[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8795-H8799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PATIENT RIGHT TO KNOW DRUG PRICES ACT

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (S. 2554) to ensure that health insurance issuers and 
group health plans do not prohibit pharmacy providers from providing 
certain information to enrollees.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 2554

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Right to Know Drug 
     Prices Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION ON DRUG 
                   PRICES.

       Subpart II of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2729. INFORMATION ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       ``(a) In General.--A group health plan or a health 
     insurance issuer offering group or individual health 
     insurance coverage shall--
       ``(1) not restrict, directly or indirectly, any pharmacy 
     that dispenses a prescription drug to an enrollee in the plan 
     or coverage from informing (or penalize such pharmacy for 
     informing) an enrollee of any differential between the 
     enrollee's out-of-pocket cost under the plan or coverage with 
     respect to acquisition of the drug and the amount an 
     individual would pay for acquisition of the drug without 
     using any health plan or health insurance coverage; and
       ``(2) ensure that any entity that provides pharmacy 
     benefits management services under a contract with any such 
     health plan or health insurance coverage does not, with 
     respect to such plan or coverage, restrict, directly or 
     indirectly, a pharmacy that dispenses a prescription drug 
     from informing (or penalize such pharmacy for informing) an 
     enrollee of any differential between the enrollee's out-of-
     pocket cost under the plan or coverage with respect to 
     acquisition of the drug and the amount an individual would 
     pay for acquisition of the drug without using any health plan 
     or health insurance coverage.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `out-of-pocket cost', with respect to acquisition of a drug, 
     means the amount to be paid by the enrollee under the plan or 
     coverage, including any cost-sharing (including any 
     deductible, copayment, or coinsurance) and, as determined by 
     the Secretary, any other expenditure.''.

     SEC. 3. MODERNIZING THE REPORTING OF BIOLOGICAL AND 
                   BIOSIMILAR PRODUCTS.

       Subtitle B of title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
     Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     173) is amended--
       (1) in section 1111--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (11), respectively;
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Biosimilar biological product.--The term `biosimilar 
     biological product' means a biological product for which an 
     application under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service 
     Act is approved.
       ``(4) Biosimilar biological product applicant.--The term 
     `biosimilar biological product applicant' means a person who 
     has filed or received approval for a biosimilar biological 
     product under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service 
     Act.
       ``(5) Biosimilar biological product application.--The term 
     `biosimilar biological product application' means an 
     application for licensure of a biological product under 
     section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act.'';
       (C) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
     or a biological product for which

[[Page H8796]]

     an application is approved under section 351(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act'' before the period;
       (D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (6)'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or a reference product in a biosimilar 
     biological product application'' after ``ANDA''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``or under section 351(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act'' before the period; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Reference product.--The term `reference product' 
     means a brand name drug for which a license is in effect 
     under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act.'';
       (2) in section 1112--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by inserting ``or a biosimilar biological product 
     applicant who has submitted a biosimilar biological product 
     application for which a statement under section 
     351(l)(3)(B)(ii)(I) of the Public Health Service Act has been 
     provided'' after ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act''; 
     and
       (II) by inserting ``or the biosimilar biological product 
     that is the subject of the biosimilar biological product 
     application, as applicable'' after ``the ANDA''; and

       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``or a biosimilar biological product applicant'' after 
     ``generic drug applicant'';
       (II) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``marketing'' and inserting 
     ``marketing,''; and
       (bb) by inserting ``or the reference product in the 
     biosimilar biological product application'' before 
     ``involved'';

       (III) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or of the 
     biosimilar biological product for which the biosimilar 
     biological product application was submitted'' after 
     ``submitted''; and
       (IV) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

       ``(C) as applicable--
       ``(i) the 180-day period referred to in section 
     505(j)(5)(B)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     as it applies to such ANDA or to any other ANDA based on the 
     same brand name drug; or
       ``(ii) the 1-year period referred to in section 
     351(k)(6)(A) of the Public Health Service Act as it applies 
     to such biosimilar biological product application or to any 
     other biosimilar biological product application based on the 
     same brand name drug.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Requirement.--
       ``(A) Generic drugs.--A generic drug applicant that has 
     submitted an ANDA containing a certification under section 
     505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act with respect to a listed drug and another generic drug 
     applicant that has submitted an ANDA containing such a 
     certification for the same listed drug shall each file the 
     agreement in accordance with subsection (c). The agreement 
     shall be filed prior to the date of the first commercial 
     marketing of either of the generic drugs for which such ANDAs 
     were submitted.
       ``(B) Biosimilar biological products.--A biosimilar 
     biological product applicant that has submitted a biosimilar 
     biological product application for which a statement under 
     section 351(l)(3)(B)(ii)(I) of the Public Health Service Act 
     has been provided with respect to a reference product and 
     another biosimilar biological product applicant that has 
     submitted a biosimilar biological product application for 
     which such a statement for the same reference product has 
     been provided shall each file the agreement in accordance 
     with subsection (c). The agreement shall be filed prior to 
     the date of the first commercial marketing of either of the 
     biosimilar biological products for which such biosimilar 
     biological product applications were submitted.''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking ``between two generic drug applicants is an 
     agreement'' and inserting ``is, as applicable, an agreement 
     between 2 generic drug applicants''; and
       (II) by inserting ``, or an agreement between 2 biosimilar 
     biological product applicants regarding the 1-year period 
     referred to in section 351(k)(6)(A) of the Public Health 
     Service Act as it applies to the biosimilar biological 
     product applications with which the agreement is concerned'' 
     before the period;

       (3) in section 1115, by striking ``or generic drug 
     applicant'' each place such term appears and inserting ``, 
     generic drug applicant, or biosimilar biological product 
     applicant''; and
       (4) in section 1117, by striking ``, or any agreement 
     between generic drug applicants'' and inserting ``or a 
     biosimilar biological product applicant, any agreement 
     between generic drug applicants, or any agreement between 
     biosimilar biological product applicants''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as the only pharmacist in Congress and a practicing 
pharmacist for over 30 years, this issue of an industry forcing the 
American people at the pharmacy counter hits incredibly close to home 
for me.
  Pharmacy benefit managers, also known as PBMs, have put forth 
restrictions that debase the drug supply chain in the United States.
  PBMs have existed for decades, but they have grown through mergers 
and acquisitions to be the middlemen for much drug coverage on 
formularies.
  The hope was that PBMs would reduce administrative burdens and be 
able to negotiate drug prices, yet here we are today voting on two 
bills to stop them from intentionally defrauding patients. It is 
unfortunate that we have even reached the point where there needs to be 
a law passed that prohibits this type of behavior.
  I appreciate that we are here today voting to sign these two Senate 
bills banning gag clauses into law; however, I think these bills could 
go further.
  My bill, the Prescription Transparency Act, which was introduced 
earlier this year, deemed any contract containing gag clauses null and 
void. Furthermore, it applied to every single insured patient. And it 
not only ensured that patients were notified of the lowest price, but 
also of any less expensive generic equivalents that might be available 
to the patient.
  My other piece of legislation, the Know the Cost Act, not only bans 
gag clauses in prescription drug plans for Medicare Advantage, Medicare 
part D, and individual and group insurance plans, but also informs 
beneficiaries about the consequences of paying out of pocket.
  My bill received letters of support from the American Medical 
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Global Healthy 
Living Foundation, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and 
Rite Aid, a clearly diverse group of stakeholders all hoping to lower 
the price of prescription drugs.
  States around the country have taken action to address gag clauses, 
with over 20 States having banned them and countless more considering 
it.
  While we have worked through these bills, we have seen the wide-
ranging impact it has had. We have even heard in a committee hearing 
from colleagues like Congresswoman Dingell, who was initially told that 
her prescription would be $1,300 but then talked to her pharmacist and 
got an equivalent for $40.
  I want to repeat that.
  We have even heard in a committee hearing from colleagues like 
Congresswoman Dingell, who was initially told that her prescription 
would be $1,300 but then talked to her pharmacist and got an equivalent 
for $40.
  The discrepancy in costs should really be a wake-up call for how 
formularies are being impacted. Let's get this legislation passed so we 
can take on the other issues in this space.
  While I am pleased that we are taking these important steps toward 
reining in PBMs and drug costs, I think there is still far more work 
ahead.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for including these bills 
on the legislative calendar for today. I sincerely hope that you take 
the resounding national support for banning gag clauses in 
consideration in the future and allow patients to regain control of 
their medical decisions back from multibillion-dollar middlemen.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Patient Right to Know 
Drug Prices Act and the next bill we will be considering, the Know the 
Lowest Price Act. These two bills are the product of bipartisan efforts 
in the Energy

[[Page H8797]]

and Commerce Committee to ban so-called gag clauses, which prevent 
pharmacists from providing consumers information about cheaper 
prescription drug options.
  I did want to mention I see that my colleague, Mr. Doggett from 
Texas, is here, and the Senate bills being considered today are 
companion legislation to a House bill that Congressman Doggett 
introduced with 32 colleagues earlier this year.
  Specifically, gag clauses are contractual provisions that can limit 
pharmacists from informing consumers that their prescriptions may be 
purchased for a lower price if paid out of pocket instead of through 
their insurance plan. These bills increase consumer transparency and 
may help some consumers who get their insurance through the private 
market or through Medicare save money.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank, again, Congressman Doggett and 
Mr. Welch, also from our committee, for their long-time leadership on 
this issue. I see also that Mr. Sarbanes is here, who has also been 
involved in this legislation in a major way.
  I am glad to see we are voting on these policies today.
  The Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act also includes an important 
provision that ensures biologic and biosimilar drug manufacturers are 
required to inform the Federal Trade Commission of potentially 
anticompetitive agreements that may delay lower cost drugs from 
entering the market in the same manner that brand and generic drug 
manufacturers do today. This notification will allow the FTC to 
challenge any ``pay for delay'' agreements in court
  Madam Speaker, the language included in this bill is based on 
legislation introduced by Congressmen Sarbanes and Johnson, and I thank 
them for their leadership on this important issue.
  Now, I must say, Madam Speaker, while I believe both bills are 
commonsense measures that we should all support, I also strongly 
believe that this cannot and should not be Congress' only effort to 
reduce drug prices.
  When I am home--and we have been home a lot, as you know, over the 
last couple of months--one of the number one issues that people are 
concerned about is the high cost of prescription drugs. We need to 
address that. I personally believe we should be negotiating the prices 
of drugs under Medicare, but there are many other measures, including 
encouraging more generics, that could accomplish the goal of trying to 
reduce drug prices.
  These bills do nothing to address the biggest drivers of high drug 
costs in this country, namely, the high list prices set by drug 
companies for branded drugs. So we must address overall drug 
affordability, which these bills do not, but I continue to urge my 
colleagues to work together to find solutions that can actually lower 
drug prices in a meaningful way.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the honorable 
chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the two bills that 
will bring some much-needed transparency into the drug supply chain 
process, and they will help patients afford the medicines that they 
really need.
  The Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, sponsored by Senator Susan 
Collins, and the Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018, sponsored by 
Senator Debbie Stabenow, will, together, ban gag classes from Medicare 
and private insurance.
  These clauses restrict a pharmacist's ability to inform a patient 
that their drug would be cheaper if they paid out of pocket than if 
they paid through their insurance. And while there is already a 
regulation banning this practice in Medicare part D, this legislation 
will end the practice across Medicare Advantage prescription drug 
plans, Medicare part D, and group and individual insurance plans.
  These two bills mirror legislation authored by Representative Buddy 
Carter, who is carrying this legislation for the majority on the floor 
today. He is a very valuable member of our House Energy and Commerce 
Committee. And, by the way, he is the only pharmacist in the Congress, 
so he understands this from a very personal perspective from behind the 
counter.
  He was joined in this effort by Representatives Welch and Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers, Anna Eshoo, Morgan Griffith, Debbie Dingell, Gene 
Green, and our chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Dr.  Michael 
Burgess.
  I think all of us on the committee are very supportive of this 
effort. We, in fact, moved this bill, Madam Speaker, as you know, as an 
important part of our committee earlier this month, and it did pass 
unanimously. So I commend Mr. Carter for his good work on this issue.
  I first heard about the gag clause issue from a pharmacist in Grants 
Pass, Oregon, named Michele. That is in my district. She is an 
independent pharmacist. We were talking about a lot of these issues, 
about how we get drug prices down for consumers, and she told me that 
as a pharmacist, she was prevented, precluded under certain insurance 
contracts, from telling a patient that their cash price would be 
cheaper than going through their insurance.
  Can you imagine such a thing in America?
  Michele told me that she once even received a cease and desist letter 
for trying to help a child with a terminal illness access his 
medication--simply unacceptable, period.

                              {time}  1615

  Madam Speaker, I am glad we are taking concrete action today to 
address this important issue. And as we have heard already, these bills 
are coming over from the Senate. We had them in the House, marked them 
up in committee, and did our work. At the end of the day, I decided the 
important thing was not who had which bill. It was, how do we help 
consumers the quickest.
  Taking the Senate bills, getting them down to the President's desk 
with the support of our colleagues who worked so hard in the House 
seemed like the best path. It is about putting consumers first. That is 
what we have done on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I encourage 
our colleagues in the House to support this legislative effort.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, there is just no wonder 
drug that will cure prescription price gouging. And with many prices 
for drugs rising at 10 times the rate of inflation, and with an 
unaffordable drug being 100 percent ineffective for the many that 
cannot afford it, many Americans are really desperate.
  In this Congress, we have another lost year of failing to address 
prescription price gouging. Now, on election eve, we take this 
miniscule step forward. A few of the many consumers who have been 
scrimping to get their medications, could at least find out if by 
paying cash, they can get a particular prescription at a lower price. 
No longer will gag provisions deny pharmacists the right to counsel 
about this issue.
  After learning about this problem about two years ago, I consulted 
with experts, with patient advocates, with pharmacists about these 
clauses, and asked the CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services to prevent this administratively, which they could have done, 
but they failed to do so.
  Finally, months ago this year, I filed two bills as companion 
legislation to the measures we are considering today by Senators 
Collins and Stabenow, and was joined by 32 Members of the other house 
in supporting and sponsoring those measures.
  This Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, the House version of it, 
was endorsed back in June by the National Community Pharmacists 
Association, thereafter, by the National Association of Chain Drug 
Stores, and by the American Psychiatric Association.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record their letters of support.


[[Page H8798]]


                                                National Community


                                      Pharmacists Association,

                                                    June 28, 2018.
     Re National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) Support 
         of H.R. 6143 & 6144.

     Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Doggett: The National Community 
     Pharmacists Association (NCPA) is writing today in strong 
     support of the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act and the 
     Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018, H.R. 6143 and 6144, two 
     bills that would ban provisions in contracts between pharmacy 
     benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacies (so called ``gag 
     clauses'') that prohibit pharmacists from being able to 
     inform patients of cheaper alternatives for their medication.
       NCPA represents the interests of America's community 
     pharmacists, including the owners of more than 22,000 
     independent community pharmacies. Together, they represent an 
     $80 billion health care marketplace and employ more than 
     250,000 individuals on a full or part-time basis.
       ``Gag clauses'' refer to contract provisions and/or 
     requirements embedded in lengthy provider manuals that 
     include overly broad confidentiality requirements, and non-
     disparagement clauses, as well as requirements that 
     pharmacies charge insured patients what the PBM says at point 
     of sale, leaving pharmacies with little to no ability to 
     inform patients of actual drug costs. Such provisions have 
     the effect of chilling a range of pharmacist communications 
     with patients and others for fear of retaliation by the PBM.
       NCPA strongly supports passage of the Patient Right to Know 
     Drug Prices Act and the Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018 to 
     help ensure that patients are not being charged inflated 
     prices for their drugs. Thank you for your leadership in 
     addressing this issue, and we look forward to working with 
     you to advance these pieces of legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                         Karry K. La Violette,

                               Senior Vice President of Government
     Affairs & Director of the Advocacy Center.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                            Chain Drug Stores,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 16, 2018.
     Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Doggett: The National Association of 
     Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) is pleased to support your 
     legislation, the Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018 (H.R. 
     6144), to prohibit PDP sponsors, Medicare Advantage 
     Organizations, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS) from 
     restricting pharmacies from informing individuals regarding 
     the prices for certain drugs and biologicals.
       NACDS believe gag clauses should not be allowed in 
     contracts between health plans and pharmacies. Such clauses 
     prevent pharmacists from informing patients when a medication 
     can be purchased at a lower price without using insurance. 
     The prohibition and/or removal of gag clauses in contracts 
     between Part D plans, Medicare Advantage plans, PBMs, and 
     pharmacies will enhance patient access to medications, enable 
     pharmacists to have improved relationships with patients, and 
     keep healthcare costs for patients to a minimum.
       Pharmacies are the face of neighborhood healthcare and are 
     a highly trusted source of healthcare information, products, 
     and services. Your legislation helps ensure that Medicare 
     beneficiaries can continue to trust their local pharmacies 
     for accurate and helpful information regarding their 
     prescription drug costs.
       Again, we appreciate your leadership on this critically 
     important healthcare issue.
       Sincerely,

                                                Tom O'Donnell,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Affairs and Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                                  August 16, 2018.
     Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Doggett: On behalf of the American 
     Psychiatric Association (APA), the national medical specialty 
     association representing more than 37,800 psychiatric 
     physicians, I write in support of your bill H.R. 6143, the 
     Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act. H.R. 6143 seeks to 
     enhance transparency in the pricing of prescription drugs by 
     forbidding insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from 
     imposing ``gag clauses'' in their contracts with pharmacies. 
     These clauses forbid pharmacies from disclosing to patients 
     the difference between the amount of the drug's copay under 
     their insurance plan and the amount they would pay for the 
     drug without using their insurance. As providers, we are 
     deeply concerned about the barriers these clauses impose on a 
     patient's access to affordable medications. Federal 
     preemption of these clauses is among the proposals included 
     in President Trump's blueprint to lower drug prices and 
     reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients.
       As you know, the list prices for prescription drugs 
     continue to rise. PBMs seek to lower those prices by 
     negotiating discounts directly with drug manufacturers. 
     However, the amount of these discounts may result in an 
     insurance plan's copay for a drug exceeding the actual cost 
     of purchasing the drug out-of-pocket because the copay is 
     typically calculated based on factors other than the actual 
     price of the drug. Unfortunately, because the amount of these 
     discounts is not publicly available, consumers do not know 
     when their insurance plan copay is higher than the actual 
     price of the drug and often assume that their copay 
     represents only a portion of the best possible price of the 
     drug.
       According to a recent study of 2013 drug pricing and 
     payment data, consumers overpaid for their prescription drugs 
     by $135 million. Almost a quarter (23%) of all prescriptions 
     filled in 2013 involved a patient copayment that exceeded the 
     average price of the drug by more than $2.00. Prescriptions 
     for drugs commonly used to treat mental health disorders are 
     prone to this overpayment phenomenon. The medications cited 
     as having the highest frequency of overpaid prescriptions 
     include drugs commonly used to treat insomnia, depression, 
     and some side effects of psychiatric medications.
       Thank you for your ongoing commitment to finding bipartisan 
     ways to enhance transparency in the prices consumers pay for 
     their health care. Accordingly, we welcome an opportunity to 
     aid your efforts to advance H.R. 6143, the Patient Right to 
     Know Drug Prices Act from the Energy & Commerce Committee.
           Sincerely,

                                  Saul Levin, MD, MPA, FRCP-E,

                                         CEO and Medical Director,
                                 American Psychiatric Association.

  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that finally our House 
Republican colleagues have agreed to approve this proposal today. With 
families nationwide concerned about soaring drug prices, this 
legislation would end a restrictive, anticompetitive, and anticonsumer 
provision for those who rely on ObamaCare in the marketplace and for 
group employer ERISA plans.
  I must note, however, that of all the many bills I have either 
introduced or supported from other colleagues dealing with excessive 
medication costs, this is the most narrow of the proposals out of all 
of them.
  Instead of really saving lives, some may view this as simply a life 
preserver for those who have ignored prescription price gouging for the 
past two years. Approving this modest, narrow bill is not a substitute 
for tackling the pervasive problem of prescription price gouging.
  Pharmacists are not the only ones who are, apparently, gagged. Right 
here in this Congress, some seem to be unable to find their voice and 
vote for real reform that would lower drug prices when we are 
outnumbered by two pharmaceutical lobbyists for every Member of this 
House of Representatives.
  Repeated attempts to pass measures that would lower prices have been 
blocked. Republicans even blocked my amendment to the opioid 
legislation to authorize the Trump administration to negotiate the 
price of naloxone, the lifesaving opioid overdose reversal drug whose 
prices soared by 700 percent.
  During the past week, Big Pharma, with considerable help from the 
Republican majority leader, sought to hitch a ride on this very same 
opioid legislation to get an unrelated $4 billion gift. It is enough to 
make you gag. Hopefully, we have got that stopped.
  Passage of this bill today is one modest step that we can take, but 
so much more is needed. That this bill even counts as progress, 
demonstrates how far we have to go. And while this bill brings some 
transparency to the pharmacy counter, the transparency which is most 
needed is comprehensive legislation like the Transparency Drug Pricing 
Act that I have introduced, to shed some light on where the prices get 
set. And that is by the manufacturer who hides the whole process 
through discounts, rebates, and fees.
  Now, we all know that President Trump solved the problem with his 
Rose Garden press conference early in the summer when he announced that 
prices are going down. But I have yet to find anybody who has benefited 
from that announcement. And, in fact, the Associated Press just 
analyzed drug prices since that announcement and they couldn't find any 
company that had made any significant reduction on prices.
  And when questioning the executives of 24 large drug companies, the 
AP didn't find a single one committed to cutting prices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, the attitude was best captured by one 
pharmaceutical executive who within

[[Page H8799]]

the last month said that he had a, ``moral requirement . . . to sell 
the product for the highest price.''
  Today's two minor prescription drugs bills are being passed in this 
process that is called ``suspension.'' But let's not create any further 
suspense for families that are in need on their healthcare costs. Let's 
approve real, comprehensive prescription drug pricing reform in a new 
Congress that is not indifferent to the needs of American healthcare 
consumers.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Patient Right to Know 
Drug Prices Act, an important bill that will ensure consumers can get 
the lowest price for their drugs.
  This bill is also aligned with the bipartisan Biosimilars Competition 
Act, a bill that I introduced that will shine a light on secret 
agreements called pay-for-delay deals. Pay-for-delay deals are great 
deals for the drug companies, but they are bad deals for consumers. 
Pay-for-delay refers to a practice where brand-name drug or biologic 
manufacturers make agreements with competing manufacturers to keep 
their lower-cost drugs off the market in exchange for a settlement.
  Brand-name drugs often have exorbitant costs compared to their 
generic counterparts. Although they make up approximately--listen to 
the statistics--although they make up approximately 10 percent of all 
drugs dispensed in America, brand-name drugs make up 72 percent of U.S. 
drug spending. A 2013 FTC report estimates that these pay-for-delay 
agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion each year.
  FTC currently has the authority--and this is good--to review 
agreements like these between conventional drug manufacturers. But this 
authority does not extend to the manufacturers of biologic and 
biosimilar drugs, which are new, cutting-edge drugs that are often 
extremely expensive.
  This means that right now, we have no way of knowing how many of 
these backroom deals occur between manufacturers of biologic and 
biosimilar drugs. That is why I introduced the Biosimilars Competition 
Act, a bipartisan bill, which would combat these agreements that keep 
drug prices high and have the effect of harming patients.
  These provisions would require manufacturers of biologics and 
biosimilar drugs to report pay-for-delay agreements and file them with 
the FTC and the Department of Justice for review of antitrust and 
anticompetitive behavior.
  Granting the FTC the authority to monitor these deals and punish bad 
actors, will deter many of these backroom deals from being made in the 
first place, and will help crack down on unfair deals that give 
millions of dollars to big pharmaceutical companies, while forcing 
American consumers to pay more for lifesaving drugs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these new requirements 
because they are good for consumers. They will increase transparency in 
drug pricing, and add more competition to the drug market, both of 
which will help lower drug costs at the pharmacy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say these are commonsense initiatives that 
help address the drug pricing issue. As I have said before, we still 
need to do a lot more, and we haven't this Congress. But I do agree 
that these bills will be helpful in that regard.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, and I want to assure them that this is only the beginning of 
what we intend to do and what I intend to do to help to lower 
prescription drug prices here in America.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank also my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle for all of their help. I ask for support of this legislation, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, S. 2554.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________