Is there one government controlled price systems that has worked better than the private sector?
Monday, 22. March 2010
Will the dems new Drug price negotiation act be any exception?
The misguided proposal before us today to put the government in charge of negotiating prescription drug prices does not serve the interests of seniors. Government controls will lead to restrictive formularies, denying seniors coverage for the drugs their doctors prescribe. While seniors will have fewer prescriptions to choose from, they will not realize savings from this reduction in prescription options. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirmed that government negotiation will only yield savings if access to medicines is restricted.
H.R. 4 will limit seniors’ choice of plans and access to necessary treatments; what’s more, it will stifle innovation. In examining ways to control the costs of prescription drugs, we must not forget that innovations by pharmaceutical companies lead to the development of newer and better treatments. Price controls create barriers to pharmaceutical innovation that can hurt patients and slow the potential for innovative therapy discovery. Some estimates find that almost 200 new drugs would go undiscovered over the next two decades as an indirect result of federal price negotiations.
We all want to ensure our seniors can get the prescriptions they need at the lowest cost. The debate before us today is about who we think is most effective in negotiating with the drug companies to achieve this low cost. We do not need to speculate on the answer to this question. The current program of senior choice and market competition has already lowered costs by forty percent in one year. In contrast, the CBO has said that the proposal to move toward socialized medicine will not save seniors any money unless access to needed medications is limited. I cannot support limiting access and choice for the 66,000 Medicare Part D beneficiaries in my district and as such strongly oppose H.R. 4.