[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.
____________________