Republican lawmakers criticized President Biden for a proposed policy in which the government will “come in” and seize the patents of pharmaceutical companies they believe are charging too much for prescription drugs.
The proposal, announced Thursday by Biden, is the latest item on the 81-year-old president’s “Bidenomy” agenda and targets drugs developed with taxpayer money, which is virtually all drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2010, in an effort to lower prices.
“Friends, right now, 25 of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States control 70% of the market.” Biden said in a tweet..
“This lack of competition drives up prices, making it difficult for working American families to access the health care they need.”
The president explained that under the proposed policy, if a drug is made with government funds and “is not reasonably available to Americans, the government reserves the right to ‘step in’ and license that drug to another manufacturer who could sell it for less. “
He calls it “an important step toward ending price gouging by Big Pharma” that will be “good for competition” and “good for our economy.”
Republican doctors in Congress, as well as several economists, criticized the policy.
“So now dictator Biden is seizing the intellectual property of hard-working Americans. He is the dictator! Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), a physician, wrote in X
The proposal, announced Thursday by Biden, is the latest part of the “Bidenomy” agenda and targets drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, which are virtually all drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2010. The representative White House President Mark Green (R-Tenn.) criticized Biden as a “dictator” for the proposed policy. fake images
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), also a doctor, argued that the Biden administration “does not have the legal authority” to seize drug patents.
“All previous administrations of both parties have agreed on this, as have the bipartisan senators who wrote the law. They will lose in court,” the Louisiana Republican wrote in X, referencing the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the federal legislation that the Biden administration says gives it authority to move forward with the plan.
Cassidy claims the policy will “kill” pharmaceutical innovation and Americans.
“This type of short-sighted decision would end American innovation in healthcare and deny millions of Americans future cures and life-saving treatments. As a doctor, I know that lives will be lost that could be saved if President Biden takes this action,” he stated.
Senator Bill Cassidy argued that the Biden administration “does not have the legal authority” to seize drug patents. AP
Several economists also noted that Biden’s argument that there is not enough competition in the drug manufacturing space is unpersuasive.
“It’s a bit ironic that this makes drug markets look like the most competitive market in healthcare,” Ben Ippolito, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, said in a tweet, referring to Biden’s claim that 25 companies control 70%. of the prescription drug market. drugs.
Stay up to date with today’s most important news
Stay up to date on the latest with Evening Update.
Michael Cannon, a health care expert at the Cato Institute, noted that the market share of those companies “averages 2.8% each” according to Biden’s calculations.
Cannon told The Post that while “pharmaceutical patents contribute to high drug prices…they are not the only or most problematic one.”
“Layer upon layer of regulations, subsidies, tax penalties and trade restrictions put medicines out of reach for millions of consumers. “The federal government is the worst offender, raising drug prices through regulation, the tax code, trade barriers, and Medicare and Medicaid purchasing rules,” he said.
“Patents are not sacrosanct. But the president should address all the factors that contribute to excessive drug prices,” Cannon added.
Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, argued that it might have been better for the Biden administration to explore “whether some patents are too restrictive or whether the FDA is taking too long to approve competing drugs.”
“There are some political justifications for both, but they restrict competition,” Cole said in a tweet.
“25 companies (or more!) are more than enough to compete if they are actually allowed to enter a market.”
Gary Winslett, a political science professor at Middlebury College, said forcing dug companies to license their products “are, in effect, patent revocations” and a plan that should be reserved “for emergencies” and not used as a ” routine political lever”. ”
“If this threat is carried out, it could severely undermine pharmaceutical innovation in the United States,” he said in a tweet.
Categories: Trending
Source: vtt.edu.vn