Drug Prices Are a Populist Campaign Issue. Here Are the Latest Proposals to Lower Costs.

It can be hard to find common ground in Washington these days, but furor over drug prices could be one exception. Many Americans continue to struggle to pay for the prescription medicines they need. And rising drug costs are a problem for insurers and taxpayers, too — treatments for some rare diseases are topping $2 million.

As the presidential election heats up, politicians from both parties are eager to show they are doing something about a hot populist issue, and bipartisan solutions are beginning to take shape. Some proposals, like placing a limit on what older Americans must pay out of pocket for drugs, could make an immediate difference to people struggling with high costs. Others, like shutting down the games that pharmaceutical companies play to avoid competition, are more theoretical. They could streamline a complex system, but are unlikely to immediately lead to lower prices at the pharmacy counter.

Here’s a guide to some of the proposals.

Progressive Democrats have long argued that the federal government should be able to directly negotiate the price of drugs in Medicare, the health care program for older Americans. Under the current system, private insurers negotiate with the drug companies.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to be floating a compromise — one that would require the federal government to directly negotiate the price of about 250 expensive drugs a year. Under her proposal, which has not yet been introduced, the Department of Health and Human Services would negotiate with drug makers.

Companies that do not comply could face a tax equal to half of that drug’s sales from the previous year. Unlike some other plans, Ms. Pelosi’s proposal ensures the same government-negotiated prices would be available to commercial insurance plans.

Since a small number of drugs accounts for a major chunk of pharmaceutical spending, significantly lowering the price of even a few hundred drugs could go a long way toward lowering overall costs.

But whether her proposal will succeed is far from clear. The idea is likely to face opposition from many Republicans, who contend that private insurers are best equipped to negotiate with drug companies, and who may also be averse to imposing a steep tax on a major American industry.

Some progressive Democrats pushed Ms. Pelosi to expand the number of drugs that could be negotiated, from at least 25 drugs to the current 250. They favor an even broader plan that would affect all drugs.

Still, Ms. Pelosi’s plan should not be discounted — her office is in talks with the White House over a drug pricing deal that may include this proposal. President Trump has voiced support for the idea of direct negotiation before.

As one of the Trump administration’s major drug price initiatives, this proposal aims to reduce the costs that many older residents face at the pharmacy. Medicare consumers are often forced to pay out-of-pocket costs based on a list price, even when — behind the scenes — private pharmacy benefit managers have negotiated bigger discounts, or rebates, with the manufacturer.

The Trump administration’s plan would eliminate the legal protections for rebates, and require discounts to be passed along to consumers. Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary, has said he hopes the change will simplify a broken system and give manufacturers an incentive to lower their list prices.

[Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]

But the true impact of the rule is far from clear, and the change could raise costs in other parts of the chain. While it would save some people money on out-of-pocket expenses, it is expected to raise drug-plan premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries, and it also would quite likely cost the federal government money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded in May that the rule, if adopted, would cost taxpayers $177 billion within 10 years.

The rule is also unusual because — unlike many other proposals to bring down drug costs — it is supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which has put part of the blame for rising prices on pharmacy benefit managers. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers say the rule would stymie their ability to effectively negotiate with drug makers.

The Trump administration has signaled that it is likely to finalize the rule some time this year.

The drug coverage program known as Part D, for those who are 65 and older, has no limit on out-of-pocket spending. People who need expensive drugs (such as for cancer treatments or other serious diseases) can wind up paying thousands of dollars.

In addition, once a patient’s drug spending reaches a certain level in a year — $5,100 in 2019 — the federal government picks up most of the bill, rather than the private insurers who operate the drug plans.

There is some bipartisan support for capping out-of-pocket spending, as well as for shifting more responsibility for the higher costs onto insurers and drug makers. A proposal by House Democrats and Republicans would limit annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,100. Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Finance Committee, has also expressed support for an out-of-pocket spending limit, as well as for shifting more of the financial responsibility to drug makers.

With members of both parties expressing support for this idea, it holds the promise of being one of the most significant moves that Congress could make this year to directly lower consumers’ drug costs.

Another major proposal by the Trump administration would limit the price of some drugs covered by Medicare that are administered in a clinic or doctor’s office — expensive medications used for serious illnesses like cancer — by tying them to an index based on the price of the drugs in other countries.

The United States pays higher prices for drugs than any other country does, a situation that Mr. Trump describes as “global free-riding.”

The proposal is an unorthodox move for a Republican president, because it would effectively ride the coattails of countries with universal health care systems, such as France.

It is also fiercely opposed by an array of powerful lobbying interests, including the pharmaceutical industry — which described the proposal as “foreign price controls.” Health care providers also profit from the existing system and have opposed the proposal, warning that it could have “unintended consequences.”

The Trump administration may issue a proposal by the end of this year.

Drug companies love the word “innovation” when they talk about drug development, but they are also famously innovative in coming up with ways to shut down competitors.

Several bills in Congress — many with bipartisan support — address the tactics these companies use to maintain monopolies. Some proposals have passed the House and have bipartisan support in the Senate, including one that would force brand-name drug makers to turn over samples of their drugs to would-be competitors so cheaper copies can be developed. Other measures would limit the so-called “pay-for-delay” deals brokered by brand-name drug companies and generic manufacturers to postpone competition.

Congressional observers say that of all the proposals, these have the best chance of becoming law. But while they are tweaks that make the existing system work more smoothly, they may not have a significant effect on prices.

The most visible step the Trump administration has taken to address drug costs is expected to be implemented this summer, when pharmaceutical manufacturers will be required to post in television advertisements the list price of drugs that cost more than $35 a month. (A disclaimer will note that patients covered by health insurance are likely to pay less.)

Although the measure doesn’t directly reduce prices, Mr. Azar has said he hopes the move will shame drug makers into lowering them.

On Friday, three major drug makers — Merck, Eli Lilly and Amgen — filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the rule, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights and would mislead consumers.


more recommended stories

  • Mortimer Caplin, Tactful but Tough Tax Collector, Dies at 103

    As I.R.S. commissioner in the Kennedy.

  • American to Lead NATO Intelligence as Iraq-War-Era Concerns About U.S. Linger

    NATO diplomats carefully balance the top.

  • House to Vote on Raising Federal Minimum Wage to $15

    “What we’re doing is working,” said.

  • 2020 Won’t Repeat the Mistakes of 2016, Whatever They Were

    WASHINGTON — Democrats still don’t agree.

  • On Politics: House Kills Impeachment Resolution

    • The National Republican Congressional Committee.

  • At North Carolina Rally, Trump Bets on Divisive Attacks as Way to Bolster Re-election Bid

    “Big Rally tonight in Greenville, North.

  • House Passes Intelligence Bill That Would Expand Secrecy Around Operatives

    WASHINGTON — The House passed a.

  • Trump and Epstein Partied and Commented on Women in 1992 Video

    WASHINGTON — President Trump has been.

  • 5 Ways John Paul Stevens Made a Mark on the Supreme Court

    WASHINGTON — Justice John Paul Stevens,.

  • With Name-Calling and Twitter Battles, House Republican Campaign Arm Copies Trump’s Playbook

    “I hope the lesson the N.R.C.C..

  • Top Myanmar Generals Are Barred From Entering U.S. Over Rohingya Killings

    BANGKOK — The United States has.

  • Iran Rejects Pompeo’s Suggestion It Is Willing to Negotiate Over Missile Program

    WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike.

  • Trump’s New Top Labor Official Is Expected to Advance an Anti-Labor Agenda

    Congressional Republicans, members of their staffs.

  • Roger Stone Is Barred From Social Media After Posts Attacking Russia Inquiry

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge on.

  • North Korea Warns U.S. to Quit Military Drills With South Korea

    SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea.

  • The Painful Roots of Trump’s ‘Go Back’ Comment

    It was there in 1882, when.

  • Democratic Fund-Raising: In a Packed Field, Five Candidates Stand Out

    Contributions From Individual Donors The bigger.

  • Pence’s Border Trip Illustrates Conflicting Messages About Detained Migrants

    Although many people were appalled by.

  • Trump Sends Negotiators to Geneva for Nuclear Talks With Russians and Also Seeks to Limit Chinese Warheads

    WASHINGTON — President Trump is sending.

  • E.P.A. Broke Rules in Shake-Up of Science Panels, Federal Watchdog Says

    Want climate news in your inbox?.

  • Joe Biden’s Health Care Plan Focuses on Shoring Up the Affordable Care Act

    After remaining vague for months about.

  • Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit?

    The opportunity for Democrats, however small,.

  • On Politics: Trump Tells Congresswomen to ‘Go Back’ to Their Countries

    Good Monday morning. Here are some.

  • The Power Went Out. Where Was de Blasio?

    He was in rural Iowa, illustrating.

  • When Big Tobacco Invoked Eric Garner to Fight a Menthol Cigarette Ban

    In an interview in the sanctuary.

  • Trump Backs Away From Barriers on Foreign Uranium

    WASHINGTON — President Trump said he.

  • Joe Biden Decides He Doesn’t Need to Stay Above the Fray After All

    ATKINSON, N.H. — Joseph R. Biden.

  • Pence Tours Border Facilities – Video

    Channels & Shows Home Search U.S..

  • Man Attacking ICE Detention Center Is Fatally Shot by the Police

    The police fatally shot a man.

  • Pence Defends Conditions at Migrant Detention Centers in Texas

    Vice President Mike Pence played down.

  • Top Ocasio-Cortez Aide Becomes a Symbol of Democratic Division

    WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders, their.

  • Parties Face ‘Crackup’ as Outsiders Wield Social Media Against the Establishment

    WASHINGTON — On the night that.