare to negotiate drug price ranges.”

The Medicare negotiation monthly bill, H.R. 3, was reintroduced in the House before this calendar year. The Senate has taken no action.

An analysis done by the Congressional Spending budget Office environment in February discovered the bill’s provisions could lower pharmaceutical fees involving 57 and 75 percent when compared to current charges.

A 2019 evaluation by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Expert services discovered the negotiation provisions in just the bill would decrease shelling out by Medicare Portion D enrollees by $117 billion involving 2020 and 2029. That consists of an approximated $102.6 billion minimize in price sharing for beneficiaries who use drugs coated beneath Component D that are subject to negotiation.

Debra DeShong, the PhRMA government vice president of public affairs, reported in an e-mail to the Reality Checker team that governing administration negotiation “inevitably limitations client selection, specially if that plan is intended as a value-conserving measure.”

PhRMA pointed to a 2020 evaluation by the Hayden Consulting Group — a team that is aligned with pharma pursuits — that said the invoice would build a desire for prescription drugs with lowered rates, which could in flip minimize incentives for study and pharmaceutical innovation.

DeShong even further defended the ad by stating that if federal government-negotiated medications value much less, wellness programs would steer clients to “government-chosen drugs” to keep expenditures low and finally lead to much less choices for people.

“The extended-expression implications for the market are that the federal government is buying winners and developing a de facto group of preferred medications that restrictions access and decision,” she said.

PhRMA also pointed to a line in just the 2021 Congressional Funds Business analysis that theorized producing corporations, if they unsuccessful to attain an agreement with the federal authorities, could opt for to consider the drug off the U.S. industry fairly than pay out the excise tax proposed below this legislation. That fundamentally would choose away the solution to use that drug from Medicare sufferers, PhRMA officials stated.

A spokesman for the House Finance Committee explained to the Washington Put up before this thirty day period that the legislation is not meant to stop obtain to drugs for Medicare Part D patients.

In addition, most medication would not be issue to a negotiation procedure less than the provisions of H.R. 3, a Kaiser Family members Foundation official instructed the Put up.

In addition, there is no prerequisite for the federal governing administration to make choices around which medications would not be included under Medicare Part D — that nevertheless would be up to individual health plans.


The PhRMA advertisement is deceptive when it states that proposals like H.R. 3 are made to restrict access to specific medicines and make it more challenging for Medicare clients to get their prescriptions.

However, it is fair to say there will be an impact if drug expenditures are cut as a consequence of governing administration negotiation. At this issue in time, that impact is not known.

This advertisement touts the worst-circumstance situation, so for that, it earns a D.


The Simple fact Checker staff checks statements made by an Iowa political applicant/officeholder or a countrywide applicant/officeholder about Iowa, or in advertisements that seem in our market.

Promises need to be independently verifiable.

We give statements grades from A to F based on precision and context.

If you place a declare you think requirements checking, e mail us at [email protected]

This Reality Checker was investigated and penned by Michaela Ramm of The Gazette.