Crapo: Idahoans Deserve Real Solutions to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Washington, D.C.--U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, took to the Senate Floor to fight against an unvetted legislative proposal that takes a radical and disruptive approach to drug price controls.  Senator Crapo objected to the bill proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), which had been introduced only hours before and had not received consideration under a standard process by first going through the Senate Finance Committee.  Crapo urged colleagues to instead consider his Lower Costs, More Cures Act: a comprehensive, market-based approach to leveraging competition, flexibility and transparency to bring affordable drugs to patients without stifling innovative growth and research. 

To watch Senator Crapo’s remarks, click HERE or the image above.

Excerpts from Crapo’s remarks: 

On the proposed legislation, to which he objected: 

“Under this proposal, we would see a staggering decline in the game-changing research and development that our universities, medical centers and entrepreneurs conduct every day, as vital investments in the cures of the future would decline.” 

“As countless studies of price control mandates like the ones before us today have concluded, these policies would slash new drug discoveries in the years to come, jeopardizing some of the highest-risk projects in particular. . . .” 

“[Under this legislation] we would move closer to a government-run health care system, where bureaucratic price controls like these would become the norm.”  

On commonsense, free market solutions: 

“As we confront unprecedented challenges at home and abroad, we must look to consensus-driven solutions that meet Americans’ everyday needs--including prescription drug access and affordability.  We can agree on that.” 

“Members across the political spectrum have developed bipartisan drug pricing policies that could make a meaningful difference for workers and families.” 

“I’ve introduced legislation, which is waiting in the Committee for a vetting rather than coming to the floor without it even going through Senate regular order: the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.” 

“We have a real opportunity to lower prescription drug costs without threatening access to the therapies and cures of the future or handing an advantage to global rivals like the Chinese Communist Party.  With a bipartisan and bicameral effort, undertaken through regular order, we could make a major impact on these issues.” 

Learn more about the Lower Costs, More Cures Act here. 

Full text of Crapo’s remarks can be read below.

__________________________________________________ 

Madam President, reserving the right to object. 

Our nation’s seniors deserve meaningful solutions that increase prescription drug access and affordability. 

This bill, unfortunately, would double down on the deepest flaws in our current health care system and usher in a host of new problems, from fewer new treatments to more bureaucracy.

It is almost certain under this legislation we would see launch prices for new drugs actually increase. 

The solution is not to go and double down on a failed socialist theory of price fixing and work to make our market better. 

Even setting aside the overwhelming implementation challenges and technical issues that this legislation would present from the outset, the provisions included would do far more harm than good, particularly for the very older Americans they are intended to help. 

From the outset, there was talk about wanting to have process and a vote.  This legislation was just introduced today.  It just got a bill number today.  There has been no vetting of this legislation in the Committee, which is the regular order of this Senate. There has been no public analysis.  There has been no public review.  There has not been any hearing on this legislation.  There has not been any negotiation on this legislation.  I heard numbers thrown out about what a savings this would be, but CBO has not scored this legislation.  There are serious flaws with it. 

Under this proposal, we would see a staggering decline in the game-changing research and development that our universities, medical centers and entrepreneurs conduct every day, as vital investments in the cures of the future would decline. 

As countless studies of price control mandates like the ones before us today have concluded, these policies would slash new drug discoveries in the years to come, jeopardizing some of the highest-risk projects in particular.  

Potential treatments targeted at conditions affecting seniors at high rates, like certain cancers, would likely suffer the greatest impact, as Medicare would become increasingly stagnant, unable to meet the evolving needs of a rapidly aging population. 

After coming in under-budget, with satisfactory rates soaring and premiums remaining remarkably stable, Medicare Part D would lose the market-driven structure that has made it such a success story for so many seniors. 

Instead, we would move closer to a government-run health care system, where bureaucratic price controls like these would become the norm. 

The vast majority of Americans still reject the notion of a government run health care system and price controls in place of a free market. 

Meanwhile, our frontline health care providers, having weathered a truly unprecedented two years, would face a sweeping, immediate, and drastic payment cut, as this legislation aims to advance immediate payment reductions under Medicare Part B—with direct implications for doctors and other health professionals across all settings. 

In the face of widespread provider burnout, retirements, closures and consolidation, these cuts risk accelerating trends that already jeopardize access to health care for far too many Americans from all walks of life, particularly in rural and underserved communities. 

The VA, for its part, would inevitably see higher health care costs, as any discounts or other price concessions that lower drug costs for our nation’s veterans would disappear.  Previous payment systems along these lines--and that have been suggested in the past--have resulted in a host of unintended consequences, from higher launch prices to withheld rebates and discounts.  

Our veterans do not stand to gain from being tied to this unvetted, experimental, and irresponsible new proposal. 

As we confront unprecedented challenges at home and abroad, we must look to consensus-driven solutions that meet Americans’ everyday needs--including prescription drug access and affordability.  We can agree on that. 

Members across the political spectrum have developed bipartisan drug pricing policies that could make a meaningful difference for workers and families. 

I’ve introduced legislation, which is waiting in the Committee for a vetting rather than coming to the floor without it even going through Senate regular order. 

My legislation is called the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.  [This is] just a quick summary of what it contains:

• A hard-cap on out-of-pocket spending for all seniors under Medicare Part D, with an installment-based monthly payment option;
• Reforming of Part D benefits reduce seniors’ cost-sharing burden and incentivize plans to negotiate the best possible deals for enrollees.
• Increasing Part D plan choices--increasing options and reducing prices.
• My bill does have an out-of-pocket monthly insulin cap at $35.  That, you might remember, is the insulin cap President Trump put into place.
• Establishing a Chief Pharmaceutical Negotiator to combat foreign freeloading, and ensuring the best trade deals achievable for American success in dealing with these price discrepancies driven by terrible behavior from our counterparts in other parts of the global economy.
• Strengthening consumer-oriented oversight through more useful cost comparison tools, price transparency measures, and robust reporting requirements in the drug supply chain.
• Facilitating value-based arrangements, where private and public-sector payers can pay based on patient outcomes, driving better results for patients.
• Restructuring payments for drugs administered in the doctor’s office or hospital outpatient department to encourage physicians to deliver cost-effective treatment options, where appropriate clinically. 

My point is there are a lot of solutions that can work within the consistent free market, private sector solutions we have solved and are working on to make them better. 

We have a real opportunity to lower prescription drug costs without threatening access to the therapies and cures of the future or handing an advantage to global rivals like the Chinese Communist Party.  

With a bipartisan and bicameral effort, undertaken through regular order, we could make a major impact on these issues. 

This legislation, unfortunately, does no such thing.  It is thoroughly unvetted, showing no signs of technical assistance or practical feasibility.  It has not received a CBO score, or even informal analysis, or a committee hearing. 

It did not advance through a regular process in the Senate.  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to let us engage in regular order in the Finance Committee in the Senate, and work these issues through.  There are a lot of ideas on the table.  Let’s work them through rather than try to cram through one side’s idea on the very day the bill was introduced in the Senate.

I object. 

###