To the editor:
In a recent ad for U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, a senior citizen decries the “Biden pill penalty,” and we are puzzled as to why a senior would think this is a bad thing. From the ad, Smith seems to favor pharmaceutical companies’ interests over those of Missouri’s seniors.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 established a Medicare cost-cutting provision targeting high-spending medications. A non-biologic drug product (often a pill or other oral medication) is not eligible to undergo Medicare price negotiation until seven years after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration, and any negotiated price cannot take effect until nine years after FDA approval. For biologics, the terms are 11 and 13 years, respectively.
Pharmaceutical companies have claimed that the difference in Medicare negotiation/pricing times for the two different drug types would discourage development of and investment in non-biologic drugs, hence the name “pill penalty.” However, last month, the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons noted that independent researchers have found no basis that this IRA provision would keep pharma companies from developing non-biologics. Also, per AARP, the market for non-biologics remains strong.
Senate Republicans recently drafted the EPIC Act bill designed to remove the time difference for non-biologics versus biologics in favor of the longer terms, delaying cost savings for the Medicare program. Does Smith’s ad signal his eventual support for such a measure? Smith has reportedly accepted contributions from many different pharma companies, which leads us to question why he is against the common sense of ensuring Medicare remains a robust, cost-saving program for Missouri seniors.
Sincerely,
Catherine Frank,
Voters for Informed Action
Rolla
