Conservative Conundrum: Judge Blocks Trump from Forcing Drug Makers to Reveal Prices

Hey Justice Roberts, here’s yet another “Obama judge.
Every time you turn around, another one pops up just in time.

In a Constitutionally perfect world, the Congress would represent the citizens and pass laws protecting them from multinational corporations. In our world, executive orders must be used to make these companies release their drug prices. In a Constitutionally perfect world, judges would stick to the law as written and circuit court judges would not rule on matters outside their jurisdiction. In our world, we need to appoint our own judges and use them to block the leftists at every turn. Either that happens or we lose by the rules every time.

I don’t think we can make the conservative argument anymore with respect to accomplishing change. Our government was set up to work with a moral society and we are no longer a moral society. That and the fact that if Congress is made up of the opposing party, nothing gets done. Hence, executive orders.

That said, another approach would be to take advantage of laws that already exist on the books related to price gouging and utilize the FDA to effectuate change. Medical devices should also be included as their costs are also hidden from the end customer.

The FDA is authorized to create new legislation related to food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices. Proposed laws go before advocacy groups such as AdvaMed (U.S.) and EucoMed (Europe) for industry feedback. In the end, they can choose to incorporate that feedback or not into the final legislation.

The FDA can demand that 1) the original price of a pharmaceutical/device must precede the insurance price on all receipts and 2) define what costs can and cannot be recuperated in the price of a drug/device and be consistent about enforcement. For example, all costs associated with research and development are allowed to be recuperated over a period of X amount of years (fixed number and/or defined range). Once recuperated, the prices must be lowered to subtract those costs. Lastly 3) if they are the only drug/device on the market for a specific indication, they are allowed to add up to a maximum of X% to the price until their patent expires.

Additionally, any costs associated with FDA approval requirements can be deducted from corporate taxes (e.g., clinical studies, internal testing, etc.), and that should be reflected in the pricing as well. But only costs associated with development can be recuperated. Ongoing manufacturing costs after FDA approval would follow existing laws. Often, companies will go for European approval first as it is easier/quicker to obtain. Once any approval is obtained, they should then be treated as retail product from that point forward with the exception of additional FDA requirements to obtain approval in the U.S. Same goes for Japanese approval whose requirements are more stringent than the FDA’s. Most other countries tend to accept European approvals.

There are also a lot of price adjustments made depending on what country drugs and medical devices are sold to as well (market-bearing pricing and price bundling). Japan is charged [exorbitant] premium pricing while Europe is charged much, much less. The U.S. pricing tends to falls between them. I think this is why HHS is looking to the European pricing model to bring down the prices, but I’m not convinced this is the best approach to take – especially without taking into consideration all other business factors involved.

Sorry, this 2 cents turned out to be a nickel.