Skip to main content

Research Confirms Big Pharma’s Claims On H.R. 3 Hurting Innovation Are Not True

By December 12, 2019No Comments

Four Reasons Why You Should Ignore Big Pharma’s Fear Mongering 

  1. More Investment ≠ Increased Research and Development. Recent analysis by the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing found that, after receiving billions in tax cuts from Trump’s Tax Cuts And Jobs Act, pharmaceutical companies used these savings to more than double shareholder payouts while only increasing research and development spending by 6 percent in 2018.
  2. Major Drug Companies Often Outsource Research and Development. According to a new analysis from Stat, a majority of top-selling drugs from two of the largest drug companies– Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson — were discovered and developed by third parties, such as universities and academic centers. These findings suggest that “a reduction in pharmaceutical revenues would not have the supposed devastating impact on the level of biopharmaceutical innovation.”
  3. Taxpayers Already Subsidize The Development Of New Drugs. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, the National Institutes of Health spent $100 billion funding research that helped produce all 210 new drugs approved for use in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016. Pharmaceutical companies also receive billions in tax credits for research. 
  4. Drugs Don’t Help People If They Can’t Afford Them. Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans and AFSCME member Jim Riordan spoke at an H.R. 3 press event with Speaker Pelosi saying, “My doctors prescribed Xolair to treat my asthma. The recommended dosage for me is four injections per month, which cost $24,000 a month. Medicare pays for 80%, but that leaves a monthly bill of $4800. My wife and I have a limited income. We simply can’t afford $4,800 a month for one medication. I tried only one injection per month, and now I’m on two per month, but not taking the full dosage is seriously affecting my health.” A 2017 report from the National Academies of Medicine on lowering costs and protecting innovation concluded, “drugs that are not affordable are of little value.”