Democracy Forward Statement Ahead of Hearing to Defend Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program
Washington, DC — Corporate interests are attempting to stop the Medicare drug pricing negotiation program created by the Biden-Harris Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and appeals in three of the challenges to the drug price negotiation program will be heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on October 30.
Corporate attempts to stop the consumer-friendly program have received continued setbacks in court, and the upcoming hearing could be the latest in a series of victories for patients and advocates of the Biden-Harris Administration program. Most recently, a federal district court judge in New Jersey rejected a challenge brought by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, which marks the fourth time a federal court has done so in recent months and the eighth time overall. Democracy Forward has filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the nation’s leading medical and public health professionals in courts around the country to defend the IRA program and explain the connection between prescription drug affordability and public health. To date, no federal court has sided with the corporate interests in finding the drug price negotiation program unconstitutional.
The hearing, scheduled for October 30, 2024, will include oral arguments in AstraZeneca v. Becerra, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra, and Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Becerra, and will mark the first time an appellate court has considered the merits of the drug makers’ challenges. Several pharmaceutical company-aligned groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Third Circuit peddling thinly-sourced and corporate-funded studies to undermine the real public health victories the drug price negotiation program will achieve. Democracy Forward filed a rebuttal to these biased submissions on behalf of the American Public Health Association, the American College of Physicians, the Society of General Internal Medicine, the American Geriatrics Society, and the American Society of Hematology.
“Ensuring that Medicare can negotiate drug prices is essential to making life-saving medications more accessible and affordable for millions of Americans. These misguided lawsuits, which will undermine the health of millions of Americans, including many of our most vulnerable, should be rejected by the court,” said Ananda Burra, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward. “Cost savings through this program will help patients afford the care they need today and will allow Medicare to continue providing access to healthcare for all of us as we age. Corporate interests cannot be allowed to put profits over people and to peddle discredited research, and we will continue to support efforts that protect this critical program.”
The American Public Health Association, the American College of Physicians, the Society of General Internal Medicine, the American Geriatrics Society, and the American Society of Hematology, which Democracy Forward represents in the friend-to-the-court briefs to the Third Circuit, also released the following joint statement:
“As organizations dedicated to improving the health and well-being of all Americans, we strongly support the Medicare drug price negotiation program. Ensuring that patients can access affordable medications is critical to promoting public health, advancing equity, and improving health outcomes, particularly for older adults and those with chronic conditions. We oppose these corporate-driven challenges that seek to undermine a program vital to public health and a crucial step toward ensuring life-saving medications remain affordable and accessible for millions of Americans.”
Democracy Forward has filed briefs on behalf of leading medical and public health organizations in seven other legal challenges urging courts to reject them and affirm the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, including:
- Merck v. Becerra
- Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra
- Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Becerra
- AstraZeneca v. Becerra
- Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation v Becerra
- Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Becerra
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals v. Becerra
Additional Background:
In 2003, Congress created Medicare Part D, which helps cover the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. Unlike other health care programs operated by the federal government, such as TRICARE and those run by the Veterans Administration, Medicare was not allowed to negotiate the prices of the prescription drugs it was paying for under Medicare Part D. As prescription drug prices have skyrocketed over the past two decades, older Americans have struggled to afford their essential medications, even with support from Medicare Part D, which has ballooned into one of the federal government’s biggest expenditures. Drug companies, in the meantime, have earned outsized profits by increasing drug prices far beyond inflation, in the knowledge that Medicare will pay the bulk of these artificially inflated costs.
This drug pricing system, especially in Medicare, has proven to be bad for the health and financial well-being of patients and consumers in the United States. Over one-third of Americans say cost has prevented them from filling a prescription. People of color, people with disabilities, people with lower incomes, and women disproportionately bear the brunt of high drug prices. And Americans pay 2-2.5 times what other similar countries pay for prescription drugs. The Medicare drug price negotiation program allows the federal government to negotiate the prices of the most widely used drugs it pays for, and the program has already led to notable price decreases.
For more information about these ongoing cases, visit Democracy Forward’s case page here. To speak with Democracy Forward lawyers about these ongoing cases, please email dgrahamcaso@democracyforward.org.
– # # # –