Rather than waiting on the courts to sort out the 340B dispute between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and prescription drug manufacturers, a group of senators is looking for bipartisan legislative solutions that would infuse the drug discount program with more accountability, certainty, oversight and transparency.
A committee of the U.S. House of Representatives wrapped up business in a late-running June 14 markup of spending bills that would give the U.S. FDA roughly $6.6 billion to work with in fiscal 2024. However, the final bill omits language in the manager’s mark that had called on the FDA to engage in rulemaking or guidance development for lab-developed tests, but the FDA made up for that by adding a proposal to engage in rulemaking for LDTs in its regulatory agenda.
In their continuing battle against high prescription drug prices, U.S. lawmakers are firing yet another volley at the middlemen – this time to delink their administrative fees from drug prices. Several members of the Senate Finance Committee, including the leadership, introduced the bipartisan Patients Before Middlemen Act June 14 with the intent of wrapping it into a larger drug pricing legislative package the committee plans to complete over the next few months.
As new and ongoing drug shortages in the U.S. limit patients’ access to essential medicines and life-saving cancer treatments, the blame largely has fallen on increased demand, quality problems, the supply chain and lack of transparency in that chain.
The June 14 hearing of the House Appropriations Committee was focused largely on spending levels for the Department of Agriculture, but there was also some concern over the proposed spending levels for the FDA. One of the more conspicuous features of the legislative report is the recommendation that the FDA finalize guidance or rulemaking for risk-based regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs), a clear departure from the stance taken by Congress for a number of years.
The need to reauthorize the U.S. Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) prompted a June 13 hearing in the House of Representatives, but a major fissure appeared between the Republican and Democratic Parties regarding FDA’s authorities for managing drug shortages.
Proponents of telehealth have been pressing Congress to statutorily broaden coverage of telehealth since before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Telehealth Expansion Act of 2023 carries the weight of at least some of these expectations. The House Ways and Means Committee’s health subcommittee recently voted 30-12 to pass along the legislation to the full committee, but the bill operates principally to allow high-deductible health plans to cover telehealth benefits before the enrollee has met the deductible, leaving a substantial amount of telehealth terrain unaddressed.
The question wasn’t if, but when and how, someone would challenge the Medicare negotiation provision laid out in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that was signed into U.S. law last year.
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an agreement with the Biden administration on the debt ceiling, a deal that does not affect mandatory spending programs such as Medicare. However, the agreement, which still must gain the Senate’s stamp of approval, appears to eliminate any chance of yet more monies for the National Institutes of Health or the FDA, two programs of intense interest for companies in the life sciences.
A subcommittee of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee met to review the status of policies for novel medical devices and drugs, but a partisan rift was immediately evident at the hearing. House Democrats were generally in favor of more drug price negotiation power for the federal government and opposed to immediate Medicare coverage of breakthrough medical devices while Republicans generally steered in the opposite direction, suggesting that drug and device makers should not expect clear legislative sailing over the course of the 118th Congress.
