Rep. Walden Issues Statement on Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act

WASHINGTON, May 16 -- Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued the following floor statement on the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act (H.R. 987), which combines bipartisan bills to lower drug costs with partisan bills to bail out Obamacare:

"The Washington Post said it best. Allow me to quote a headline from yesterday, "Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills."

"It's true. By jamming together our bipartisan efforts to lower drug costs with clearly partisan bills to bail out Obamacare, Democrats are once again putting politics - and partisanship - over bipartisan policy.

"Republicans and Democrats had been working together on bipartisan legislation to bring generic drugs to market faster by incentivizing more competition and ensuring patients get the earliest possible access to more affordable prescription drugs.

"The first measure would ensure branded drug makers do not withhold samples that are needed to get generic drugs approved. The second would ban pay-for-delay agreements. And the third would limit first-approved generic makers' ability to stall another rival's launch.

"Together, these bills help patients get access to more affordable prescription drugs. And they're bipartisan. Just how bipartisan? Two of the bills passed the Energy and Commerce committee by voice vote. And the third? The third passed unanimously - 51-0.

"Madam Speaker, this is how the American people expect their government to work for them.

"But sadly, House Democrats couldn't pass up a chance to play gotcha politics. So, what did House Democrats do, Mister/Madam Speaker? They packaged these agreed-to, bipartisan drug pricing proposals with an Obamacare bailout. That passed out of committee on a purely partisan vote.

"Here's what the bailout contains.

"First, $200 million a year in taxpayer funding for states to establish Obamacare marketplaces. This funding expired in 2014, albeit not before hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer resources were wasted. New Jersey has recently expressed an interest in creating a new state exchange and they say they can do it without new federal money. If a state decides to create an exchange, then they should be allowed to do so but we do not need to create new federal grants for things states say they have the capacity to themselves.

"Second, $100 million a year to fund the Navigator program. For plan year 2017, Navigators received a total of $62.5 million in grants and enrolled 81,426 individuals, that's $767 per person, which accounted for fewer than one percent of total enrollees. One awardee of the Navigators program had an enrollment goal of 2,000 individuals, but only enrolled one single person - hear that again: one...single...person.

"Third, the bill reverses the Administration's effort to allow more state regulated insurance plan options for consumers who are getting priced out of the market.

"Now I want to set the record straight on these plans. They were legal under the Obama administration. And they're legal under the Trump administration. They provide choice to folks in between jobs or people who can't afford exploding premiums. CBO projected premiums for these plans could be as much as 60 percent lower than the cheapest federal plan - 60 percent. Even more, states can regulate these plans! In the chairman's home state New Jersey, Madam Speaker, they're banned. And in my home state of Oregon, they're limited to 90 days. This is federalism at its finest. But in their Washington-knows-best mentality, House Democrats want to strip away this option from our states. This is wrong. This is unfair.

"Fourth, the bill spends $100 million a year to market the federal plans. But they couldn't stop there. Instead of educating patients on all plan options available to them, this bill places a gag order on the promotion of more affordable choices, specifically association health plans, known as AHPs, and short-term, limited-duration insurance plans.

"There is simply no reason to combine bipartisan bills to lower drug costs with partisan bills to bail out Obamacare.

"Energy and Commerce Republicans have put forth an alternative bill that includes all of H.R. 987's bipartisan drug pricing provisions, but removes the partisan provisions. Our pragmatic plan replaces these partisan provisions with language extending funding for community health centers, the national health service corps, and other public health extenders for one year. These public health extenders should be a top bipartisan priority for Congress as they must be done before the end of the fiscal year in September. And they deserve the attention of this Congress, now.

"Because we like to make sure the titles of our bills reflect the substance, our alternative, H.R. 2700, is called the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act.

"We should take up this bill right now, Mister/Madam speaker. Because the majority has decided to play politics with our bipartisan efforts to lower drug costs, the bill before us right now is going nowhere in the Senate and won't be signed by the President. We should take up our alternative to move our bipartisan work forward and take care of our responsibilities to ensure community health centers and other public health priorities are funded on time.

"Finally, just to further the point on the blatant and unnecessary partisanship on display here today, House Democrats made 26 amendments in order to this bill. One of those amendments - one, Mister/Madam Speaker - was authored by a Republican. For all of the rhetoric about a fair and open debate, this sure has been a sad attempt at allowing ideas to be heard, debated, and voted on."