[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3346-S3347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will 
certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--
particularly our seniors.
  It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the 
Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, 
just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took 
the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of 
cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them 
obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on 
a basic issue.
  Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in 
America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they 
are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on 
research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the 
television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on 
constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on 
those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual 
research for new drugs.
  What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American 
consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They 
have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell 
Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and 
ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on 
advertising works.
  There are only two countries on Earth that allow television 
advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New 
Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be 
made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, 
can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to 
leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry 
sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American 
consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a 
battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up.
  BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push 
behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across 
America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive.
  So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that 
reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American 
families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior 
citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take 
half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in 
the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and 
prescription drugs are affordable.
  Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the 
Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the 
prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that 
negotiation.
  Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate 
with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same 
drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction 
for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is 
the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are 
not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the 
costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. 
There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to 
bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should 
do it in the United States.

[[Page S3347]]

  The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans 
would do several things.
  It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will 
help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money.
  It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket 
expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. 
That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make 
ends meet among our senior citizens.

  We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically 
increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There 
are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can 
make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single 
year by raising the cost of drugs.
  What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the 
affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the 
Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to 
make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. 
They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, 
they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took 
the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals.
  I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his 
campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest 
people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to 
make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need 
of affordable drugs.