特朗普要求在电视广告标明药品价格，法院：你说了不算
特朗普总统在一个诉讼案中遭遇重大挫折，而且还是一个引人注目、与消费者有关的诉讼。联邦上诉法庭认定其政府没有法定权力，强迫制药公司在其电视广告中披露药物价格。
减少处方药的成本是特朗普政府改选年的重大议题，但该裁决让这场理所应当的胜诉沦为了泡影。大多数药物成本的调整方案都十分复杂，强迫制药公司披露价格是任何消费者都可以想象得到的事情。
除了上述这个案例之外，降低高药费医保受益人用药成本的立法卡在了国会。我们不清楚特朗普是否能够推动该立法继续前行，因为此举会要求共和党和民主党做出一些难以达成的让步。这里还有一个法案，它同样要求制药公司在其消费广告中披露价格。
然而，特朗普并非是空手而归。特朗普政府最近与制药公司和险企达成了一项协议，让服用胰岛素的医保人士能够将其自付额限制在35美元/月，从明年开始执行。
就电视广告而言，美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院做出的一致决定并未解决制药行业的一个核心争议——强迫公司在广告中披露其价格是否违反了其自由言论权力。反而，这个由三名法官组成的审判委员会认定，美国卫生与人类服务部依据其对医疗和医保的管理职能要求披露价格的行为越过了其法定权限。审判委员会上周二公布了这一决定。
在一则针对政府的严厉批评中，法官帕特里希亚•米勒特在法庭纪要中写道，卫生与人类服务部认为其有权强制实施“笼统的披露要求，而且该要求与其对医疗或医保项目的管理职能基本没有联系”，因此“该行为并不合理”。
法官还表示：“因为这一举措广泛的覆盖范围和不对称的义务没有合理的法律依据，因此该披露规定是无效的，而且应予以撤销。”
白宫发言人茱德•迪尔在一则声明中进行了反击：“让病患对于真实的医疗成本毫不知情完全没有道理可言，而且仅有“D.C. Swamp”能够支持这类事情。哪怕只是有关其天价目录价格的对话，大型制药公司会想方设法去规避，但特朗普总统依然在努力，以便让人们在获取医疗服务之前就能够了解其价格信息。”
当披露规定于去年公布之后，特朗普政府官员坚信该规定如今应该已经生效了。
特朗普当时发推文说：“此时此刻，美国病患将获得历史性的透明度。”
政府原打算让制药公司在广告结尾，也就是披露药物可能的副作用时公布药品价格信息。
政府希望，病患在了解价格之后会开始与其医生讨论承受能力的问题。久而久之，此举就会迫使制药商对其品牌药物的价格进行限制。美国退休者协会便是支持披露价格的机构之一。
这一理念是特朗普在2018年宣布的多重蓝图的一部分，旨在降低处方药成本。
在国会，伊利诺伊州民主党参议员迪克•德滨和爱荷华州共和党参议员恰克•格拉斯利提出的两党提案基本上与特朗普政府的规定有着异曲同工之效，它要求各大公司在面向消费者的广告中公布其处方药价格。尽管打着国会的旗号可能在法庭上更具分量，但该法案的前途依然生死未卜。
民主党看到了一个能做出更大改变的机会。众议院通过了议长南希•佩洛西旨在直接与制药行业议价的法案，而且该法案也曾得到过特朗普的支持。
佩洛西的法案会把从处方药价格削减中获得的数十亿美元用于为医保接受者提供新福利，例如视力、牙医和听力辅助。民主党总统候选人乔•拜登亦是医保谈判的支持者。（财富中文网）
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
特朗普总统在一个诉讼案中遭遇重大挫折，而且还是一个引人注目、与消费者有关的诉讼。联邦上诉法庭认定其政府没有法定权力，强迫制药公司在其电视广告中披露药物价格。
减少处方药的成本是特朗普政府改选年的重大议题，但该裁决让这场理所应当的胜诉沦为了泡影。大多数药物成本的调整方案都十分复杂，强迫制药公司披露价格是任何消费者都可以想象得到的事情。
除了上述这个案例之外，降低高药费医保受益人用药成本的立法卡在了国会。我们不清楚特朗普是否能够推动该立法继续前行，因为此举会要求共和党和民主党做出一些难以达成的让步。这里还有一个法案，它同样要求制药公司在其消费广告中披露价格。
然而，特朗普并非是空手而归。特朗普政府最近与制药公司和险企达成了一项协议，让服用胰岛素的医保人士能够将其自付额限制在35美元/月，从明年开始执行。
就电视广告而言，美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院做出的一致决定并未解决制药行业的一个核心争议——强迫公司在广告中披露其价格是否违反了其自由言论权力。反而，这个由三名法官组成的审判委员会认定，美国卫生与人类服务部依据其对医疗和医保的管理职能要求披露价格的行为越过了其法定权限。审判委员会上周二公布了这一决定。
在一则针对政府的严厉批评中，法官帕特里希亚•米勒特在法庭纪要中写道，卫生与人类服务部认为其有权强制实施“笼统的披露要求，而且该要求与其对医疗或医保项目的管理职能基本没有联系”，因此“该行为并不合理”。
法官还表示：“因为这一举措广泛的覆盖范围和不对称的义务没有合理的法律依据，因此该披露规定是无效的，而且应予以撤销。”
白宫发言人茱德•迪尔在一则声明中进行了反击：“让病患对于真实的医疗成本毫不知情完全没有道理可言，而且仅有“D.C. Swamp”能够支持这类事情。哪怕只是有关其天价目录价格的对话，大型制药公司会想方设法去规避，但特朗普总统依然在努力，以便让人们在获取医疗服务之前就能够了解其价格信息。”
当披露规定于去年公布之后，特朗普政府官员坚信该规定如今应该已经生效了。
特朗普当时发推文说：“此时此刻，美国病患将获得历史性的透明度。”
政府原打算让制药公司在广告结尾，也就是披露药物可能的副作用时公布药品价格信息。
政府希望，病患在了解价格之后会开始与其医生讨论承受能力的问题。久而久之，此举就会迫使制药商对其品牌药物的价格进行限制。美国退休者协会便是支持披露价格的机构之一。
这一理念是特朗普在2018年宣布的多重蓝图的一部分，旨在降低处方药成本。
在国会，伊利诺伊州民主党参议员迪克•德滨和爱荷华州共和党参议员恰克•格拉斯利提出的两党提案基本上与特朗普政府的规定有着异曲同工之效，它要求各大公司在面向消费者的广告中公布其处方药价格。尽管打着国会的旗号可能在法庭上更具分量，但该法案的前途依然生死未卜。
民主党看到了一个能做出更大改变的机会。众议院通过了议长南希•佩洛西旨在直接与制药行业议价的法案，而且该法案也曾得到过特朗普的支持。
佩洛西的法案会把从处方药价格削减中获得的数十亿美元用于为医保接受者提供新福利，例如视力、牙医和听力辅助。民主党总统候选人乔•拜登亦是医保谈判的支持者。（财富中文网）
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
In a major legal setback for President Donald Trump on a high-profile consumer issue, a federal appeals court has ruled that his administration lacks the legal authority to force drug companies to disclose prices in their TV ads.
The ruling denies Trump an easy-to-understand win on a major reelection priority for the White House, bringing down the cost of prescription medicines. Where most plans to overhaul the cost of drugs are complex, mandating that companies disclose prices is something any consumer can relate to.
Separate from the court case, legislation that would lower drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries with high bills is stuck in Congress. It's unclear that Trump can get it moving, since it would require some hard compromises for both Republicans and Democrats. There's also a separate bill that would mandate drug companies to disclose their prices in consumer advertising.
Trump, however, is not empty-handed. His administration recently brokered an agreement with drug companies and insurers that would give Medicare recipients taking insulin the ability to limit their copays to $35 a month, starting next year.
On TV ads, the unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not address a core argument of the pharmaceutical industry, that forcing companies to disclose their prices in advertising violates their free speech rights. Instead the three-judge panel ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services overstepped its legal authority by requiring disclosure under the umbrella of its stewardship of Medicare and Medicaid. The panel issued its decision Tuesday.
In a scathing rebuke to the administration, Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the court that HHS “acted unreasonably” in asserting it had authority to impose "a sweeping disclosure requirement that is largely untethered to the actual administration of the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
“Because there is no reasoned statutory basis for its far-flung reach and misaligned obligations, the disclosure rule is invalid and is hereby set aside,” the judge added.
White House spokesman Judd Deere shot back in a statement: “It makes absolutely no sense to keep patients in the dark on the true cost of care, and only the ‘D.C. Swamp’ would support such a thing. While big pharma will do everything they can to avoid even a conversation on their astronomical list prices, President Trump remains committed to making pricing information available prior to the delivery of care.”
When the disclosure rule was announced last year, administration officials were confident that it would be in effect by now.
Trump tweeted at the time that “Historic transparency for American patients is here.”
Drug pricing details were expected to appear in text toward the end of commercials, when potential side effects are disclosed.
The government hoped that patients armed with prices would start discussing affordability with their doctors, and gradually that would pressure drugmakers to keep costs of brand-name drugs in check. AARP was among the organizations supporting disclosure.
The idea was part of a multilevel blueprint Trump announced in 2018 to try to lower prescription drug costs.
In Congress, a bipartisan bill from Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would achieve essentially the same results as the Trump administration rule, requiring companies to list prices of their prescription drugs in their consumer advertising. Although an act of Congress would may carry more weight in the courts, its path forward also seems unclear.
Democrats see an opportunity to make far bigger changes. The House passed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices directly with the industry. That's a nonstarter for Republicans, though Trump once supported it.
Pelosi's bill would plow billions from prescription price cuts into providing new benefits for Medicare recipients, such as vision, dental and hearing aids. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden also backs Medicare negotiations.
