It’s a laudable, if not somewhat broad, goal that appeals to many voters. Keeping prescription drugs affordable is common sense and bipartisan.
But, the broad appeal of the stated goal belies how risky and potentially destructive the actual legislation would be for our country and healthcare system.
The stability and future of the health care system is of course a critical issue in this year’s midterms for voters on both sides.
UNITED STATES – MAY 10: From left, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Reps. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, Peter Welch, D-Vt., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attend a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center with House and Senate Democrats on a report which they say shows that prescription drug prices have risen under President Trump on May 10, 2018. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Throughout the primary elections thus far, we have seen candidates win with varying health care messages.
Beyond Doggett’s bill though, the Democrats must develop a more cohesive message on healthcare that both broadens their appeal and bolsters our healthcare system, not the opposite in either regard.
Most problematically, many Democrats are calling for transitioning to a Medicare for All healthcare system that would provide every America with a public option to coverage.
This proposal as well as Democrats’ positioning on the issues creates a significant set of challenges and narrows the appeal of moderate Democrats in highly competitive, potential swing district.
The plan that the Democrats will need to embrace if they wish to win the most competitive races, particularly areas that voted for President Trump, will have to be one of less socialization of the economy and also of healthcare.
To be sure, Doggett’s bill would lead to more, not less, stringent regulations and government involvement in our healthcare system, increasing costs on all patients. These policies that take power away from consumers and put it into the hands of the government will do nothing but harm the Democrats.
In truth, Doggett’s bill, The Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act, would disincentivize research and development in the pharmaceutical sector, stifle innovation, and ironically, damage one of the few existing government programs that has successfully lowered drug prices for more than a decade: Medicare Part D.
Doggett’s bill would throw out existing patent protections and could even allow the Federal Government to unilaterally grant one company the right to manufacture another company’s proprietary medication ultimately ending the patent system that has allowed for so much innovation.
In fact, a recent study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that it is very unlikely that government intervention in the marketplace would be able to reduce spending on healthcare without also severely limiting the types of drugs available to patients.
Heading into the midterm elections, a piece of legislation that threatens the prescription drug coverage of more than 40 million Americans, would not bode well for Democrats.
Indeed, protecting the Medicare Part D program that seniors are broadly satisfied with and maintaining power in the hands of consumers will continue to improve quality and reduce costs, as has been clearly shown over the past decade. Attempts to increase government involvement have not been the solution in the past and will not work now.
For the Democrats to both win the healthcare debate and flip the House, they need to keep patients’ interests central to their message and strategy.
” webReader=”89″>
On July 25th a group of House Democrats led by Texas Representative Lloyd Doggett introduced legislation with the expressed aim of “authoriz[ing] the use of competition to lower prices” on prescription drugs.
It’s a laudable, if not somewhat broad, goal that appeals to many voters. Keeping prescription drugs affordable is common sense and bipartisan.
But, the broad appeal of the stated goal belies how risky and potentially destructive the actual legislation would be for our country and healthcare system.
The stability and future of the health care system is of course a critical issue in this year’s midterms for voters on both sides.
UNITED STATES – MAY 10: From left, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Reps. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, Peter Welch, D-Vt., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attend a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center with House and Senate Democrats on a report which they say shows that prescription drug prices have risen under President Trump on May 10, 2018. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Throughout the primary elections thus far, we have seen candidates win with varying health care messages.
Beyond Doggett’s bill though, the Democrats must develop a more cohesive message on healthcare that both broadens their appeal and bolsters our healthcare system, not the opposite in either regard.
Most problematically, many Democrats are calling for transitioning to a Medicare for All healthcare system that would provide every America with a public option to coverage.
This proposal as well as Democrats’ positioning on the issues creates a significant set of challenges and narrows the appeal of moderate Democrats in highly competitive, potential swing district.
The plan that the Democrats will need to embrace if they wish to win the most competitive races, particularly areas that voted for President Trump, will have to be one of less socialization of the economy and also of healthcare.
To be sure, Doggett’s bill would lead to more, not less, stringent regulations and government involvement in our healthcare system, increasing costs on all patients. These policies that take power away from consumers and put it into the hands of the government will do nothing but harm the Democrats.
In truth, Doggett’s bill, The Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act, would disincentivize research and development in the pharmaceutical sector, stifle innovation, and ironically, damage one of the few existing government programs that has successfully lowered drug prices for more than a decade: Medicare Part D.
Doggett’s bill would throw out existing patent protections and could even allow the Federal Government to unilaterally grant one company the right to manufacture another company’s proprietary medication ultimately ending the patent system that has allowed for so much innovation.
In fact, a recent study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that it is very unlikely that government intervention in the marketplace would be able to reduce spending on healthcare without also severely limiting the types of drugs available to patients.
Heading into the midterm elections, a piece of legislation that threatens the prescription drug coverage of more than 40 million Americans, would not bode well for Democrats.
Indeed, protecting the Medicare Part D program that seniors are broadly satisfied with and maintaining power in the hands of consumers will continue to improve quality and reduce costs, as has been clearly shown over the past decade. Attempts to increase government involvement have not been the solution in the past and will not work now.
For the Democrats to both win the healthcare debate and flip the House, they need to keep patients’ interests central to their message and strategy.
