WASHINGTON _ Disagreement over provisions intended to ensure lower prices for vaccines and other medications is holding up agreement on an emergency funding package to fight the novel coronavirus-caused illness that has killed over 3,000 worldwide, sources with knowledge of the talks said.
Democrats and Republicans are at odds over drug affordability provisions, just as they were during debate over a broader pharmaceutical pricing bill that passed the House on Dec. 12. The dispute threatened to delay passage of an emergency aid bill, expected to total between $7 billion and $8 billion, that House leaders were aiming to bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.
Health officials say older individuals are the most susceptible, and most of the victims so far have been in their 70s or 80s. Over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., called for a provision in the supplemental that would ensure seniors covered under Medicare could receive COVID-19 vaccines free of charge, similar to flu shots. But some other immunizations are subject to copays under Medicare.
"Vaccines must be affordable and available to all who need them," Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor. He added that "seniors, who need the vaccines most, should not have to worry if they can afford it once it's available."
New federal funds are expected to flow to the Department of Health and Human Services under the emerging aid package, including money for vaccine development and to reimburse state and local public health officials. Funding would also be distributed through the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of State to help foreign jurisdictions stop recent outbreaks of the COVID-19 illness.
But Republicans are raising concerns that Democrats' proposals to limit prices would chill research and development and interfere with the development of a vaccine, according to sources who spoke without being identified so they could talk freely. Republicans say they share the goal of making sure a vaccine is affordable, but do not want to suppress its development.
President Donald Trump met with executives of several major pharmaceutical companies Monday at the White House, including Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Gilead Sciences Inc., Novavax, Inc., Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CureVac AG and Moderna Inc.
"We're talking about a vaccine. Maybe a cure; it's possible," Trump said earlier Monday. "All of the pharmaceutical companies are moving along very quickly."
Trump backs a version of drug pricing legislation offered by Senate Finance Committee leaders. The main difference between the House and Senate drug pricing bills is that the House bill would require drug makers to negotiate with HHS on prices for certain drugs that cost the health care system the most. Prices couldn't exceed a limit based on an international average. The Senate bill doesn't contain those provisions.
Democrats are arguing that since the emergency COVID-19 aid bill would make a large public investment in developing a vaccine, "it only makes sense to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to pay inflated prices for a lifesaving product they already paid to develop" through their taxpayer dollars, a person familiar with the talks said.
Pharma-politics At a House Energy and Commerce hearing last week, Democrats charged that taxpayers have footed the bill for coronavirus-related research and development at the National Institutes of Health. HHS Secretary Alex Azar disputed that claim, arguing that companies such as Moderna and Gilead have funded continued product development after benefiting from basic research at NIH.
"We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable but we can't control that price because we need the private sector to invest," Azar said. Democrats jumped all over the former Eli Lilly and Co. executive's comments, and on Monday the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled Facebook ads targeting seven House Republicans for their alleged fealty to the drug industry.
"Washington Republicans are already blocking bipartisan House-passed legislation to bring down the cost of prescription drugs," DCCC spokesperson Robyn Patterson said in a statement. "This virus is a threat to millions of Americans and House Republicans have an obligation to stand up to the White House and drug manufacturers by demanding they work to ensure a coronavirus vaccine is affordable for working families."
Of the seven targeted Republicans, two voted for the House Democrats' drug pricing bill in December: Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey; Van Drew was still officially a Democrat at the time but subsequently switched parties.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and other House Democrats have been pushing HHS to avoid granting an exclusive license to any private manufacturer for a coronavirus vaccine or favorable treatment in federal grants or contracts. Anthony Fauci, who leads the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has advocated partnerships with specific drug companies in the past, however, arguing such relationships are critical to vaccine development _ which in this case, officials say, could be at least a year away.
House and Senate appropriators are still aiming to wrap up negotiations within the next 24 hours in order for the House Appropriations Committee to file the legislation Tuesday. The bill could go to the House floor as early as Wednesday.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week the House hopes to take up the bill this week. The cost of the package has steadily climbed since President Donald Trump proposed a supplemental that would total $2.5 billion including transfers from other accounts.
Sources said negotiators are optimistic they will reach agreement, since both parties want to move the package as soon as possible. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday urged Democrats to let appropriators "do their work" and "supply these important funds within the next two weeks.
There is also an understanding that no one knows how much fighting the virus will cost. If more money is appropriated than needed, it could be repurposed for other pandemic or health purposes down the road. If more funding is needed, another emergency supplemental could be advanced.
