Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, America is a great nation. Just look at the record. When it comes to the discovery of new drugs and pharmaceuticals, we lead the world. But we also pay the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs. The very same drugs made in the United States is for sale in Canada at a fraction of the cost. The same thing is true in Europe.
What is going on here?
Our country is producing drugs, paying more for them than other customers around the world--the problem is so glaring that even President Trump has identified fixing this issue as a priority. Bipartisan feeling--change it, reduce the price of drugs.
Why is the United States such an outlier? One of the major reasons-- if you watch television, you see it every single day. The United States is one of only two industrialized countries in the world that allows people to advertise drugs on television.
This is a trivia quiz. What is the other country? New Zealand. Two countries in the world that allow advertising of prescription drugs on television--you know, the ads with the catchy jingles, flashy images of patients rock climbing, golfing, dancing, parading.
Big Pharma spends $6 billion a year to flood the airwaves with ads for the latest wonder drug--$6 billion.
Why? Why would they spend all this money to advertise drugs and say, Talk it over with your doctor? They spend such astronomical sums to promote their drugs because it increases their profit margins.
Big Pharma thinks if they hit you hard enough and often enough with ads on television, not only will you be able to pronounce but spell Xarelto, but you will also tell your doctor: That is my favorite blood thinner. I have seen that ad over and over again.
Don't take my word for it.
The American Medical Association said:
Direct to consumer advertising inflates demands for new and expensive drugs even when these drugs may not be appropriate for your health.
When President Biden announced 15 drugs that Medicare would negotiate for discounts, most Americans knew the names, maybe even knew the jingle: Ozempic, Trelegy, Ibrance, Otezla.
Sound familiar?
Pharma spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year so you are supposed to ``ask your doctor'' about these drugs.
The result, Medicare spent $22 billion last year alone on these four heavily advertised medications--$22 billion. With these advertisements, Big Pharma is betting they can squeeze every penny out of you and our healthcare system.
Just last week, I released a report about the new telehealth advertising scheme launched by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. With online promotions and new websites, Pharma is urging patients to ``click here'' if you want to speak with a doctor. But those telehealth doctors are handpicked. They have been recruited and paid for by the drug companies.
Pharma is funneling patients to their chosen healthcare providers to influence prescriptions for costly drugs. This raises concerns about conflicts of interest and inappropriate prescribing of drugs. All of this is a result of Pharma's rampant advertising spree.
Since 2017, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down on this TV advertising. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley--now on the floor to join me--has been my partner in this effort. When you turn on the evening news, one-third--one out of every three--commercials you see are for drugs from prescription drug companies. It is the same when you stream your favorite show or scroll on social media.
Americans see an average nine pharmaceutical ads every single day. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--often at rapid machine gun pace--but kept in the dark about one crucial fact that is essential to this conversation: The drug companies want to tell you everything, including the warnings as fast as they say them, but they don't want you to know one thing. They don't want you to know the price.
Because of outrageous drug prices, millions of Americans are faced to ration doses, skip refills, making cost of transparency absolutely essential.
I want to put an ad up here, which some of you may recognize.
In 2023, Illinois company AbbVie spent $350 million on TV ads for Rinvoq, an eczema and arthritis drug. Nowhere in the commercial do they tell you the cost as publicized and released by the drug company-- $6,100 a month for this drug.
A lot of good news, if you are going to go out canoeing and white water rafting, but they won't tell you it is $6,100 for Rinvoq.
It is time to end Big Pharma's secrecy. If they are going to advertise a drug, they need to also declare to the American public how much it costs.
It is basic. No gimmicks, no tricks, just the truth by advertising the very same drug that the drug companies publish at the fictional price.
Our commonsense plan to require price disclosures in direct-to- consumer drug ads has already passed the Senate one time before. Senator Grassley and I worked together in 2018, because we knew that 88 percent of the American people support what we are doing--disclosure of price and reduction of the cost of drugs to consumers.
In fact, because of our work, President Donald Trump made a statement.
Big announcement . . .--
The President said-- Drug companies have to come clean about their prices in TV ads. Historic transparency for American patients is here. If drug companies are ashamed of those prices--lower them!
That is what the President said on May 8, 2019.
Vice President Vance previously cosponsored the measure Senator Grassley and I support, while Health Secretary Kennedy has railed against drug advertising and suggested our price disclosure policy has his support too. So this is a bipartisan undertaking.
Big Pharma hates being honest with patients about the price of drugs; they fear it is going to cut into their profits. Patients in America, American citizens and others, deserve lower drug prices.
The Trump administration has called on Congress to rein in these deceptive drug advertisements, but Big Pharma is looking for one Senator--if they can just get one Senator to come down here on the floor and object to the passage of this commonsense bill. I hope we can pass it right now to deliver real relief at the pharmacy counter.
I am now going to yield to my partner in this effort, Senator Grassley, before I make a motion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Take a look at the agenda of the U.S. Senate. Tell me an issue that 88 percent of the American people agree with. Tell me an issue where you have bipartisan sponsorship: Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; I am ranking member of that committee--a Republican, a Democrat supporting it. Tell me an issue where you have President Trump supporting our position and a Democratic Senator like myself on the floor espousing the same position as the President of the United States. Tell me an issue that is more timely than the affordability of prescription drugs. I can't think of another issue that fits that mold.
I want to make a motion. 229 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Idaho is my friend. We have worked together in the past; I am sure we will in the future. But I want to tell you something. He professes deep concern about whether senior citizens are going to get confused if we tell them the actual price given by the drug company itself. He thinks it is too confusing for them to understand that that price means anything at all.
Do you know who disagrees with him? The AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. They represent American seniors, and they endorse the Grassley-Durbin bill. They believe that seniors can understand completely how much the cost of the drug is even if it can be discounted under the insurance coverage of your policy as well.
The list price is the proper method of disclosure because the drug companies create the list price. We are not imposing a price on them; it is a price they have to publish. It is an objective, factual figure. Many patients do indeed pay this price when they don't have copays.
Let me say a word about what it means in the real world. In 2022, 19,000 seniors in the State of Idaho paid an average of $570 out of pocket on a drug known as Eliquis--a pretty well-known drug. Another 6,000 seniors in Idaho paid on average $607 out of pocket for Xarelto-- the one that is impossible to explain. Both of these blood thinners are among the most heavily advertised medications.
We are talking about a dose of transparency in the State of Idaho and every other State so that 25,000 seniors in Idaho can save money by knowing up front what costs they may face and make informed treatment choices.
Why are we afraid to ask the drug companies to disclose a price they publish in private--at least to some sources--and not tell the American consumer? If they had to do that, we think the American consumer would think twice about falling for these ads.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source