PRI Amicus Brief Could Reshape US Medical Innovation Future
TL/DR –
The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear two cases challenging the federal government’s new prescription drug pricing program enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act. The brief claims the program violates constitutional protections by coercing drug manufacturers into selling their products at prices far below market value. PRI argues that the program threatens future medical innovation by reducing financial incentives that drive the development of new treatments, as the government uses its position as the largest purchaser of drugs to impose take-it-or-leave-it price controls.
Pacific Research Institute Appeals to Supreme Court Over Controversial Drug Pricing Program
The Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a California-based free market think tank, has formally lodged an amicus curiae brief appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to review two cases relating to the federal government’s new prescription drug pricing scheme, created under the Inflation Reduction Act.
This controversial plan is currently being challenged by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bristol Myers Squibb Co.. Both cases are questioning the federal government’s power to enforce state-regulated prices on prescription medicines bought through Medicare and Medicaid.
The contention stems from a clause in the Inflation Reduction Act, which permits the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to require drug manufacturers to offer certain medications at significantly decreased prices. Manufacturers who refuse may be subjected to heavy taxes or exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs—programs that account for nearly half of all prescription drug expenses in the U.S.
For those interested, a copy of PRI’s amicus brief can be downloaded here.
PRI’s brief, penned by distinguished constitutional scholar and lawyer Richard Epstein, alongside Ben Flowers of the Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers LLC law firm, argues that the federal drug pricing scheme infringes upon fundamental constitutional protections. The argument posits that this scheme forces drug manufacturers to forfeit their products at prices well below fair market value.
The brief alleges that instead of holding genuine negotiations, the government leverages its dominant position as the primary purchaser of prescription drugs to enforce a take-it-or-leave-it pricing structure that manufacturers can’t feasibly reject.
The argument continues, saying that manufacturers are given only a semblance of choice; refusal triggers severe penalties, making participation in the scheme inevitable. The brief further claims that this situation equates to confiscation through coercion, rather than negotiation.
PRI’s brief also warns that allowing this program to continue would undermine long-standing constitutional limits on government power, establishing a precedent that allows federal agencies to sidestep the Takings Clause by labeling forced transfers as ‘voluntary.’
Aside from its constitutional issues, PRI’s brief points out that the program could jeopardize future medical advancements by diminishing the financial incentives that encourage the development of innovative and life-saving treatments. Drug development is a costly and high-risk endeavor, and government-imposed price controls reduce companies’ ability to recoup those investments.
The brief concludes that enabling the program to proceed would send a chilling message to innovators across the pharmaceutical industry and could eventually restrict patient access to future revolutionary treatments.
To learn more about The Pacific Research Institute, visit www.pacificresearch.org or follow PRI on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
For media inquiries, please contact Matt Fleming at (916) 389-9774 or 407809@email4pr.com.
The original content can be accessed here.
Source: Pacific Research Institute
—
Read More US Economic News