Ron Klink: Nancy Pelosi’s drug plan misses the mark | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Ron Klink: Nancy Pelosi’s drug plan misses the mark

1907891_web1_1883905-bb0f55077e054a809a76d39e592a8379
AP
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi talks to reporters in Washington Oct. 31.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed one of the most ambitious health care reforms since the Affordable Care Act. She hopes her plan, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, will reduce the “out of control” prices that are “crushing Americans at the pharmacy counter.”

I served four terms in Congress with Pelosi, and I know she cares deeply about patients. But despite her good intentions, this bill would do very little to reduce patients’ actual pharmacy bills. And it would deprive Americans of lifesaving treatments.

Consider the bill’s main provisions, which would primarily reduce government — not patient — spending. One measure would impose steep fines on drug companies that raise prices faster than inflation. The revenue collected would go straight to the Treasury Department, not patients’ wallets. And the government wouldn’t be required to funnel those savings back to Medicare beneficiaries.

Another measure would allow the government to cap the price of 250 brand-name medications that have few, if any, competitors. These drugs tend to be highly advanced — and quite expensive. The caps would certainly reduce government spending. But they wouldn’t necessarily reduce patient cost-sharing, which varies based on patients’ insurance plans.

Such measures would crush America’s biopharmaceutical industry. The bill would reduce drug companies’ revenues by $1 trillion in just 10 years.

That, in turn, would hurt patients. Pharmaceutical companies devote 17% of revenues, on average, to research and development. So a $1 trillion drop in revenues means research spending would fall by roughly $170 billion.

Without this funding, scientists would develop far fewer medicines. Cutting drug prices by 40 to 50% would result in up to 60% fewer research and development projects, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research paper. Another study found that government pricing setting would slow drug development so much, average life expectancies could decline.

Workers would also suffer. America’s biopharmaceutical industry supports 4.7 million U.S. jobs and generates more than $1.3 trillion in economic output.

Fortunately, Pelosi can relieve Americans at the pharmacy counter without harming workers or patients. How? Target “pharmacy benefit managers,” or PBMs.

Unlike pharmaceutical companies, these middlemen in the drug supply chain don’t create new medicines. And unlike pharmacies or hospitals, PBMs don’t provide care to patients.

PBMs help insurance companies decide which drugs to cover. PBMs also determine how much patients should pay out-of-pocket. This gatekeeper role gives PBMs considerable power — and enables them to extract big discounts from drug companies. In 2018 alone, pharmaceutical firms offered $166 billion in discounts.

PBMs keep billions of those discounts for themselves as profits. And they pass the rest on to insurers.

Those savings rarely trickle down to patients at the pharmacy counter. If Pelosi required PBMs and insurers to pass along those discounts to patients at the point of sale, patients could save $93 billion over the next 10 years.

Pelosi could also work with Congress to remove unnecessary barriers to access posed by prescription drug plans. These roadblocks make it harder for patients to quickly get the medicine they need, which ultimately hinders their ability to beat back illness.

That includes things like “step therapy.” This common approval process requires physicians to prescribe the cheapest drugs first, even if they are less effective than a more expensive drug. Thanks to this policy, patients are often forced to wait months before insurance will cover the treatment they really need.

Roadblocks like this increase the likelihood that patients will deviate from their treatment regimen. Prescription “non-adherence” is responsible for approximately 125,000 preventable deaths per year, and costs our health care system up to $290 billion in avoidable medical expenses.

Making insurance cover drugs up front — the way it covers other necessary medical care — would save patients from costly illnesses and treatments.

Helping Americans afford their drugs is a noble goal. But Speaker Pelosi’s bill, in its current form, would hurt patients and scientists. Let’s hope she and the rest of my former Democratic colleagues rethink their approach.

Ron Klink is a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania and is currently senior policy adviser at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.