“This was an unexpected victory in a long fight against an illegal cartel of three corporations who have raised their insulin prices in lockstep.”

The Biden Administration pleasantly stunned health care reform advocates Tuesday by including short-acting insulin in its list of 10 drugs for which Medicare will negotiate lower prices, power vested in the White House by the Inflation Reduction Act.

The IRA was passed in the face of one of the heftiest barrages of lobbying in congressional history, with the pharmaceutical industry spending more than $700 million over 2021 and 2022 — several times more than the second- and third-ranking industries — much of it aimed at stopping the legislation, watering it down, or undermining its implementation.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And they’ve already filed lawsuits:

    The suits make similar and overlapping claims that Medicare negotiations are unconstitutional.

    The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.

    The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.

    They also contend that the talks violate the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to engage in the process.

    Just ridiculous.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/29/10-drugs-to-face-medicare-price-negotiations-see-the-list.html

    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A great way to tell that a business is making way too much money is when they can afford to hire monkey cages full of lawyers to fling every terrible legal argument they can think of at you in the hope that one of them somehow sticks.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet in every other country where they have to bargain against a centralized healthcare system, they are able to provide a decent price.

      The US needs to take decisive action against these sociopaths.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.

      It will be interesting to watch this shake out, because this decision could have a lot of knock-off effects when it comes to further price negotiations by the government across a wide array of sectors.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Below market rate”

        If only looking at the USA where pharmaceutical companies are free to do as they please, but probably still higher than in any other rich countries in the world.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I think that’s going to end up being a pivotal distinction here, as these are companies with global reach and thus “market rate” will be a difficult concept to defend.

          Exclusivity contracts would be one thing, but suggesting this is an egregious step by the US government is going to be a difficult case to prove imo.

          • The_v@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Their proof will be with “vacations” etc for the judges sitting the trial.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Charge what they please. They are heavily regulated in what they can do. Which is why stuff like the J&J arsenic event is a once a decade thing vs a constant thing.

      • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They likely are subsidized by the federal government anyway. As far as I’m concerned, any time the government gives money to a corporation, they’re no longer a private company until they pay it back.

      • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh yeah, lawyers start preparing these lawsuits as soon as an announcement is made (in this case the legislation being announced). They just don’t file them until absolutely necessary.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point the first amendment is just their catchall for any time they want to stop the government doing something, isnt it? Selling drugs isnt speech, making cakes or websites isn’t speech, you fucking monsters don’t have to like it and you don’t have to pretend to like it, you just have to stop destroying people for money.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.

      Sure Jan. 🙄