[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S3509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am hearing a lot of news reports, and 
if they are correct, it sounds like the majority party has a very 
partisan bill that they want to call a drug pricing bill.
  And I am also told that this is moving along because it looks like 
the Parliamentarian is currently reviewing that proposed legislation to 
see if it fits into the process of reconciliation.
  If the majority party passes its partisan bill, it will be bad policy 
for patients and taxpayers, but that doesn't mean we don't have answers 
to the problems that they are trying to solve.
  But first of all, let me say what the Senate-proposed legislation--
what we know about it--would do. It would put taxpayers at risk for 
more spending. It would fail to enact any bipartisan accountability of 
Big Pharma and powerful middlemen that we call pharmacy benefit 
managers or PBMs for short.
  Yes, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. 
And their bill has been developed in secret, with no markup or open 
debate.
  Now, this partisan bill and this process are a far cry from 
bipartisan drug pricing ideas that I have developed over the past few 
years.
  In the past 12 months alone, I have passed five bipartisan drug 
pricing bills out of committee that will lower prices and create more 
competition and hold Big Pharma and PBMs accountable.
  In addition, I have a comprehensive bill to lower prescription drug 
prices that could pass the Senate with at least 60 votes. My bill is 
bipartisan; it has been negotiated; and it is comprehensive.
  The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing Act. It is also 
known as Grassley-Wyden, but I want to be fair to Wyden. I am not sure 
that he would claim that he negotiated that bill, but I still like the 
bipartisan part of it.
  The Senate should act today on this bipartisan bill to lower drug 
prices because this is what Grassley-Wyden would do: It would lower 
costs for seniors by $72 billion. It would save the taxpayers $95 
billion. Those are CBO figures.
  It establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and 
it redesigns Medicare Part D, that needs some redesigning after 19 
years. This legislation will hold Big Pharma and powerful PBMs 
accountable.
  Now, too often, cheaper alternatives like generics are available, but 
Big Pharma and these middlemen have an incentive to push the patient 
into higher-cost drugs, and patients pay the cost. My bill ends that 
incentive and is very pro-consumer.
  A third point I want to make, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big 
Pharma. It does it by capping annual price increases of Medicare Part B 
and D drugs at inflation. In other words, drug companies can't raise 
prices two or three times a year 5 to 10 percent--once a year at no 
more than CPI.
  A Kaiser Foundation study found that half of the drugs in Medicare 
Part B and D increased higher than inflation over the period of time 
that Kaiser study covered. Over 600 drugs during the study increased 
7.5 percent or more.
  Another point of the bill: It establishes accountability and 
transparency. There are 25 major provisions to my bill to reform how 
the pharmaceutical industry operates.
  Accountability in my bill includes, one, ending clawbacks that drive 
up costs at pharmacy counters for the patient. Second, ending ``spread 
pricing'' in Medicaid contracts that drive up taxpayers' costs. Three, 
requires sunshine on powerful PBM financial audits so the public knows 
the true net cost of a drug.
  Everything with PBMs is opaque. You don't know what goes on between 
the manufacturer and the consumer.
  And, four and lastly, requires sunshine on excessive drug price 
increases and sunshine on the launch price of a new high-cost drug.
  Big Pharma and powerful middlemen benefit from the current system 
that we have today, and at the same time, patients and taxpayers 
suffer. My bill's bipartisan reform will change all of that.
  Finally, the bill is bipartisan. I suppose Democrats get tired of me 
talking about a bipartisan bill when they are in the secrecy of their 
rooms drawing up their own bill.
  We have 11 Republicans who supported this bill in the Finance 
Committee markup or are cosponsors of the bill. Thirteen Democrats 
supported this bill in markup. It was debated and negotiated in public.
  But don't take my word for it, take it from some of my Democratic 
colleagues. A few months ago, the senior Senator from Delaware said 
this:

       Senator Grassley did, I thought, a masterful job in 
     drafting a bill with broad bipartisan support.

  And the chairman of the Finance Committee and senior Senator from 
Oregon--and he is probably going to hate me for saying this, but I am 
going to quote him:

       Big Pharma was relentless in fighting what Senator Grassley 
     is talking about and has been for 2 years.

  My bill will save seniors money, save taxpayers money, hold Big 
Pharma and powerful middlemen accountable, and enact necessary reform 
and sunshine; plus, it has bipartisan support.
  So we can lower drug prices without having to resort to this partisan 
reconciliation process. The Grassley Prescription Drug Pricing 
Reduction Act is a solution. It is a product of a bipartisan, 
transparent process. Compare that to the secrecy of the Democratic 
reconciliation process.

  I yield the floor.