�鶹Ů��

Hillary Clinton said on Friday that if elected to the White House she would create an oversight panel to protect U.S. consumers from large price hikes on long-available, lifesaving drugs and to import alternative treatments if necessary, adding to her pledges to rein in overall drug prices. Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, would seek to give the panel an "aggressive new set of enforcement tools," including the ability to levy fines and impose penalties on manufacturers when there has been an "unjustified, outlier price increase" on a long-available or generic drug, her campaign said. (Becker and Pierson, 9/2)

Clinton's plan is carefully delineated to target "excessive, outlier" price hikes on "long-standing" treatments that haven't had any major improvements and have little or no competition. That's a clear attempt to reassure the pharmaceutical industry that government intervention won't squelch the development of new, pricey treatments. According to the campaign, the initiative will be focused on drugs without patent protection. (Johnson, 9/2)

Clinton proposed creating a federal consumer oversight body that would investigate and respond to price hikes of older drugs with limited competition, as was the case with Mylan's EpiPen. The board could wield enforcement power when it determines a price increase is unjustified. Offending companies would be fined or charged increased rebates. That money would be used to support new programs to make lower-cost alternatives available and increase approval of competing treatments. (Karlin-Smith, 9/2)

At first blush, this is scary talk for investors. Any action to curb price increases on older drugs would hurt manufacturers that rely on them to generate growth. But their share prices already have taken a beating over the past year. In addition, the plan offers familiar solutions such as enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices and eliminating tax deductions for drug advertisements directed at patients. Those policies, if enacted, would have a more comprehensively negative effect on the industry. Yet a closer look suggests that scenario is unlikely to come to pass. For instance, Mrs. Clinton’s plan notes the need to “ensure that there are proper incentives for real innovations that bring effective products to market.” (Grant, 9/2)

On Friday, Hillary Clinton called for creation of a government commission with the power to compete with or penalize pharmaceutical companies like Mylan, Valeant and Turing that jack up the prices of lifesaving drugs that have been on the market for years. (Pianin, 9/2)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, acting on her pledge to curb what she has called outrageous drug costs, outlined a set of proposals to crack down on “unjustified” increases on prices for older treatments. The plan adds to a year of attacks against pharmaceutical firms that have hiked the prices of life-saving treatments, including the outcry over Mylan NV’s EpiPen emergency allergy shot. The measures, released Friday on the candidate’s website, would give the U.S. government a broader role in determining the correct price for some drugs, a task that’s typically been off limits for federal regulators. (Cordeiro and Tracer, 9/2)

At first glance, it may sound like Hillary Clinton's plan is an attempt to tackle drug prices overall. It's not. Clinton economic policy advisor Mike Shapiro said it's to go after an insidious problem where a subset of drug makers (think Turing and Mylan) crank up prices on generics, just because they can. (Gorenstein, 9/2)