Merck sues Biden administration over Medicare drug price negotiations
Last edited Tue Jun 6, 2023, 02:58 PM - Edit history (3)
Source: CNBC
Global drugmaker Merck on Tuesday sued the Biden administration over Medicares new powers to substantially reduce drug prices for seniors under the Inflation Reduction Act, the opening salvo in the pharmaceutical industrys efforts to weaken the program. Merck called the laws drug price negotiation program a sham and tantamount to extortion in a scathing complaint in federal court in Washington D.C.
The company also accused the federal government of employing what the suit describes as an unconstitutional scheme to take private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Mercks complaint asks a judge to block the U.S. Health and Human Services Department from compelling the drugmaker to participate in the program.
Merck last year booked $2.8 billion in revenue from its Type 2 diabetes drug Januvia, a medication that it said will be subject to Medicare price negotiations in 2023. The company also anticipates its blockbuster cancer immunotherapy treatment Keytruda and its other diabetes drug Janumet will be subject to the program in subsequent negotiation cycles. The drugmaker booked $21 billion in sales from Keytruda in 2022 and $1.7 billion in sales from Janumet. Keytruda represented 35% of Mercks total revenue last year.
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in response to Mercks suit, said, Well vigorously defend the Presidents drug price negotiation law, which is already lowering health care costs for seniors and people with disabilities. The law is on our side, said Becerra, whose department oversees Medicare, the federal health coverage program for older Americans and people with Social Security disability benefits. Nearly 60 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/06/merck-sues-biden-administration-over-medicare-drug-price-negotiations.html
They better watch out for the SCOTUS, which may become the final arbiter of what drugs are "approved" to be sold at all and Merck may find themselves on the "losing end" of that equation.
Article updated.
Previous articles -
The drugmaker accused the federal government of employing what the company described as an unconstitutional scheme to take private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Inflation Reduction Act, which became law last summer, was a major victory for President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress, who have long pushed to empower Medicare to combat rising drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry has fiercely opposed the law, arguing it will stifle new drug development. Merck said the Department of Health and Human Services compels companies to enter into an agreement that effectively dictates the price of a drug at a 25% to 60% discount under threat of daily excise taxes that are several times higher than the medication's daily revenue.
Merck has asked a judge to block HHS from compelling the drugmaker to participate in the program. "Under the IRA, the Government will requisition Merck's patented pharmaceutical products and transfer them to Medicare beneficiaries through forced sales," the company's legal team wrote in the complaint. "Those forced sales--coerced by the threat of draconian penalties that the Government has admitted no manufacturer could ever rationally afford to pay--will deprive Merck of possession and title to its personal property," Merck's attorneys wrote.
The drugmaker accused the federal government of employing what the company described as an unconstitutional scheme to take private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Inflation Reduction Act, which became law last summer, was a major victory for President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress, who have long pushed to empower Medicare to combat rising drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry has fiercely opposed the law, arguing that it will stifle new drug development. Merck said the Department of Health and Human Services compels companies to enter into an agreement that effectively dictates the price of a drug at a 25% to 60% discount under threat of daily excise taxes that are several times higher than the medication's daily revenue.
The company asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block HHS from compelling the drugmaker to enter into any agreement under the program to slash prices and void any agreement the company has been forced to enter into. "Under the IRA, the Government will requisition Merck's patented pharmaceutical products and transfer them to Medicare beneficiaries through forced sales," the company's legal team wrote in the complaint.
Original article -
The drugmaker accused the federal government of employing what the company described as an unconstitutional scheme to take private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Merck said the Department of Health and Human Services compels companies to enter into an agreement that effectively dictates the price of a drug at a 25% to 60% discount under threat of daily excise taxes that are several times higher than the medication's daily revenue.
The company asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block HHS from compelling the drugmaker to enter into any agreement under the program to slash prices and void any agreement the company has been forced to enter into.
"Under the IRA, the Government will requisition Merck's patented pharmaceutical products and transfer them to Medicare beneficiaries through forced sales," the company's legal team wrote in the complaint. "Those forced sales--coerced by the threat of draconian penalties that the Government has admitted no manufacturer could ever rationally afford to pay--will deprive Merck of possession and title to its personal property," Merck's attorneys wrote.
ancianita
(36,031 posts)Corporate lawmaking through courts is fascism. Not just "law in commerce."
ripcord
(5,365 posts)ancianita
(36,031 posts)so; otoh, they don't care about overturning legal precedent.
The Biden's administration isn't violating their "free speech," which is profit. It's only curtailing Merck's abuse of free speech, which amount to unaffordable pricing that really harms humans.
Though SCOTUS has granted that money is speech, there must be data that show life endangering harm to humans due to the unaffordability of high priced drugs, because it's a well known fact that Americans pay the highest drug prices on the planet.
It's a corporate court, so we'll see how human interests of "life" balance with corporate profit "free speech."
CurtEastPoint
(18,641 posts)Justice
(7,185 posts)mucifer
(23,536 posts)groundloop
(11,518 posts)Freethinker65
(10,013 posts)Merck threatening US taxpayers and the US Government, if the Government insists on lower pricing because they buy in bulk, is the real extortion.
AllaN01Bear
(18,183 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)They have no right to a customer, let alone to any sale at a specific price.
ancianita
(36,031 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,751 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)hueymahl
(2,495 posts)Bunch of corrupt assholes
2naSalit
(86,572 posts)Large marge wrote that.
aggiesal
(8,911 posts)Comfortably_Numb
(3,804 posts)plebes? We cant hire their wives for millions, or give them millions in free vacations. The drug companies own those whores and this shit is a fait accompli. Fuck the corrupt court all the way to the depths of fucking hell.
Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)Let's face it, their 'personal property' is bought and paid for by taxpayers, who then have to pay the inflated prices for something they themselves paid to have developed.
Drug company greed will suck all the air out of any room they enter.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)Right to price gouge its customers
live love laugh
(13,101 posts)KS Toronado
(17,213 posts)FLSurfer
(431 posts)In developing countries cheaper because United States citizens pay inflated prices?
What happens if corporate profits are reduced due to the inflation reduction act?
Will other countries see inflated prices to compensate for lost revenue?
In no way am I suggesting the U S should subsidize the worlds medication cost. Im just curious.
PSPS
(13,593 posts)The supreme court has already endorsed this when they said FDA rules were invalid. It goes like this: My profit is my private property. If any law or regulatory rule infringes on my profit, it is an illegal seizure of my property and, thus, must be ruled unconstitutional.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)Remember Trump saying that crap about nothing in particular? Who was "they" & what were they coming after? No one knew & Trump couldn't say.
This seems like a case where Biden could say that same line to MAGAts & it would have real meaning.
Pharmaceutical companies aren't coming for me, they're coming for your money, I'm just in the way.