Biden’s budget calls for more drug price controls

A jam-packed Friday as we look at what’s in President Biden’s budget and what 65 ag and biotech groups are saying about the biotech corn dispute with Mexico. Plus, tomorrow is the third anniversary of the COVID pandemic—and we have an exclusive look at what, if anything, we learned. (779 words, 3 minutes, 53 seconds)

Biden’s budget wish list includes more drug price controls

President Biden calls for more innovation-killing drug price controls in his proposed 2024 budget, officially released yesterday.

What the plan would do: Increase the number of drugs eligible for price controls annually—from 10 to as many as 40—and reduce the time drugs can sell at market prices before price controls. Bloomberg reports  that “...Biden is also proposing to shorten the timeline any drug is exempt from negotiation to five years—a major change for some pricey medicines.” Currently the timeline is nine years for small-molecule drugs and 13 for biologics. 

Even worse: Penalties drug makers have to pay to Medicare if prices rise faster than inflation would be extended to the commercial market.

No one expects this budget to pass. House Republicans say there must be major cuts in the spending plan, and some want to undo price controls established in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Still, the plan outlines Biden’s ambitions.

BIO’s take: Increased price controls would be “another costly blow to the millions of patients depending on innovative cures,” says BIO Chief Advocacy Officer Nick Shipley. The White House is “proposing to further destabilize Medicare, slow critical investment in future research and development, stall drug innovation, and ultimately harm patients.”

Disincentivizing new drugs: “It is a strong signal to the innovative drug industry that there is just no support for further innovations and cures moving forward,” adds BIO’s Chief Policy Officer, John Murphy III. 

BIO’s next steps: “BIO will continue to work alongside the current Administration and lawmakers to find real policy solutions that help patients access innovative treatments,” says Shipley.

3 years later—what have we learned?

Tomorrow is the third anniversary of COVID officially being called a “pandemic,” a moment to reflect on victories and what we still need to learn about preparedness, reports Bio.News in an exclusive deep dive.

What we did right: Operation Warp Speed, said several experts who spoke exclusively to Bio.News.

“The magnitude of the human effort” allowed the development of vaccines and therapeutics in record time, said John Redd of the Medical Countermeasures Coalition (MC2) —and we’re continuing to realize the benefits of technology like mRNA.  

But: “Our supply chain resiliency was not there,” said MC2 CEO Taylor Sexton—and it still needs to be addressed.

So, are we prepared for the next one? “We are better prepared than we were before COVID,” says Redd. “I don’t think we’re fully prepared.” We need “platform vaccines,” which can be quickly altered for many diseases, and a stronger Strategic National Stockpile, to name two.

This legislation could help: The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), currently up for reauthorization, could address things like the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and more—and help us prepare for the next pandemic. 

Read and share the whole thing.

More Health News: 

Wall Street Journal: Eli Lilly’s insulin decision puts others [PBMs] in the hot seat
“Lilly’s motivation is easy to understand: It was paying a hefty reputational price for high insulin prices even as PBMs captured a growing share of overall expenditures. Its decision was bad news for CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna Group’s Express Scripts and UnitedHealth Group’s OptumRx because a low list price means those middlemen have less value to capture in the form of rebates.”

65 ag and bioscience groups weigh in on Mexico corn dispute

BIO joined a coalition of national and state agriculture and bioscience organizations in sending a letter to President Biden thanking the administration for launching technical consultations with Mexico concerning its action to ban imports of biotech corn.

ICYMI: On Monday, the U.S. Trade Representative formally requested technical consultations on Mexico’s biotech corn ban under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Canada followed with its concerns.

What they’re saying: “We support your administration’s request for consultations with Mexico regarding its treatment of agricultural biotechnology and denying the use of certain crop protection tools,” the 65 groups wrote. “We look forward to these consultations beginning promptly.”

Why it matters: Mexico imports more than 17 million tons of U.S. corn annually. The ban would significantly impact the economies of both countries and threaten Mexico’s food security, Bio.News reports.

President Biden’s Friday: Meeting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in the White House to discuss issues like subsidies for environmental technology, the war in Ukraine, and China, per Atlantic Council.

What’s Happening on Capitol Hill: At yesterday’s hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Sue Washer, former CEO of Applied Genetics Technology Corp and past BIO Board Member, praised the success of the JOBS Act in supporting small firms. Washer warned that unnecessary compliance costs take away from the R&D our companies do: “Technical innovation is critical to development of new treatments for human disease and access to capital is exceptionally important due to high costs and timelines,” she said. “The provisions of the JOBS Act remain vital to encouraging ongoing product development.”