Government mandating of prices
Pharmaceutical companies face little market pressure to voluntarily disclose their products’ list prices. And actual prices vary greatly, pharmacy benefit managers charge as many as ten different prices to third-party payors depending on the design of third-party payor’s benefit plan. CMS argued that pricing transparency would moderate drug and biologic price increases. As legal authority for its proposed action, CMS cited the Secretary of Health & Human Services’ broad power to issue regulations embodied in sections 11 of the Social Security Act, 42 U. CMS acknowledged that “[c]onsumers may be able to obtain some pricing information by going online to the websites of larger chain pharmacies.” But unfortunately consumers do not seek such information: (1) because physicians rather than patients control the writing of the prescription, and (2) “meaningful price shopping is . That aspect of the pharmaceutical market “causes distortions,” id., including pharmaceutical manufacturers’ tendency to avoid price competition (at least on the basis of list price). More informed decision-making by consumers, namely taking into account the advertised drugs’ cost, would reduce individual Medicare beneficiaries’ expenses and “positively affect the shared taxpayer responsibility to fund the Medicare and Medicaid drug benefit programs.” Id. hindered because the average consumer has no anchor price, such as an MSRP for automobiles, to gauge the reasonableness of the various price quotes.” CMS noted that the list price disclosure mandate was “consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence,” particularly commercial speech doctrines permitting government to mandate provision of factual, noncontroversial information and permitting the federal government greater leeway to regulate broadcasters licensed to use the public airwaves. The “Regulation to Require Drug Pricing Transparency,” 42 C. The rationales for the proposed rule are: (1) to apply downward pressure to drug and biologic prices, and (2) enable that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to make informed decisions regarding drugs and biologics, taking into account their out-of-pocket costs. §§403.1200 to 403.1203 (proposed), applies only to drugs and biologics covered by Medicare or Medicaid. A 20 percent down payment on a million homes would be 0,000.The website, , provides information on housing prices in Silicon Valley.
CMS explained that consumers cannot easily ascertain drugs’ and biologics’ actual or list prices. CMS noted that Congress had recognized the value of drug price transparency in two provisions of the Social Security Act, but acknowledged that Congress had not “explicitly provided HHS with authority to compel the disclosure of list prices to the public.” Id. CMS had tentatively concluded that application of the requirement to other communications media was unwarranted, but sought comment on that issue. Betraying its distrust of consumer litigation, CMS explained that the risk of meritless Lanham Act litigation was “acceptably low,” because such litigation “normally involve[s] sophisticated parties doing business in the same sector” as the defendant company. The Lanham Act confers a cause of action only upon competitors, not consumers. For example, if a city is now required to build 100 RHNA units, the new number will be 125 units.More housing means more overcrowded schools, more traffic, fewer parking spaces, and less open space.