A bold attitude towards the pricing of medicines will be a prerequisite for every candidate who wants to win the democratic presidential election of 2020, but will be a challenge to distinguish participants from each other.
The most important distinction between candidates could lie between those who pursue a two-pronged policy and those who propagate more liberal ideas that currently have little chance of a law. But in most cases, the accounts have a list of co-sponsors that may look like a future phase of the primary debate.
"Any democrat who does not run into it misses the mood of the electorate, and I think they would make a big mistake," said David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of the Patients for Affordable Drugs group and his political leaders. action committee.
If they do not make it a problem, he said, "They should not come close to the nomination."
Positioning on drug price plans reflects the broader attempt by the party to refuse business influence, said Peter Maybarduk, who oversees the global campaign for consumer access to consumer citizen publicity drugs.
"It's going to play a role in people's insights into the philosophies of candidates and how serious they are about challenging concentrated economic power to make people's lives better," he said.
See also: Cory Booker runs for president – Here are some basic principles of the conference
Position of candidates
So far, the potential 2020 area is a comfortable collection of drug prosecution plans from Bernie Sanders, independent in Vermont, which still makes a bid.
Sanders introduced bills to reduce the prices of medicines in almost every session he served, starting as a member of the House in 1991. For many years his proposals only attracted the most liberal Democrats – or in many cases did not have other co-sponsors.
Today Sens. Cory Booker from New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Kamala Harris from California and Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts all original co-sponsors of a proposal for the pricing of three invoices that Sanders introduced in January.
The package contained a bill that would allow the import of cheaper drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries. Another bill would require the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies in Medicare's drug benefit, a central part of the Democrats' strategy and an important contrast with the Republicans. Other legislation would remove monopolies if pharmaceutical companies sell more products here than they are sold abroad.
Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, who officially announced her bid on Sunday, supports multiple approaches to some of these problems. It supports the Sanders import invoice and the negotiation law, but also has its own measures. She introduced legislation that Medicare could use to negotiate the drug program for Part D – but that is not necessary, as the Sanders bill would. But a third negotiation drawing that she introduced with another potential competitor, Sen. Sherrod Brown from Ohio, is even stricter for pharmaceutical companies than the Sanders law, because she would withdraw patent protection if prices were too high.
She also leads efforts in the area of an import invoice with Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley from Iowa. The couple also has a bill that would prevent prevented pharmaceutical companies from settling over patent disputes that delay generic competition.
James Love, director of the non-profit Knowledge Ecology International, sees two movements reflected in the twofold side of the Klobuchar approach versus the Sanders accounts.
In her accounts with Grassley, Klobuchar concentrates mainly on things with "a double shot of the Senate coming through this year," he said.
"Other people record some sort of markup in terms of policies and things that they know will not be successful this year, but they want to start a debate," he said.
Brown, whose 26-year tenure in Congress in the House began, has almost as much experience as Sanders in the field of drug prices. Highlights include an invoice from 2016 that would shorten the period of monopoly on expensive biological medicines from 12 years to seven years. That approach, along with the negotiation law that he and Klobuchar introduced last week, represent the kind of changes that people love that love is most needed.
"If you do not want to say that you can rein in the legal monopoly, it is difficult to do other things that will protect patients," he said.
A differentiating factor could be the consistency of the candidate's record over time.
California Rep. Ro Khanna, a main co-sponsor of the House versions of the Sanders account, asked: "Have they argued and stood for this for the last two years, or is this something they have been fighting for, for the past 10 years? ? I think those are the things that voters will look at if the policy differences are not so many. & # 39;
Under the current harvest of hopeful people, all have accepted campaign contributions from PACs in the pharmaceutical and health industry, or their employees.
Brown collected the most commonly, around $ 599,000 since his first election in 1992, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But that is less than one percent of the $ 69 million he has raised in total. The percentage share of Booker is the highest, 1.7 percent of the $ 25 million he has collected since 2013.
Booker has also taken the heat for a single vote that he issued in early 2017 against an amendment to a budget resolution that would have called for a system to import drugs from Canada. The amendment was rejected, 46-52, and Booker was one of the 12 Democrats who voted against.
He says he voted against because it was a "late-night messaging amendment", not a policy on content. He notes that about six weeks later he was an original co-sponsor of a more detailed bill for the import of drugs under the direction of Sanders. A year later, in February 2018, Booker announced that he would no longer accept collective PAC money.
In early January he left this potential baggage and appeared next to Sanders at a press conference that announced the package with three invoices. And he focused on pharmaceutical companies that employ tens of thousands of people in his state and criticize how they spent the money they saved in the 2017 Republican tax cut.
"Did it start mainly research?" No. Did it continue to raise wages with employees, especially? No. It was going to buy back shares, push stock prices up, to beat the market, "he said.
The biggest challenge is to make their positions a useful political tactic. Since President Donald Trump and his government are among the biggest cheerleaders of Congress to address this problem, political chances may only exist if nothing happens this year.
"If I wanted to make it a central issue in my campaign, I would just want to make sure they do not take an account after I've given five speeches about it," said Robert Blendon, a professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which directs the university's polling on health issues. "But if it's clear that they're not going to do anything, absolutely, it's something that directly relates directly to voters of all ages and everything else."
Receive news reports and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or Android.