September, 14 2020, 12:00am EDT

DRUG PRICING: Trump Caves to Drug Industry; Long-Delayed Executive Order Another Broken Promise to Patients
Executive order “makes no changes”…calls for HHS to “test” new model…“could take months” to even be implemented This is about politics, not patients: “Experts see the order as the administration’s effort to show it is taking steps to lower drug pricing, as the president seeks reelection” Right after Trump tweets that “drug prices are coming down FAST” in response to his executive orders, news breaks that another drug company is increasing prices
WASHINGTON
Today, Accountable Pharma released the following statement in response to the Sunday release of President Trump's long-delayed "international pricing index" executive order. The executive order, which is almost certain to not be implemented before the end of Trump's term and isn't expected to meaningfully impact drug prices if it ever does, comes nearly a month after his August 24th deadline and his commitment to implement an executive order that would help bring down drug prices by "50, 60, even 70%."
"This is a massive win for the drug industry and another broken drug pricing promise by President Trump,"said Eli Zupnick, spokesman for Accountable Pharma. "The drug industry is going to act like this weak executive order is a horrific injustice but the reality is that they were wildly successful in lobbying their former colleagues in the Administration to delay and water down this executive order to the point where it almost certainly won't save a single American a single penny on their prescription drugs."
Trump's big promise in July: "...we're going to hold that [executive order] until August 24th, hoping that the pharmaceutical companies will come up with something that will substantially reduce drug prices. And the clock starts right now. So it's August 24th at 12:00, after which the order on favored nations will go into effect."
Trump's claimed impact of the executive orders: "Drug prices will be coming down 50, 60, even 70%"
Timeline of empty threats, fake fights, and drug pricing inaction
July 24th: Trump held a press conference unveiling three executive orders on drug pricing and promising a fourth one if the drug industry didn't respond by August 24th. The executive orders were widely panned as unlikely to have any impact this year even if they were actually implemented. Regarding the fourth executive order, Trump said "...we're going to hold that [executive order] until August 24th, hoping that the pharmaceutical companies will come up with something that will substantially reduce drug prices. And the clock starts right now. So it's August 24th at 12:00, after which the order on favored nations will go into effect."
July 27th: Drug company executives cancel their planned White House meeting in a show of faux outrage. This kicks off the pretend fight between the drug industry and Trump that allows him to say he is "taking on big pharma" without actually delivering results.
July 29th: Drug company executives assure their shareholders not to worry, saying they "are not expecting any impact" from the executive orders.
Through mid-August: Trump continued to claim that "Drug prices will be coming down 50, 60, even 70%" due to his actions.
August 24th: Crickets..."...federal law required signed executive orders to be published in the Federal Register. No 'favored nation' order has appeared, so the missing order either violates the law or is incomplete."
August 26: PhRMA finally responds with a counter-offer that wouldn't meet Trump's test of "substantially reducing" drug prices, but they try to sweeten the deal by saying their actions would come before the election.
August 27th - August 31: Crickets....no updates from the White House or HHS.
September 1: Trump is asked about the executive order and claims that the drug companies will be coming to the White House "this week" to discuss their proposal. A PhRMA representative said she was not aware of any meeting scheduled.
Trump Claimed He Was Enacting "Favored Nations" Reforms To Lower Drug Prices At Least Three Times In Last Three Years--Promising "Transformative" And "Revolutionary" Change Each Time
- July 24, 2020: "I'm taking a bold and historic, very dramatic action to reduce the price of prescription drugs for American patients and American seniors. . . . Under this transformative order, Medicare will be required to purchase drugs at the same price as other countries pay. . . . But we have--we get now the lowest price anywhere in the world. And no more will we have to suffer by saying, "Gee, why is it so much cheaper for the exact same drug in some other country?"
- July 5, 2019: "We're going to be announcing something very shortly ... We're working on a favored nations clause, where we pay whatever lowest nation's price is. Why should other nations, like Canada--but why should other nations pay much less than us? They've taken advantage of the system for a long time--pharma. So we're working on, right now, a favored nations clause, so that whatever the lowest nation is, anywhere in the world--or company--but the lowest nation or company. Then what happens is we will pay that amount, and that's being worked on right now. We're going to do it in the form of an executive order."
- October 25, 2018: "Not anymore. Under our new plan, the Department of Health and Human Services would allow Medicare to determine the price it pays for certain drugs based on the cheaper prices paid by other nations. Some people call it "favored nations clauses." . . . At long last, the drug companies and foreign countries will be held accountable for how they rigged the system against American consumers. This is a revolutionary change. Nobody has had the courage to do it, or they just didn't want to do it."
President Trump Has Been Making Promises On Drug Prices For Years . . .
- February 4, 2020: "I was pleased to announce last year that, for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down."
- July 5, 2019: "We're going to be announcing something very shortly ... We're working on a favored nations clause, where we pay whatever lowest nation's price is. Why should other nations, like Canada -- but why should other nations pay much less than us? They've taken advantage of the system for a long time -- pharma. So we're working on, right now, a favored nations clause, so that whatever the lowest nation is, anywhere in the world -- or company -- but the lowest nation or company. Then what happens is we will pay that amount, and that's being worked on right now. We're going to do it in the form of an executive order."
- April 24, 2019: "Many drug companies are giving European countries a better deal than they give their own country. And that has to stop. We've already informed them that's stopping."
- February 6, 2019: "It's unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, this is unfair, and together we will stop it -- and we'll stop it fast."
- January 23, 2019: "I just had a meeting on drug pricing and various other things. And prescription drugs, for the first time in history -- the history of our country -- have gone down in 2018."
- October 25, 2018: "This really is an important day for me. I've been talking about drug price reductions for a long time. And now we're doing things that nobody was, let's say -- because I'm speaking on behalf of all of us -- bold enough to do. And they're going to have a tremendous impact. . . . We're fighting for lower drug prices, which will now be automatic. It will be automatic and very substantial."
- March 19, 2018: "You'll be seeing drug prices falling very substantially in the not-too-distant future, and it's going to be beautiful."
- January 30, 2018: "One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs...I I have directed my administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities for the year. And prices will come down substantially--watch."
- February 28, 2017: "[I will] work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs, and bring them down immediately."
And Latest Executive Order Proclamations Were Met With Skepticism
- Salon: "Pharma CEOs privately scoff at Trump's drug pricing orders: "Not expecting any impact."
- Washington Post: "Trump signs executive orders aimed at lowering drug prices in largely symbolic move. The orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all."
- STAT News: "...it's unclear whether the effort to make progress on drug pricing will pay off, given that Trump can't immediately enact any of the policies. Rather, the orders direct his administration to begin the normal, notoriously slow regulatory processes needed to reform the existing system. The administration will have to speed through that process to formalize any of the policies before November."
- Politico: "'The drug EOs are a way to give the appearance of movement on Trump's pricing agenda without actually doing anything,' wrote Capital Alpha Partners' Rob Smith in a note, adding that the original favored nations rule has languished with budget officials for more than a year. 'A more impactful step would be to issue this actual proposed rule and begin the process of finalizing it rather than holding what amounts to a glorified press conference.'"
- NYT: "Mr. Trump's executive orders may have more symbolic meaning than any kind of immediate practical consequence."
- NPR: "The prescription drug bill that stalled after passing in the House in December, called HR3, would have had a much larger impact, says Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University. "The bottom line is that these orders will not make a meaningful difference for patients when it comes to what they pay out-of-pocket for their medications," Dusetzina writes in an email to NPR."
MEANWHILE: Drug Prices Have Continued To Soar...
- Politico: "Drug prices steadily rise amid pandemic, data shows."
- Politifact: "Donald Trump wrong again about prescription drug prices."
- HealthDay: "U.S. Drug Prices Have Risen Three Times Faster Than Inflation."
- CBS News: "2020 is three days old and drug prices are already jumping."
- The Hill: "Survey: About 1 in 10 US adults rationing medicine in effort to lower costs."
... As Drug Companies Rake In Record Profits...
- West Health Policy Center: "New Analysis Finds Large Drugmakers Could Lose $1 Trillion in Sales and Still Be the Most Profitable Industry."
- Axios: "Health care CEO pay outstrips infectious disease research."
- Newsweek: "Big Pharma Companies Earn More Profits Than Most Other Industries, Study Suggests."
- FiercePharma: "How the 8 biggest U.S. pharmas enriched their shareholders in 2019."
- Axios: "Big Pharma is on a stock buyback spree."
- Axios: "4 pharma companies saved $7 billion from GOP tax law."
And Industry Executives Fill The Top Levels Of The Administration
- NYT: "Trump's Vaccine Chief Has Vast Ties to Drug Industry, Posing Possible Conflicts."
- Reuters: "Trump chooses Gottlieb to run FDA; Pharma breathes sigh of relief."
- Politico: "Trump picks ex-pharma executive Azar to lead HHS."
- Politico: "Former drug industry lobbyist helps steer Trump drug plan."
- Politico: "Trump's HHS secretary nominee boosted drug prices while at Eli Lilly."
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
Judge Slaps Down RFK Jr's Likely 'Unlawful' Mass Layoffs at HHS
"We're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Jul 01, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked planned mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services while declaring that the firings were likely unlawful.
Judge Melissa DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it moved to lay off thousands of HHS employees on the grounds that such large-scale firings would leave the agency unable to fulfill its legislatively mandated duties that can only be altered by an act of Congress.
"The executive branch is vested with the power and is imbued with the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws which govern the governance structure of our country," wrote DuBose. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."
DuBose further noted that courts have the power to "set aside" actions taken by federal agencies that are "unlawful," and she argued that the actions taken by HHS under the leadership of Trump-appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely flouted the law.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the agency and blocked it from carrying out its planned reduction in staffing that it first announced this past March 27. HHS has until July 11 to file a status report affirming compliance with the court's order.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the attorneys general of 19 states plus the District of Columbia, who alleged that the layoffs violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Constitution's appropriations clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits agencies from taking "arbitrary and capricious" actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong took a victory lap in the wake of the ruling but cautioned that there was still a long fight ahead to save HHS.
President Donald Trump and Kennedy "are playing dangerous games with the health and safety of American families, and we just stopped them," he said. "Today's order means vital programs and services—including those supporting Head Start, disease monitoring at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid eligibility, and others—will remain accessible. This is still the beginning of a long fight ahead, but we're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Break It Down': Mamdani Gives His Perspective on Historic NYC Win
Zohran Mamdani solidified his win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with the release of ranked choice voting results.
Jul 01, 2025
Last week, democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani stunned in an upset victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary—sparking broader conversations about the future of the party and sending shockwaves through the American political system.
One week later, on Tuesday, Mamdani both solidified his win thanks to the release of the election's ranked choice voting results and unveiled a new video highlighting factors that in his view were key to his campaign's success. Mamdani credits his relentless focus on affordability and a commitment to reaching all New York City voters, including those who have previously voted for U.S. President Donald Trump, are inconsistent primary voters, or who speak languages besides English.
The goal, in Mamdani's words, was nothing short of rebuilding "a coalition that had frayed over years of disappointment and neglect, to win people back to a Democratic Party that puts working people first."
On Tuesday, New York City's Board of Elections announced the ranked-choice voting results from the June 24 primary, underscoring Mamdani's decisive victory. Mamdani secured 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%. All other candidates' votes were reallocated to Mamdani and Cuomo in the third round of voting. All told, some 545,000 New Yorkers ranked Mamdani on their ballots.
In the video, Mamdani touted some of his impressive margins, including his ability to win over districts that had gone for Trump in the last election, noting the inroads that Trump made in New York City in 2024. According to an analysis from Gothamist, Mamdani won 30% of primary election districts Trump carried in the general election last year.
Mamdani said his campaign achieved this by visiting areas that went for Trump, "not to lecture, but to listen."
He also said that his campaign knew it could turn out less consistent primary voters if "they saw themselves in our policies."
"We ran a campaign that tried to talk to every New Yorker, whether I could speak their languages or just tried to... and the coalition that came out on Tuesday, reflected the mosaic of these five boroughs," Mamdani said.
As part of the focus on connecting with voters, Mamdani put out campaign videos with him speaking in languages like Hindi and Spanish.
On Election Day, Mamdani led in areas with majority Asian, white, and Hispanic voters, while Cuomo led in areas with majority Black voters. "We narrowed Andrew Cuomo once sizable lead with Black voters, outright winning young Black New Yorkers in neighborhoods like Harlem and Flatbush," he said.
Mamdani also highlighted that he trounced Cuomo despite the super political action committee money supporting the former governor.
"We rewrote the rule book by, get this, talking to New Yorkers," he said. "Politics in this city won't ever be the same, and it's all thanks to you. The next chapter begins today New York."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular