

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A woman receives mail-order prescription medicine.
"This legal action underscores how critical it is to have a president in the White House who will fight for lower health costs for Americans," said U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden.
Aiming to protect wealthy pharmaceutical companies from any reduction in their tens of billions of dollars in annual profits or lavish CEO compensation packages, the industry's biggest lobbying group on Wednesday announced a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its policy allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for consumers.
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year, the Medicare negotiation provision has been a key demand of progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for several years, as the United States pays more per person for prescribed drugs than any other country and nearly a third of Americans said in one survey last year that they have avoided taking medications due to costs.
Although a Congressional Budget Office analysis found last year that allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices would save the U.S. nearly $290 billion in new revenue and savings over a decade, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on Wednesday became the latest pro-industry group to sue over the provision, arguing the law is unconstitutional.
PhRMA argued in a court filing in the Western District of Texas that the provision violates the constitutional requirement for checks and balances by placing too much authority in the hands of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the due process clause by denying drug companies input regarding pricing, and the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines due to the excise tax Big Pharma companies will be required to pay if they refuse to negotiate.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it was "no surprise" that pharmaceutical companies want to stop Medicare from saving millions of senior citizens out-of-pocket costs—and warned that they'll likely be successful if a Republican candidate wins the presidency in 2024.
"I expect the Biden administration to vigorously defend Medicare's bargaining power so seniors will see the lower drug prices they expect," said Wyden. "This legal action underscores how critical it is to have a president in the White House who will fight for lower health costs for Americans. I have deep concerns that a Republican administration would roll out the red carpet for Big Pharma and once again ban Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices."
PhRMA was joined by the National Infusion Center Association and the Global Colon Cancer Association in the legal challenge, which follows a lawsuit filed by drugmaker Merck earlier this month. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bristol Myers Squibb have also sued over the provision this month, with the latter claiming, as PhRMA did Wednesday, that the law is "bad for innovation."
"We remain very concerned about the impact this law will have on patients and future innovation," PhRMA CEO Steve Ubl said.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy said Big Pharma is fighting any provision to help Medicare beneficiaries "while hardworking families struggle to pay for lifesaving medicine."
PhRMA is seeking a permanent injunction to stop the negotiation process, three months before the government is scheduled to choose the first 10 drugs to which the provision will apply. The new prices are set to take effect in 2026.
"We will vigorously defend the president's drug price negotiation law, which is already helping to lower healthcare costs for seniors and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for HHS told The Hill. "The law is on our side."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Aiming to protect wealthy pharmaceutical companies from any reduction in their tens of billions of dollars in annual profits or lavish CEO compensation packages, the industry's biggest lobbying group on Wednesday announced a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its policy allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for consumers.
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year, the Medicare negotiation provision has been a key demand of progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for several years, as the United States pays more per person for prescribed drugs than any other country and nearly a third of Americans said in one survey last year that they have avoided taking medications due to costs.
Although a Congressional Budget Office analysis found last year that allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices would save the U.S. nearly $290 billion in new revenue and savings over a decade, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on Wednesday became the latest pro-industry group to sue over the provision, arguing the law is unconstitutional.
PhRMA argued in a court filing in the Western District of Texas that the provision violates the constitutional requirement for checks and balances by placing too much authority in the hands of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the due process clause by denying drug companies input regarding pricing, and the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines due to the excise tax Big Pharma companies will be required to pay if they refuse to negotiate.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it was "no surprise" that pharmaceutical companies want to stop Medicare from saving millions of senior citizens out-of-pocket costs—and warned that they'll likely be successful if a Republican candidate wins the presidency in 2024.
"I expect the Biden administration to vigorously defend Medicare's bargaining power so seniors will see the lower drug prices they expect," said Wyden. "This legal action underscores how critical it is to have a president in the White House who will fight for lower health costs for Americans. I have deep concerns that a Republican administration would roll out the red carpet for Big Pharma and once again ban Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices."
PhRMA was joined by the National Infusion Center Association and the Global Colon Cancer Association in the legal challenge, which follows a lawsuit filed by drugmaker Merck earlier this month. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bristol Myers Squibb have also sued over the provision this month, with the latter claiming, as PhRMA did Wednesday, that the law is "bad for innovation."
"We remain very concerned about the impact this law will have on patients and future innovation," PhRMA CEO Steve Ubl said.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy said Big Pharma is fighting any provision to help Medicare beneficiaries "while hardworking families struggle to pay for lifesaving medicine."
PhRMA is seeking a permanent injunction to stop the negotiation process, three months before the government is scheduled to choose the first 10 drugs to which the provision will apply. The new prices are set to take effect in 2026.
"We will vigorously defend the president's drug price negotiation law, which is already helping to lower healthcare costs for seniors and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for HHS told The Hill. "The law is on our side."
Aiming to protect wealthy pharmaceutical companies from any reduction in their tens of billions of dollars in annual profits or lavish CEO compensation packages, the industry's biggest lobbying group on Wednesday announced a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its policy allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for consumers.
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year, the Medicare negotiation provision has been a key demand of progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for several years, as the United States pays more per person for prescribed drugs than any other country and nearly a third of Americans said in one survey last year that they have avoided taking medications due to costs.
Although a Congressional Budget Office analysis found last year that allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices would save the U.S. nearly $290 billion in new revenue and savings over a decade, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on Wednesday became the latest pro-industry group to sue over the provision, arguing the law is unconstitutional.
PhRMA argued in a court filing in the Western District of Texas that the provision violates the constitutional requirement for checks and balances by placing too much authority in the hands of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the due process clause by denying drug companies input regarding pricing, and the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines due to the excise tax Big Pharma companies will be required to pay if they refuse to negotiate.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it was "no surprise" that pharmaceutical companies want to stop Medicare from saving millions of senior citizens out-of-pocket costs—and warned that they'll likely be successful if a Republican candidate wins the presidency in 2024.
"I expect the Biden administration to vigorously defend Medicare's bargaining power so seniors will see the lower drug prices they expect," said Wyden. "This legal action underscores how critical it is to have a president in the White House who will fight for lower health costs for Americans. I have deep concerns that a Republican administration would roll out the red carpet for Big Pharma and once again ban Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices."
PhRMA was joined by the National Infusion Center Association and the Global Colon Cancer Association in the legal challenge, which follows a lawsuit filed by drugmaker Merck earlier this month. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bristol Myers Squibb have also sued over the provision this month, with the latter claiming, as PhRMA did Wednesday, that the law is "bad for innovation."
"We remain very concerned about the impact this law will have on patients and future innovation," PhRMA CEO Steve Ubl said.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy said Big Pharma is fighting any provision to help Medicare beneficiaries "while hardworking families struggle to pay for lifesaving medicine."
PhRMA is seeking a permanent injunction to stop the negotiation process, three months before the government is scheduled to choose the first 10 drugs to which the provision will apply. The new prices are set to take effect in 2026.
"We will vigorously defend the president's drug price negotiation law, which is already helping to lower healthcare costs for seniors and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for HHS told The Hill. "The law is on our side."