Critics Question Trump Drug Price Control Plan
Critics say that aspects of a draft executive order on drug prices obtained by The New York Times would likely increase drug prices rather than bring any relief. One element in the draft targets the so-called 340B program that requires the drug industry to give discounts to hospitals and clinics that serve large numbers of low-income patients. The industry has complained that the program is being abused, the Times reports, while hospitals say they would have to cut services without it.
“That’s one that sticks out as a bit of a head-scratcher,” says former FDA associate commissioner Joshua Sharfstein. “This is the executive order to lower drug prices. Why would you put in a provision that would raise drug prices?”
The newspaper says the draft appears to give industry much of what it has asked for and contains no guarantee that costs to consumers will drop. “The four-page document contains several proposals that have long been championed by the industry,” the report says, “including strengthening drugmakers’ monopoly power overseas and scaling back the program requiring companies to give discounts to some hospitals and clinics.
“I do believe that the president wants to do something to lower drug prices for people, but this is a far cry from what he said on the campaign trail,” says Patients for Affordable Drugs founder David Mitchell. “I don’t see anything there that addresses the drug companies getting away with murder (something President Trump said while campaigning), and it appears that is because Pharma has captured the process.”
The newspaper notes that in the first quarter of this year, with a new administration in place, the pharmaceutical and health products industry spent $78 million in lobbying, a 14% increase over last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It also points out that many people working on drug policy had ties to the industry in their previous careers.
Sharfstein and others commenting for the Times say they are intrigued by a proposal known as value-based pricing that appeals to both industry and policy wonks. The report says the idea refers to paying drug companies for the value that a drug brings, refunding money if a drug fails to prevent a costly health condition, for example.
Some proposals appear to address alleviating the rising out-of-pocket costs that patients are being asked to pay, the story says, by reducing regulatory or administrative actions that cause Medicare beneficiaries to pay list price for drugs while pharmacy benefit managers get a lower price from companies, and by targeting regulations that inappropriately or unfairly contribute to higher prices or cost-sharing for medical products.