Republican lawmakers blasted President Biden over a proposed policy in which the government would “walk in” and seize patents from pharmaceutical companies deemed to be charging too much for prescription drugs.
The proposal, announced Thursday by Biden, is the latest plank of the 81-year-old president’s “Bidenomics” agenda and targets drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, nearly every drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2010, in an effort to lower the price.
“Now, 25 of America’s largest pharmaceutical companies control 70% of the market,” Biden said in a tweet.
“This lack of competition drives up prices — making it harder for hard-working American families to access the health care they need.”
The president explained that under the proposed policy, if a drug is made using government funds and “is not reasonably available to the American people, the government has the right to ‘walk in’ and license the drug to another manufacturer who can sell it at a lower price.”
He called it an “important step toward ending Big Pharma’s price gouging” that would be “good for competition” and “good for our economy.”
Republican doctors in Congress, as well as some economists, slammed the policy.
“So now dictator Biden is seizing the intellectual property of hardworking Americans. He is a dictator!” Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), a physician, wrote in X
The proposal, announced Thursday by Biden, is the latest part of the “Bidenomics” agenda and targets drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, which are nearly every drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2010. White House Representative Mark Green (R) – Tenn.) denounced Biden as a “dictator” for the proposed policy. Getty Images
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), also a physician, argued that the Biden administration “has no legal authority” to revoke drug patents.
“Previous administrations of both parties have agreed on this matter, as have the bipartisan senators who wrote the legislation. They will lose in court,” the Louisiana Republican wrote on X, referring to the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, federal legislation that the Biden administration argued gave it the authority to proceed with the plan.
Cassidy asserted that the policy would “kill” drug innovation and the American people.
“This kind of short-sighted decision will kill American health care innovation and deny millions of Americans future cures and life-saving treatments. As a doctor, I know that lives that could be saved will be lost if President Biden takes this action,” he said.
Senator Bill Cassidy argued that the Biden administration “does not have the legal authority” to seize drug patents. AP
Some economists also point out that Biden’s argument that there is not enough competition in the drug manufacturing space is unpersuasive.
“It’s a little ironic that this makes the drug market look like the most competitive market in health care,” Ben Ippolito, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, said in a tweet, referring to Biden’s claim that 25 companies control 70% of the market for prescription drugs.
Follow today’s most important news
Stay up to date with the Evening Update.
Michael Cannon, a healthcare expert with the Cato Institute, noted that those companies’ market share “averaged 2.8% each” under Biden’s math.
Cannon told The Post that while “pharmaceutical patents are a contributor to high drug prices … they are not the only or the most problematic contributor.”
“Layer upon layer of regulations, subsidies, tax penalties and trade restrictions put medicine prices out of reach for millions of consumers. The federal government is the worst offender, driving up drug prices through regulations, the tax code, trade barriers, and Medicare and Medicaid purchasing rules,” he said.
“Patents are not sacred. But the president should address all contributors to excessive drug prices,” Cannon added.
Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, argued that it might be better for the Biden administration to explore “whether some patents are too restrictive, or whether the FDA is too slow to approve competing drugs.”
“There are some policy justifications for both of these things, but they stifle competition,” Cole said in a tweet.
“25 firms (or more!) are more than enough for competition if they are actually allowed to enter the market.”
Gary Winslett, a professor of political science at Middlebury College, said forcing companies that were mined to license their products “is, in effect, patent revocation,” and that the plan should be reserved “for emergencies” and not used as a “routine policy lever.”
“If this threat is carried out, it could affect drug innovation in the US,” he tweeted.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
