WAIT WAIT … DON’T TELL ME! Now that everyone has digested the news that Congress has some $3 billion in estimated savings on proposed legislation it could use to pay for other health care legislation, advocacy groups and pharma industry experts are weighing how exactly such an effort might play out on Capitol Hill. Lauren quizzed David about the possible ramifications of a recent Congressional Budget Office score for a bipartisan bill that would prohibit a practice known as product-hopping: Does the updated CBO score improve the chances of this bill — or others like it — advancing this Congress? Proponents certainly think that the lame-duck period after the election is an opportune time for a health care package, in part because a short-term funding agreement for community health centers is set to expire at the end of the year. It could also help pay for other legislation to address drug shortages, reform pharmacy benefit manager practices, extend telehealth policies, address insulin costs or boost physician payments. David Mitchell, president of advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs, told me that Congress has roughly $5 billion that it can use to pay for other priorities when you add savings from two other health care-related bills CBO scored earlier this year. What exactly would the bills do? The first, the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2023, would prevent firms from marketing a reformulation or another drug to treat the same or similar condition and then discontinuing or disadvantaging the first medicine. It also would limit the number of patents companies can assert are infringed upon when making, importing or marketing a copy of complex drugs. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act — which seeks to clamp down on agreements made between brand and generic companies that delay market entry of generic drugs — would save more than $1.6 billion over a decade, according to the CBO. And the CBO found that the Stop STALLING Act would save roughly $400 million over a decade by allowing the Federal Trade Commission to take civil action against people or companies that petition the FDA with the intent to delay approval of generic competition. The trio of bills are all clearly health care-related legislation, according to Remy Brim, a former senior HELP Committee staffer for Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and who now lobbies at BGR for several companies. “If I was leadership staff, I would say that this is a health care pay for, this is for health care stuff,” Brim told me. What’s next? Bill proponents now need to convince congressional leadership that the measures warrant inclusion in an end-of-year package — and health staffers will have to fight to ensure they’d be allocated to offset health care-related priorities. IT’S FRIDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. We’re not-so-patiently waiting for the Supreme Court to issue more health care decisions — are you? Send news and tips to David Lim (dlim@politico.com or @davidalim) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com or @Gardner_LM).
|
No comments:
Post a Comment