As Congress prepares to begin its new term, newly elected lawmakers will convene to tackle issues such as the high cost of drugs. As they prepare to address these policy challenges, a new analysis shows that several key congressional leaders have received major contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.
As Congress prepares to begin its new term, newly elected lawmakers will convene to tackle issues such as the high cost of drugs. As they prepare to address these policy challenges, a new analysis shows that several key congressional leaders have received major contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.
Kaiser Health News (KHN) has reported that several legislators who will wield much of the power in the House in 2019 are among the representatives and senators who have received the most money from the pharmaceutical industry.
Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland; James Clyburn, D-South Carolina; Kevin McCarthy, R-California; and Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, have each received more than $1 million in donations from pharmaceutical companies’ political action committees (PACs) in the past 10 years. Hoyer and Clyburn were recently selected by Democrats to serve as the incoming majority leader and majority whip, respectively. Burr serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Over the past decade, says KHN, members of Congress from both parties have accepted approximately $81 million from 68 individual pharma PACs.
Additionally, tax disclosure forms show that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade group that represents the interests of drug makers including Amgen and Johnson & Johnson, raised revenue by approximately one-fourth in 2016, and spent the collected monies among hundreds of lobbyists, politicians, and patient groups that could further its interests.
The group has attempted to cultivate a bipartisan reputation, but PhRMA may be incented to shift its 2019 lobbying efforts to the Republican-controlled Senate from the Democrat-controlled house. STAT has reported a conversation with a drug industry lobbyist who called the House of Representatives a “dead zone” for industry interests in light of the results of the midterm election and renewed concerns about the high cost of drugs.
Meanwhile, PhRMA has initiated a campaign—called Let’s Talk About Cost—aimed directly at consumers. The campaign addresses such questions as why other countries have lower drug prices, why copay coupons may not count toward deductibles, and who decides what customers pay for their prescription drugs.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.