Pharmaceuticals

California Enacts Likely Ineffective Drug Price Transparency Law

What will really keep drug (and any other) prices lower? Competition.

|

DrugPricesSkypixelDreamstime
Skypixel/Dreamstime

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation yesterday that would require pharmaceutical companies to justify and give a 60-day notice for price increases. The regulations will apply to any increases of more than 16 percent in any two-year period for a drug whose wholesale price is more than $40 for a 30-day supply. Insurers also must file annual reports explaining how drug costs affect their health-care premiums.

The new law was a response to recent double-digit price increases for many medicines. For example, branded drugs prices rose an average of 15 percent in 2015; specialty drugs were up almost 10 percent; and even generics increased their average price by nearly 5 percent. And then there was the public outrage over Martin Shkreli's 4,000 percent increase in the price of the 62-year-old anti-fungal Daraprim and Mylan's 400 percent increase in the price of a two-pack of EpiPens.

The pharmaceutical industry is not happy about the new law. Gary Andres of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization issued a statement declaring, "Despite its intent, this law will neither provide meaningful information to patients nor lower prescription drug costs." Andres added, "By ignoring the realities of biopharmaceutical development, [the new law] will delay or prevent future biopharmaceutical innovation by driving investment toward other industry sectors that are not burdened with this type of misguided government intrusion."

So why are drug prices going up so steeply? The main reasons are rising research and regulatory costs, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. The Tufts group estimated in 2016 that the out-of-pocket costs for each new approved drug is now $1.4 billion. Taking the costs of the regulatory process into account raises the average cost for a new drug to $2.9 billion. Obviously, drug companies have to earn back enough to cover their costs for both unsuccessful and approved drugs. (Naturally, not everyone agrees with the Tufts calculations.)

Now California is demanding that drug companies provide just the sort of information about their research, manufacturing, and marketing costs that the Tufts researchers report. But here's the problem: Prices are not set on the basis of costs. As I have explained before, "Drug companies are in the business of making money by selling medicines to sick people and they, just like any other businesses, set their prices based on what the market will bear." Perhaps California's new cost information requirements will somehow shame drug companies into keeping their prices lower, but I wouldn't count on it.

What will really keep drug (and other) prices lower? Competition. Fortunately, the Food and Drug Administration, under new leader Scott Gottlieb, appears to moving in the direction of faster approvals of generics. While we're at it, speeding up the regulatory process for approving new drugs will help. In addition, since 20-year patent monopolies are enough time for pharmaceutical companies to profit from their discoveries, policy makers should figure out how to stop them from playing games with the patent system as a way to forestall competition from generic drugmakers.

NEXT: Christian Cake Bakers and Gay Coffee Shop Owners: Why Freedom of Association Is for Everybody

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The main reasons are rising research and regulatory costs

    The research costs are rising because of regulatory costs.

  2. “By ignoring the realities of biopharmaceutical development, [the new law] will delay or prevent future biopharmaceutical innovation by driving investment toward other industry sectors that are not burdened with this type of misguided government intrusion.”

    “Wait. We’ve got a law in the works for that, too.”

  3. The same california that just removed knowingly having HIV and not telling your partner?

  4. The fact that drugs are often insured under community rated insurance plans is a big factor. If your premiums and out of pocket costs aren’t related to how much you are spending on prescription drugs then you have no incentive to buy cheaper alternatives. The lack of price transparency is a consequence of consumers lacking a reason to know what anything costs. Thus, price transparency alone is meaningless unless it is accompanied by consumers having more skin in the game when they spend money.

    1. Single payer will solve that!

  5. policy makers should figure out how to stop them from playing games with the patent system

    I’m sure someone could breed a batch of better policy makers if he were given a temporary monopoly to do so.

    1. FC: Frankenpolicymakers?!

  6. It’s doubtful that it will stop the Mylans and Shkrelis of this world, but if neither had been exposed, would anything have been done about their outrageous price gouging? I’d say that too was doubtful. Our Congress is too happy collecting ‘donations’ from Big Pharma to try to fix our drug prices. We pay about 5 times what Candians do for the same drugs, made by the same companies, yet Congress has been blocking American’s right to ‘free market capitalism’ by buying our drugs from foreign countries. THAT would force prices down. All else are just baby steps.

  7. A few things.
    1) Marketing costs ARE huge. Prices are in part driven by that. Most TV advertising is drug ads.
    2) Patent protected drugs are often used for off label purposes. This means that a great deal of research costs don’t apply and yet the drug companies are allowed to recover the full patent protected price. Perhaps this needs to be revisited so that off label use is priced at the generic price.
    3) About half of all drugs today offer NO statistically significant benefit at all. They are being developed and sold by drug companies who are able to strong arm the FDA into allowing them to do so. Case in point is “Optiva” which was given FDA permission to be sold and yet in no more than 24% of cases does it provide up to 60 days of longer life for end stage lung cancer. At a cost north of $170,000. That is insane.

  8. Sounds like they want new drugs to start at even higher prices.

  9. Writers were asked to bid on replacing all of the communication wiring in the complex, and so got to go thru all the buildings to see what a nightmare of a project it would be….essay writers passed on the opportunity.

  10. California Enacts Likely Ineffective Drug Price Transparency Law – Hit & Run : Reason.comis the best post by imo for pc Please visit imo app imo app snaptube for pc snaptube app

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.