[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S336-S338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. King, Ms. Ernst, 
        Ms. Smith, Mr. Welch, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. 
        Tuberville):
  S. 229. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
require that direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs 
and biological products include an appropriate disclosure of pricing 
information; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as President Trump begins his second term, 
I am concerned about his immigration policy, pardons for violent 
insurrectionists of January 6, and the grifters seeping into the White 
House. In each of these areas, I am prepared to fight with every tool 
at my disposal to stop abuses that harm Americans.
  But I also believe we must find areas of agreement where we can, and 
one of those areas could be addressing the astronomical cost of 
prescription drugs, a real-life issue facing American families.
  Thankfully, last week, President Biden announced 15 new drugs that 
Medicare will now bargain for, to lower prices for seniors across the 
America. Remember, those savings are only possible because of the 
passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which did not receive a single 
Republican vote.
  There is more work to do though. On average, patients in the United 
States of America pay four times more--four times more--than people in 
similar countries for the exact same drugs. What is going on here? A 
drug is made in America and sold at four times the cost in America as 
is charged by the same companies overseas.
  Why is the United States such an outlier? One reason is advertising. 
Have you noticed any ads for drugs on television lately? If you 
haven't, you don't have a TV. The United States is one of only two 
industrialized countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical 
companies to advertise on television. What is the other country that 
allows this? New Zealand--the United States and New Zealand.
  You know these ads I am talking about--catchy jingles, flashy images; 
patients rock climbing, swimming, dancing. Big Pharma spends--get this 
now--$6 billion every year to flood the airwaves about the latest 
wonder drug. Why do they spend so darn much money on drug ads? Because 
it increases their profits. Big Pharma thinks, if they can pummel you 
with enough ads, not only will you be able to spell Xarelto, but you 
will be able to tell your doctor this is the blood thinner you have 
been waiting for.
  Don't take my word for it. Here is what the American Medical 
Association says about these ads we are inundated with every single 
darn day on our televisions:

       Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and 
     expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be 
     appropriate.

  So when President Biden announced a list of 15 drugs that will be 
negotiated for discounts, I imagined most Americans already recognized 
many of their names: Ozempic, Trelegy, Ibrance, and Otezla.
  Manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of dollars encouraging you 
to just ``ask your doctor'' about these drugs. The result? Medicare 
spent $22 billion last year on those very same four drugs that were 
heavily advertised medications.
  A recent headline in the New York Times read:

       Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It 
     Wouldn't Be Easy.

  It discussed the First Amendment challenges Pharma would raise as a 
result of that.
  While I have strong concerns with President Trump's health nominee, I 
am glad this administration wants to join me to tackle these 
promotional ads. We already have an incredible strategy on the table.
  For the last 8 or 9 years, I have introduced bipartisan legislation 
to crack down on these drug ads on TV and other places. Senator Chuck 
Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has been my partner.
  When you turn on the evening news--get this--one-third of all 
commercial time is for prescription drugs. Do you think you are seeing 
a lot of ads? One-third of all commercial time is for prescription 
drugs.
  Try to avoid it, if you wish. But the average American sees nine drug 
ads a day. I will bet it is more. It seems like more.
  With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with 
information. All of this information is being tossed at you, most of it 
at a mile-a-minute gibberish. But they do keep in the darkness one 
important factor: They never mention the cost, the price of the drug.
  In 2023, Illinois company AbbVie spent $315 million on TV ads for 
Rinvoq. I have an ad here. Rinvoq is an eczema and arthritis drugs. 
However, in the commercial, they don't tell you one thing. The cost of 
this drug is $6,100 per month. My staff just corrected me before I came 
to the floor and said: You missed the latest increase. It is now up to 
$6,400 a month for Rinvoq.
  Hang on. I am sure you will see one of those ads in no time at all.
  Senator Grassley and I think it is time to end the big secrecy on the 
cost of these drugs. If they are going to advertise it and rattle off 
gibberish--I love the one that says: Don't take Otezla if you are 
allergic to Otezla.
  That never would have dawned on me. That is part of their ad.
  If you are looking at the ads and hearing the gibberish they throw at 
us, they tell you everything under God's green Earth, except a basic 
honest issue: How much does it cost?
  That is why today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to 
require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drug ads.
  Our plan is simple. It actually passed the Senate once before, in 
2018, and 88 percent of the American people support this kind of 
disclosure. In fact, after we worked to advance this measure, Donald 
Trump, then President of the United States, said this, and I want to 
make sure the quote is accurate. This is from his first term in office:

       Big announcement today: Drug companies have to come clean 
     about their prices in TV ads. Historic transparency for 
     American patients is here. If drug companies are ashamed of 
     those prices--lower them!

  I may disagree with the President on many things, but I certainly 
agree with this statement there.
  Big Pharma hates being honest with patients about the true prices of 
their drugs. They fear it might cut into their colossal historic 
profits. With the support of President Trump and Senator Grassley, I 
believe this will be the year we finally pass bipartisan legislation to 
bring sunshine to these ads and to actually lower health costs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record as follows:

                                 S. 229

       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 ``Drug-price Transparency for 
     Consumers Act of 2025'' or the ``DTC Act of 2025''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription 
     pharmaceuticals is legally permitted in only 2 developed 
     countries, the United States and New Zealand.
       (2) In 2018, pharmaceutical ad spending exceeded 
     $6,046,000,000, a 4.8 percent increase over 2017, resulting 
     in the average American seeing 9 drug advertisements per day.
       (3) The most commonly advertised medication in the United 
     States in 2020 had a list price of more than $6,000 for a 
     one-month supply.
       (4) A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found 
     that two-thirds of all direct-to-consumer drug advertising 
     between 2016 and 2018 was concentrated among 39 brand-name 
     drugs or biologicals, about half of which were recently 
     approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
       (5) According to a 2011 Congressional Budget Office report, 
     pharmaceutical manufacturers advertise their products 
     directly to consumers in an attempt to boost demand for their 
     products and thereby raise the price that consumers are 
     willing to pay, increase the quantity of drugs sold, or 
     achieve some combination of the two.
         
       (6) Studies, including a 2012 systematic review published 
     in the Annual Review of Public Health, a 2005 randomized 
     trial published in the Journal of the American Medical 
     Association, and a 2004 survey published in Health Affairs, 
     show that patients are more likely to ask their doctor for a 
     specific medication, and the doctor is more likely to write

[[Page S338]]

     a prescription for it, if a patient has seen an advertisement 
     for such medication, even if such medication is not the most 
     clinically appropriate for the patient or if a lower cost 
     generic medication may be available.
       (7) According to a 2011 Congressional Budget Office report, 
     the average number of prescriptions written for newly 
     approved brand-name drugs with direct-to-consumer advertising 
     was 9 times greater than the average number of prescriptions 
     written for newly approved brand-name drugs without direct-
     to-consumer advertising.
       (8) The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is the 
     single largest drug payer in the United States. Between 2016 
     and 2018, 58 percent of the $560,000,000,000 in Medicare drug 
     spending was for advertised drugs, and in 2018 alone, the 20 
     most advertised drugs on television cost Medicare and 
     Medicaid a combined $34,000,000,000.
       (9) A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found 
     that direct-to-consumer advertising may have contributed to 
     increases in Medicare beneficiary use and spending among 
     certain drugs.
       (10) The American Medical Association has passed 
     resolutions supporting the requirement for price transparency 
     in any direct-to-consumer advertising, stating that such 
     advertisements on their own ``inflate demand for new and more 
     expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be 
     appropriate''.
  

       (11) A 2019 study published in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association found that health care consumers 
     dramatically underestimate their out-of-pocket costs for 
     certain expensive medications, but once they learn the 
     wholesale acquisition cost (in this section referred to as 
     the ``WAC'') of the product, they are far better able to 
     approximate their out-of-pocket costs.
       (12) Approximately half of Americans have high-deductible 
     health plans, under which they often pay the list price of a 
     drug until their insurance deductible is met. All of the top 
     Medicare prescription drug plans use coinsurance rather than 
     fixed-dollar copayments for medications on nonpreferred drug 
     tiers, exposing beneficiaries to WAC prices.
       (13) Section 119 of division CC of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) requires the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the use of 
     real-time benefit tools to lower beneficiary costs. However, 
     there still remains a lack of available pricing tools, so 
     patients may not learn of their medication's cost until after 
     being given a prescription for the medication. A 2013 study 
     published in The Oncologist found that one-quarter of all 
     cancer patients chose not to fill a prescription due to cost.
       (14) The Federal Government already exercises its authority 
     to oversee certain aspects of direct-to-consumer drug 
     advertising, including required disclosures of information 
     related to side effects, contraindications, and 
     effectiveness.
  

       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a lack of transparency in pricing for pharmaceuticals 
     has led to a lack of competition for such pharmaceuticals, as 
     evidenced by a finding by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services that ``Consumers of pharmaceuticals are currently 
     missing information that consumers of other products can more 
     readily access, namely the list price of the product, which 
     acts as a point of comparison when judging the reasonableness 
     of prices offered for potential substitute products'' (84 
     Fed. Reg. 20735);
       (2) in an age where price information is ubiquitous, the 
     prices of pharmaceuticals remain shrouded in secrecy and 
     limited to those who subscribe to expensive drug price 
     reporting services, which typically include pharmaceutical 
     manufacturers or other health care industry entities and not 
     the general public;
       (3) greater insight and transparency into drug prices will 
     help consumers know if they can afford to complete a course 
     of therapy before deciding to initiate that course of 
     therapy;
       (4) price shopping is the mark of rational economic 
     behavior, and markets operate more efficiently when consumers 
     have relevant information about a product, including its 
     price, before making an informed decision about whether to 
     buy that product;
       (5) providing consumers with basic price information may 
     result in the selection of lesser cost alternatives, all else 
     being equal relative to the patient's care, and is integral 
     to providing adequate competition in the market;
  

       (6) the WAC is a factual, objective, and uncontroversial 
     definition for the list price of a medication, in that it is 
     defined in statute, reflects an understood place in the 
     supply chain, and is at the sole discretion of the 
     manufacturer to set;
       (7) there is a governmental interest in ensuring that 
     consumers who seek to purchase pharmaceuticals for purposes 
     of promoting their health and safety understand the objective 
     list price of any pharmaceutical that they are encouraged 
     through advertisements to purchase, which allows consumers to 
     make informed purchasing decisions; and
       (8) there is a governmental interest in mitigating wasteful 
     expenditures and promoting the efficient administration of 
     the Medicare program by slowing the growth of Federal 
     spending on prescription drugs.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISEMENTS 
                   FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS 
                   INCLUDE AN APPROPRIATE DISCLOSURE OF PRICING 
                   INFORMATION.

       Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1150D. REQUIREMENT THAT DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER 
                   ADVERTISEMENTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND 
                   BIOLOGICALS INCLUDE AN APPROPRIATE DISCLOSURE 
                   OF PRICING INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     July 1, 2026, the Secretary shall require that each direct-
     to-consumer advertisement for a prescription drug or 
     biological product for which payment is available under title 
     XVIII or XIX and that is required to include the information 
     relating to side effects, contraindications, and 
     effectiveness described in section 202.1(e)(1) of title 21, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) 
     also include an appropriate disclosure of pricing 
     information, as described in subsection (b), with respect to 
     such prescription drug or biological product.
       ``(2) Exemption.--The requirement under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to a prescription drug or biological product for 
     which the wholesale acquisition cost for a 30-day supply of 
     (or, if applicable, a typical course of treatment as set 
     forth in the approved label for the primary indication 
     addressed in the advertisement for) such prescription drug or 
     biological product is less than $35.
       ``(b) Appropriate Disclosure of Pricing Information.--For 
     the purposes of subsection (a), an appropriate disclosure of 
     pricing information, with respect to a prescription drug or 
     biological product--
       ``(1) shall clearly and conspicuously disclose the 
     wholesale acquisition cost for a 30-day supply of (or, if 
     applicable, a typical course of treatment for) such 
     prescription drug or biological product; and
       ``(2) may explain that a consumer may pay a different 
     amount for such prescription drug or biological product than 
     such wholesale acquisition cost depending on the health 
     insurance coverage of the consumer.
       ``(c) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     final regulations to carry out this section, including 
     establishing requirements for--
       ``(1) the visual and audio components, with respect to each 
     medium of direct-to-consumer advertisement, to communicate 
     the wholesale acquisition cost of the advertised prescription 
     drug or biological product; and
       ``(2) the amount of time for a manufacturer to update any 
     direct-to-consumer advertisement to reflect any change to the 
     wholesale acquisition cost of the advertised prescription 
     drug or biological product.
       ``(d) Sanctions.--Any manufacturer of a prescription drug 
     or biological product, or an agent of such manufacturer, that 
     violates the requirement of this section may be subject to a 
     civil money penalty of not more than $100,000 for each such 
     violation. The provisions of section 1128A (other than 
     subsections (a) and (b)) shall apply to civil money penalties 
     under the preceding sentence in the same manner as they apply 
     to a penalty or proceeding under section 1128A(a).
  

       ``(e) Public Reporting.--In order to enforce the 
     requirement under this section, the Secretary may use 
     information reported about manufacturers that fail to comply 
     with such requirement.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Biological product.--The term `biological product' 
     means any biological product (as defined in section 351(i) of 
     the Public Health Service Act) that is licensed by the Food 
     and Drug Administration pursuant to section 351 and is 
     subject to the requirements of section 503(b)(1) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
       ``(2) Prescription drug.--The term `prescription drug' 
     means any drug (as defined in section 201(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) that has been approved by the 
     Food and Drug Administration pursuant to section 505 of such 
     Act and is subject to the requirements of section 503(b)(1) 
     of such Act.
       ``(3) Wholesale acquisition cost.--The term `wholesale 
     acquisition cost' has the meaning given such term in section 
     1847A(c)(6)(B).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for the purposes of carrying out this section.''.

                          ____________________