Kelly: 'Lower Costs, More Cures Act' is a Bipartisan Solution to the Prescription Drug Affordability Crisis

Dec 9, 2019 Issues: Health Care

Washington, D.C. - Today, House Republicans unveiled H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, a bipartisan plan to reduce prescription drug prices. Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), an original co-sponsor of the legislation, issued the following statement following its introduction:

Americans are facing a prescription drug affordability crisis. People from all walks of life are struggling to buy the medicines they need to live happy and healthy lives. The Lower Costs, More Cures Act would require more transparency in drug pricing, lower out of pocket costs to patients, and protect and foster medical innovation. If Democrats are serious about lowering the cost of prescription drugs, they will join us to deliver this bipartisan solution our country desperately needs instead of passing partisan government price fixing schemes.

Background

The Lower Costs, More Cures Act is the solution to America's prescription drug affordability crisis. Every provision in the bill is bipartisan. If House Democrats allowed a vote, it would likely become law. If enacted, H.R. 19 would, among other things:

  • Limit annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries at $3,100.
  • Require insurance companies to make drug price information available at doctors' offices so health care providers and patients can determine cost before a prescription is written.
  • Encourage competition by preventing abuses of the patent system and streamlining regulation of over-the-counter products.
  • Establish a new negotiator at the United States Trade Representative to advocate American consumers in trade agreements with respect to prescription drug prices.

By contrast, the House is expected to vote this week on H.R. 3, Speaker Pelosi's plan to give the federal government unprecedented power over prescription drug pricing. Her price fixing scheme would lead to fewer new cures by destroying the incentive for medical innovation. It would also limit access to existing life-saving medicines.

#####