

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.
Clare Fauke, Physicians for a National Health Program, clare@pnhp.org or 312-782-6006
The skyrocketing cost of prescription medications is one of the biggest concerns for American voters. However, in his proposal last Friday, President Donald Trump failed to offer any new policies that would expand access, reduce costs, or increase the safety and efficacy of prescriptions.
Today, a group of 21 prominent experts published a comprehensive proposal to ensure universal access to safe, innovative, and affordable medications. "Healing an ailing pharmaceutical system: prescription for reform for the U.S. and Canada," identifies seven critical areas for reform, along with both short- and long-term solutions to improve the development, approval process, affordability, and marketing of medications:
1. Access: Even insured patients face high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them unable to fill prescriptions. To achieve universal access, the proposal calls on the U.S. and Canada to establish national formularies of the safest, most effective, and least expensive medications, and provide all residents with full coverage of formulary drugs without copays or deductibles.
2. Affordability: The industry's pricing strategy is to charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of the actual cost of development. As a result, the U.S. spends about twice as much per-capita on prescriptions than any other nation. Under this proposal, public agencies would negotiate with manufacturers to make branded medications more affordable, and if negotiations fail, issue a "compulsory license" to allow generic manufacturing. The U.S. and Canadian governments also would create a publicly owned manufacturing capacity to produce needed products, along with an increase in public funding for the development of non-patented medications.
3. Preclinical development and patent protection: The current patent system encourages the development of "me-too" products that offer only trivial modifications and higher costs. Under this proposal, patents would be limited to medications that provide real innovation. While current law allows publicly funded researchers to patent and sell their discoveries to private firms, this proposal would keep publicly funded research in the public domain. The plan also calls for health agencies to fund a new public research program to develop and test new treatments outside of the patent system, prioritizing medications with high clinical value, and for conditions deemed unprofitable and ignored by the industry. Such treatments could be sold cheaply as generics as soon as they are brought to market.
4. Clinical testing: Most clinical trials are conducted by private firms, often using unsound methods and selective reporting, calling into question the objectivity of research and the usefulness and safety of new therapies. Corporate ownership of trial data can hide safety problems and obstruct further research. The proposal calls on approval agencies to increase standards for clinical trials and increase transparency by making all trial data publicly available. Experts believe that most clinical trials should be funded and supervised by public health agencies to maintain safety standards and to facilitate innovation for needed treatments.
5. Approval reform: Regulatory agencies are funded primarily by industry fees, creating conflicts of interest. Too many unsafe products are approved, and the increased use of "expedited reviews" and weaker standards of evidence threatens to bring more unsafe or ineffective products to market. This proposal would strengthen regulators' independence by funding them exclusively with public funds. Approval agencies would strictly limit expedited reviews and the use of surrogate endpoints only to treatments likely to offer genuine clinical advances.
6. Postmarketing surveillance: Due to weakening of the approval process, postmarket studies are critical to confirm the efficacy and safety of medications already in use. However, regulators fail to penalize firms that don't complete them. The proposal would require that companies promptly perform and submit safety studies after their products are on the market, increase regulators' funding for postmarketing surveillance, and give regulators the power to order safety warnings and remove unsafe therapies from the market.
7. Promotion: Pharmaceutical corporations spend more on marketing than on research and development, and promotional materials often include inaccurate or misleading claims. This proposal would improve monitoring and stiffen sanctions for misleading or off-label promotions. Companies would be prohibited from funding continuing medical education programs for providers.
"Our pharmaceutical system prioritizes industry profits over public health, but it doesn't have to be this way," said Dr. Adam Gaffney, a critical care physician and faculty member at Harvard Medical School, and co-chair of the Pharmaceutical Reform Working Group. "Through a series of commonsense reforms, we can increase the affordability, safety, and effectiveness of medicine for our patients."
Dr. Gaffney warned that combating the power of major pharmaceutical firms won't be easy, noting that the industry spent a combined $171 million on lobbying last year. "Every year we wait for reform means another spike in medication prices," he said.
"The pharmaceutical industry directly funds the regulating arm of the FDA, and paid more than $800 million in user fees in 2017," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "The FDA's independence is too important to expose to the influence and money of the industry."
Dr. Wolfe added that increasing affordability of lifesaving therapies should be a national priority. "Lack of access to medicines results in preventable deaths and serious illness to hundreds of thousands of patients a year," he said.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) encouraged his colleagues in Congress to take action. "The outrageous cost of prescription drugs in this country is a crisis that the American people feel every day," he said. "There are real solutions we can implement that we know will lower drug prices and save lives, but what we lack right now, and what we need, is the political will from those in Congress and other elected officials to do the right thing and stand up to the greed of Big Pharma."
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
"Withholding reimbursements only further hurts patients, strains providers, and drives up costs," said one Democratic congresswoman. "We will fight this with everything we’ve got."
"Political retribution, plain and simple," was how US Sen. Alex Padilla described an announcement by Vice President JD Vance late Wednesday regarding the White House's decision to withhold $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursement payments to California.
Vance and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, claimed the state's Medicaid records have generated "red flags" and demanded officials clarify $630 million in billing, $500 million that's been spent on home health services, and $200 million in what Oz called "questionable expenditures," which he claimed had been used to provide coverage for undocumented immigrants, who are not eligible for Medicaid.
The announcement came a month after Vance's federal anti-fraud task force suspended the licenses of nearly 450 hospice care facilities and 23 home health agencies in the Los Angeles area, accusing them of fraud.
Vance also warned that all 50 states could soon see federal funding for their Medicaid Fraud Control Units frozen if they fail to "aggressively prosecute Medicaid fraud."
"We can turn off other resources within their state Medicaid programs as well," said the vice president.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has frequently sparred with the Trump administration, said Vance and Oz were "attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes," which are far more expensive to run than home healthcare agencies.
Newsom said the growth of the state's In-Home Supportive Services program has saved taxpayers "$107,000 per person" by reducing reliance on nursing homes.
"MAGA hates in-home support programs—which help people stay out of costly institutional settings like nursing homes and get the care they deserve, typically from loved ones," said Newsom.
Newsom also said the Trump administration had informed state officials that the deadline to review California's Medicaid records "before deciding whether to defer funding" would be later in the month.
Democratic members of Congress warned that their constituents rely heavily on Medicaid, with seven out of 10 of the congressional districts with the highest Medicaid enrollment located in California.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said that 56% of her constituents rely on "this lifesaving program," and many have already been harmed by the Republican Party's slashing of Medicaid funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year.
"Withholding reimbursements only further hurts patients, strains providers, and drives up costs," said Kamlager-Dove. "We will fight this with everything we’ve got."
Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) said more than 120,000 people in his district depend on the federal healthcare program for low-income households and people with disabilities.
"This administration needs to stop playing politics with people’s health and lives," said Panetta. "When people commit fraud, they should be punished accordingly. However, this administration continues to punish California for political purposes, including penalizing innocent people by taking their healthcare away."
State Attorney General Rob Bonta noted that California has "not hesitated to challenge unlawful actions by the Trump administration," and suggested the state could file a legal challenge against the withholding of Medicaid funds.
He also accused the administration of targeting the heavily Democratic state "for political reasons."
The anti-fraud task force led by Vance has so far exclusively focused on rooting out alleged fraud in federal programs in blue states. The White House suspended $259 million in federal payments to Minnesota earlier this year after a scandal regarding the state's social services system.
"The Trump administration is attacking California over claims that they can't back up," said Padilla. "Let's be real, this isn't about fraud—it's about punishing a state that didn't vote for" President Donald Trump.
"The interim decision by the US judge gives me respite," said United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese. "But the battle is not over."
A federal judge in Washington, DC on Wednesday temporarily blocked Trump administration sanctions targeting United Nations Palestine expert Francesca Albanese, ruling that the punitive measures violated her First Amendment rights.
"Albanese has done nothing more than speak!" wrote US District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, in his 26-page decision granting a preliminary injunction against the sanctions, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last summer. Rubio said the sanctions, which barred the UN expert from entering the US and banking in the country, were justified because "Albanese has directly engaged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries."
But Leon wrote in his ruling that "it is undisputed that her recommendations have no binding effect on the ICC's actions—they are nothing more than her opinion."
The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed in February by Albanese's husband and her daughter, who is a US citizen. They argued the US sanctions against Albanese were "effectively debanking her and making it nearly impossible to meet the needs of her daily life."
Albanese is an Italian national who currently lives with family in Tunisia. Leon wrote in his ruling that "while the speech at issue occurred outside the United States, defendants have responded by taking action against Albanese's extensive connections to the United States—including Albanese's property within the United States and her ability to maintain professional and personal connections within the United States—because of her speech."
"Accordingly, Albanese (or plaintiffs standing in her shoes) may claim the protection of the First Amendment to challenge defendants' actions," the judge continued.
Albanese, who has vocally condemned Israel's genocide in Gaza and the countries and private corporations that have been complicit, welcomed Leon's ruling, writing in a social media post that "the interim decision by the US judge gives me respite."
"But the battle is not over," she added. "ICC judges and Palestinian NGOs remain sanctioned with no recourse to justice. The stakes are incredibly high."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the US-based Center for International Policy, called Leon's ruling "the right decision" and said Albanese "was wrongly sanctioned for constitutionally protected speech."
"War criminals should be held accountable for their crimes," Williams wrote on social media. "Making it a crime to say that is what is illegal. We must not sacrifice our rights or the rule of law for Israel."
"The United States cannot continue to be complicit in abuses abroad. There must be accountability," said Rep. Chuy García, who co-led a letter to the Pentagon.
Backed by anti-war and human rights organizations, 20 "deeply concerned" progressives in the US House of Representatives sent a letter to the Pentagon on Wednesday demanding answers about "reports of serious human rights violations and the bombing of what appear to have been civilian facilities during joint US-Ecuador military operations conducted in northern Ecuador."
While bombing Iran and boats allegedly running illegal drugs through the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, President Donald Trump deployed US troops to Ecuador in March for a joint campaign combating "narco-terrorists" in the South American country.
Led by Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), and Sara Jacobs (Calif.), the lawmakers called for "an explanation of the administration's legal justification for the involvement of US armed forces in these operations, which have not been authorized by Congress," as well as their immediate suspension "until these incidents are fully investigated."
The Democrats' letter to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cites reporting that one target "appears to have been a civilian dairy and cattle farm with no known links to armed groups or drug trafficking," where witnesses said "Ecuadorian military personnel interrogated and assaulted unarmed civilians, burned homes and infrastructure, and subjected detainees to torture."
"Beyond these recent incidents, we are concerned that our military is deepening its ties with the government of Ecuador, even as it undergoes an alarming authoritarian and anti-democratic drift," the Democrats wrote, pointing out that "President Daniel Noboa has overseen the violent repression of Indigenous-led protests, publicly threatened the Constitutional Court, and frozen the bank accounts of civil society organizations."
Noboa's allies "have also pursued questionable cases against his political opponents," as "Ecuadorians have endured more than two years of a prolonged state of emergency, marked by the military's domestic deployment to combat so-called 'narco-terrorists," the letter continues. "With investigative reporting now linking President Noboa's family business to drug trafficking and the same illicit networks he claims to be fighting, an independent and transparent investigation into these allegations is warranted."
The letter stresses that "if US forces provide new or continued security assistance to units that engaged in acts such as torture, extrajudicial killings, or enforced disappearances, and there is no credible investigation or prosecution underway, this would constitute a violation of the Leahy Laws, which prohibit assistance to foreign security forces credibly implicated in gross human rights violations without effective steps to bring those responsible to justice."
The Democrats—supported by Amnesty International USA, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Human Rights First, Latin American Working Group, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, StoptheDrugWar.org, Washington Office on Latin America, and Win Without War—demanded "a prompt and complete response" to their list of questions by May 22.
"The United States cannot continue to be complicit in abuses abroad. There must be accountability," García said on social media.
As El País reported Wednesday, the letter was made public as Noboa began a two-day trip to Washington, DC, during which he is set to meeting with US Vice President JD Vance and Organization of American States Secretary General Albert Ramdin.