Biden proposal to seize drug patents slammed by GOP lawmakers and economists: ‘He is the dictator!’
Republican lawmakers blasted President Biden over a proposed policy in which the government will “march in” and seize patents from pharmaceutical companies that it deems are charging too much for prescription drugs.
The proposal, announced Thursday by Biden, is the latest plank of the 81-year-old president’s “Bidenomics” agenda and targets drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, which is virtually every medicine approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2010, in an effort to lower prices.
“Folks, right now, 25 of the largest pharmaceutical companies in America control 70% of the market,” Biden said in a tweet.
“This lack of competition drives up prices – making it harder for hardworking American families to access the health care they need.”
The president explained that under the proposed policy, if a drug is made using government funds and is “not reasonably available to Americans, the government reserves the right to ‘march in’ and license that drug to another manufacturer who could sell it for less.”
He calls it “an important step toward ending Big Pharma price gouging” that will be “good for competition” and “good for our economy.”
Republican doctors in Congress, as well as several economists, slammed the policy.
“So now dictator Biden seizes the intellectual property of hard-working Americans. He is the dictator!” Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), a physician, wrote on X
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), also a doctor, argued that the Biden administration “does not have the legal authority” to seize drug patents.
“Prior administrations of both parties have all agreed on this, as have the bipartisan senators who wrote the law. They will lose in court,” the Louisiana Republican wrote on X, referencing the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, the federal legislation that the Biden administration argues gives it the authority to move forward with the plan.
Cassidy asserts that the policy will “kill” drug innovation and Americans.
“This kind of short-sighted decision would kill American health care innovation and deny millions of Americans future lifesaving cures and treatments. As a doctor, I know that lives that could be saved will be lost if President Biden takes this action,” he said.
Several economists also pointed out that Biden’s argument that there is not enough competition in the drug manufacturing space is unconvincing.
“Slightly ironic that this makes drug markets sound like the most competitive market in health care,” Ben Ippolito, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, said in a tweet, referring to Biden’s claim that 25 companies control 70% of the market for prescription drugs.
Michael Cannon, a health care expert with the Cato Institute, noted that those companies’ market share “comes to an average of 2.8% each” under Biden’s math.
Cannon told The Post that while “pharmaceutical patents are a contributor to high drug prices … they are not the only or even the most problematic contributor.”
“Layer upon layer of regulations, subsidies, tax penalties, and trade restrictions price medicines out of reach of millions of consumers. The federal government is the worst offender, increasing drug prices through regulation, the tax code, trade barriers, and Medicare and Medicaid purchasing rules,” he said.
“Patents are not sacrosanct. But the president should address all contributors to excessive drug prices,” Cannon added.
Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, argued that it might have been better for the Biden administration to explore “whether some patents are too restrictive, or whether the FDA is too slow to approve competing drugs.“
“There are some policy justifications for both of these things, but they do restrict competition,” Cole said in a tweet.
“25 firms (or more!) is more than enough for competition if they’re actually allowed to enter a market.”
Gary Winslett, a political science professor at Middlebury College, said forcing dug companies to license their products “are, in effect, patent revocations,” and a plan that should be reserved “for emergencies” and not used as a “routine policy lever.”
“If this threat is carried out, it could badly undermine drug innovation in the US,” he said in a tweet.
