Skip to Main Content

WASHINGTON — Democrats here have, of late, been making far more noise about high prescription drug prices.

But at two dueling hearings on Tuesday, the most powerful Republicans on each committee made their own mark.


Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and a former chairman of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, kicked off his panel’s hearing by offering his support for a controversial proposal that would inflame drug makers: to potentially cut the lucrative exclusivity periods the government grants drug makers for their products.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!

  • I said it once and I’ll say it again. These politicians are looking in the wrong place for the root of this problem. The problem is the PBM’s ! period ! Just look at what happened in Ohio,Kentucky,Arkansas, West Virginia, New York, Billions of dollars
    were overcharged by PBM’s. You don’t have to be Einstein to see this !
    If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.
    IT’S A DUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • So when the GOP pushed through the Medicare Part D Law that forbade the government negotiating for better drug prices, did politicians really believe pharma would keep prices down through the goodness of their hearts.

    Americans fund the starting research on the vast majority of drugs. Why aren’t we reaping the benefits of those payments through cheaper drugs?

  • Overall good summary, except to say that it wasn’t a “sea change” is quite the understatement. “Other Republicans on each panel, and even some Democrats, were more deferential to the drug industry”. Not sure what the expectation was at Stat News for the level of scolding – unacceptable comparisons to the Tobacco industry have already been made during the hearing – but there wasn’t a single senator in the Finance Committee who acted “deferential”. It’s the powerful Phrma lobby narrative, but the populist streak was quite dominant. Amidst all the outrage, much of it well-grounded, we do need to be able to still acknowledge some of the uncomfortable facts such as level of OOP in comparison to overall healthcare cost, limitations of ERP, delay to access, economics of innovation investments etc. The hearing did not, whatsoever, consider insurance design as one potential factor of patient cost-bearing for instance. It didn’t care to acknowledge that patients are anxious about medical cost, defaulting over hospital bills and that the whole sector is not operating on actual economics but price gauging. To say that isn’t deferential to pharma, and it makes exorbitant drug prices no more palatable

Comments are closed.