DC Journal: Which Candidate Will Put Patients at the Forefront?
By Kasia Mulligan, Patients Come First’s National Spokesperson
With more than a third of Americans living with at least one chronic condition and one in 10 Americans living with a rare disease, it might be worth reminding presidential campaigns about an issue critically important to millions whose healthcare is at the forefront of their minds.
In their recent vice-presidential debate, Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz sparred on protecting pre-existing conditions under the Affordable Care Act. However, the reality of 160 million Americans living with a chronic condition or a rare disease means healthcare policies and reform should be at the forefront of the debate — not an hour and 14 minutes into a 90-minute debate.
This country desperately needs an essential conversation about access to innovative drugs and treatments.
Interventions for chronic conditions like stroke, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, cancer, diabetes and cystic fibrosis provide many people with an improved quality of life. For Americans living with rare diseases, expensive-to-develop orphan drugs and biologics are lifesaving.
How often does removing obstacles in the way of patient well-being come up on the campaign trail?
A new Gallup poll revealed that 67 percent of U.S. adults — including majorities of both political parties — say healthcare is not receiving enough attention.
The hard truth is that we have taken at least three steps back in making the United States innovation-friendly for cures. For example, one of the key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act was creating a new government price-setting system for certain prescription drugs. While supporters try to sell the policy under the label of “Medicare price negotiation,” it is nothing more than classic price controls.
Opponents of the IRA warned that government price setting would lead to unintended consequences, including reduced research and development spending.
Recent evidence suggests they were right. The uncertainty created by price controls has resulted in companies slashing R&D spending. This makes sense. When heavy-handed government intervention prevents market forces from determining prices, companies face uncertainty and tend to limit their investments in risky and resource-intensive research.
The Congressional Budget Office notes that bringing a new drug to market can cost more than $2 billion. Without recouping the large up-front investment, companies will simply stop producing new treatments.
Researchers at the University of Chicago estimate that, thanks to government price controls, 254 fewer drugs will be approved over the next two decades. That is 254 fewer potentially life-saving medicines. Patients, especially those with rare conditions, will suffer most.
Even if the presidential candidates don’t highlight access to care, there are still opportunities to ensure voters are aware of the issue before casting ballots. Throughout the fall, congressional committees will hold hearings to examine the IRA’s effects on the healthcare system. These are ample opportunities to raise awareness of the law’s pernicious effect on the innovation ecosystem that delivers critical treatments to patients.
Read the full piece in the DC Journal.