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
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular