Greg Murphy Repeatedly Voted Against Lowering The Cost Of Prescription Drugs
2025: Murphy Voted To Block Consideration Of The Lowering Drug Costs For American Families Act
2025: Murphy Voted For Blocking Consideration Of The Lowering Drug Costs For American Families Act. In January 2025, Murphy voted for: “Fischbach, R-Minn., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment).” According to the Congressional Record, Rep. McGovern said, “Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4895, the Lowering Drug Costs for American Families Act, to lower drug costs for Americans covered by private insurance programs.” A vote for the motion was a vote to block consideration of the bill. The motion was agreed to by a vote of 216-210. [H Res 5, Vote #3, 1/3/25; CQ, 1/3/25; Congressional Record, 1/3/25]
2022: Murphy Voted Against Capping The Price Of Insulin At $35 A Month, Capping The Annual Out-Of-Pocket Limit On Prescription Drugs For People On Medicare At $2,000, And Negotiating A “Maximum Fair Price” For Certain Drugs
2022: Murphy Voted Against Passing The Inflation Reduction Act Through Reconciliation. In August 2022, Murphy voted against: “Yarmuth, D-Ky., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill comprising a package of climate, tax and health care provisions. Among drug pricing provisions, the bill would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ with drug manufacturers for certain Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition; cap cost-sharing for insulin products covered under Medicare at $35 a month; and require single-source drug manufacturers to provide rebates to HHS for the price of drugs under Medicare Parts B and D for which price increases outpace inflation. For Medicare Part D, it would cap the annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000. It would extend through 2025 tax subsidies toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums for individuals under a certain income level. The bill would provide for approximately $270 billion in new or expanded tax credits to incentivize actions by businesses and individuals to mitigate climate change, including production credits for electricity produced by renewable and nuclear facilities; investment tax credits for certain renewable energy equipment and facilities; and credits for advanced energy manufacturing projects, including in areas where a coal mine or power plant has closed. To incentivize emission reduction and clean fuel production, it would create or extend tax credits for carbon oxide sequestration facilities; biodiesel, renewable diesel and alternative fuels; and clean hydrogen facilities. For most of its corporate tax credits, it would add prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements and establish bonus credits for using domestic materials in facility construction. It would also expand individual tax credits for residential energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy expenses; increase credits for new energy efficient homes; and create credits for the purchase of used electric vehicles by individuals under a certain income level. It would reinstate the Superfund tax on crude oil at a rate of 16.4 cents per barrel. Among other tax provisions, the bill would establish a 15 percent alternative minimum tax for corporations with a book income of at least $1 million annually and institute a 1 percent excise tax on corporate stock buybacks. It would authorize $79.3 billion for IRS operations, including enforcement activities and systems modernization. The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including $27 billion for grants to state, local and nonprofit entities for greenhouse gas emission reduction activities; $9.7 billion for zero-emission or carbon capture rural electric systems; $5 billion for loan guarantees to replace or reduce emissions of energy infrastructure; $3 billion for zero-emission vehicles for the Postal Service; and $1.6 billion for methane emissions reduction and mitigation. It would provide $9 billion for residential energy efficiency improvement rebates; $3 billion for new EPA environmental and climate justice block grants for community-led activities to address pollution, emission reduction, climate resiliency and public engagement; and $3 billion for Federal Highway Administration grants for projects that address surface transportation facilities that disconnect or negatively impact communities. It would provide $4 billion for drought mitigation in Western states; $2.15 billion for hazardous fuel reduction and restoration projects; and $1 billion to improve energy and water efficiency or climate resilience of affordable housing. It would require the Interior Department to accept bids for certain canceled oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf. It would authorize wind lease sales adjacent to U.S. territories but prohibit new wind or solar development rights on federal lands for 10 years unless the department completes certain oil or gas lease sales.” The bill passed by a vote of 220-207. [H.R. 5376, Vote #420, 8/12/22; CQ, 8/12/22]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Capped Insulin Copayments To $35 For People On Medicare. “Among drug pricing provisions, the bill would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ with drug manufacturers for certain Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition; cap cost-sharing for insulin products covered under Medicare at $35 a month; and require single-source drug manufacturers to provide rebates to HHS for the price of drugs under Medicare Parts B and D for which price increases outpace inflation. For Medicare Part D, it would cap the annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000.” [H.R. 5376, Vote #420, 8/12/22; CQ, 8/12/22]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Capped The Annual Out-Of-Pocket Limit At $2,000 For Medicare Part D. “Among drug pricing provisions, the bill would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ with drug manufacturers for certain Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition; cap cost-sharing for insulin products covered under Medicare at $35 a month; and require single-source drug manufacturers to provide rebates to HHS for the price of drugs under Medicare Parts B and D for which price increases outpace inflation. For Medicare Part D, it would cap the annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000.” [H.R. 5376, Vote #420, 8/12/22; CQ, 8/12/22]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Required The Health And Human Services Department To Negotiate A “Maximum Fair Price” With Drug Manufacturers For Certain Medicare-Eligible, Brand-Name Drugs. “Among drug pricing provisions, the bill would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ with drug manufacturers for certain Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition; cap cost-sharing for insulin products covered under Medicare at $35 a month; and require single-source drug manufacturers to provide rebates to HHS for the price of drugs under Medicare Parts B and D for which price increases outpace inflation. For Medicare Part D, it would cap the annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000.” [H.R. 5376, Vote #420, 8/12/22; CQ, 8/12/22]
March 2022: Murphy Voted Against The Affordable Insulin Now Act To Cap The Price Of Insulin At $35. In March 2022, Murphy voted against: “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would require private health insurance and Medicare to cover certain insulin products and limit cost-sharing requirements for such products for plans beginning in 2023. Specifically, it would require private insurance plans to cover at least one of each dosage form of each type of insulin, such as short-acting, long-acting and premixed insulin; prohibit the plans from applying a deductible for the insulin products; and cap cost-sharing for the insulin products at the lesser of $35 or 25 percent of the plan's negotiated price for the product per 30-day supply. For Medicare plans, it would similarly prohibit the application of a deductible for covered insulin products and cap copayments at $35 per 30-day supply. The bill would also increase funding available for the Medicare Improvement Fund from $5 million to approximately $9 billion. As an offset, it would delay for an additional year, through Jan. 1, 2027, implementation of a November 2020 rule ending a safe harbor provision that protects pharmacy benefit managers from federal anti-kickback laws for prescription drug rebates provided to health insurers under Medicare Part D.” Passed by a vote of 232-193. [H.R. 6833, Vote #102, 3/31/22, CQ, 3/31/22]
- The Affordable Insulin Now Act Capped The Price Of Insulin At $35 Or 25% Of An Insurance Plan’s Negotiated Price, Whichever Was Lower. “The House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve legislation that would limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and Medicare. The vote was 232-193, with 12 Republican members joining their Democratic colleagues to pass the measure. The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan's negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation aims to take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
- Insulin Prices Doubled Between 2012 And 2016. “Advocates of the legislation point to data from the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent nonprofit that studies health care prices, which shows prices for insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016. ‘No one should have to choose between taking their medication as prescribed and putting food on the table or a roof over their head,’ said Rep. Dan Kildee, one of three Democratic lawmakers who sponsored the legislation.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
2021: Murphy Voted Against The Build Back Better Act, Which Would Require The Negotiation Of A “Maximum Fair Price” For Insulin And Select Medicare-Eligible Drugs
2021: Murphy Voted Against The Build Back Better Act. In November 2021, Murphy voted against: “Passage of the fiscal 2022 budget reconciliation bill, as amended, that would provide approximately $2 trillion in investments and tax cuts to address climate change and child care, health care, education, housing and other social policies intended to support families. It would establish a child care and early learning entitlement program, providing approximately $100 billion for the program through fiscal 2024. It would provide $18 billion through fiscal 2024 for a free universal preschool program. It would extend through 2022 the expanded child tax credit provided by prior coronavirus relief law (PL 117-2) and provide $5 billion to administer the credit. It would establish a paid family and medical leave benefit for up to four weeks per year, beginning in 2024. It would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ for insulin and select Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition. It would require manufacturers to provide rebates for single-source drugs under Medicare Parts B and D for which prices increase faster than inflation. For Medicare Part D, it would cap annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000 beginning in 2024. It would establish or extend expanded eligibility for certain tax credits toward Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance premiums through 2025. […] To offset costs, it would establish or modify various taxes on corporations and high-income individuals, including to establish a 15 percent alternative minimum tax for corporations with an annual income exceeding $1 billion; a one percent tax on stock buybacks by public companies; and an additional five percent tax on individual income over $10 million and further three percent tax on income over $25 million. It would provide $78.9 billion to improve IRS operations and tax enforcement.” The bill passed by a vote of 220-213. [H.R. 5376, Vote #385, 11/19/21; CQ, 11/19/21]
The Build Back Better Act Would Require The Negotiation Of A “Maximum Fair Price” For Insulin And Select Medicare-Eligible, Brand-Name Drugs. “Passage of the fiscal 2022 budget reconciliation bill, as amended, that would provide approximately $2 trillion in investments and tax cuts to address climate change and child care, health care, education, housing and other social policies intended to support families. […] It would require the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ for insulin and select Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition.” [H.R. 5376, Vote #385, 11/19/21; CQ, 11/19/21]
2020: Murphy Voted Against Authorizing Medicare To Negotiate Prices For Prescription Drugs
Murphy Voted Against The State Health Care Premium Reduction Act, Which Would Expand Enrollment In And Reduce Consumer Costs For State-And-Federally Operated Affordable Care Act Health Insurance Marketplace; Incentivize Medicaid Expansion By States; And Authorized Maximum Price Negotiations For Prescription Drugs Under Medicare. In June 2020, Murphy voted against: “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would include a number of provisions to expand enrollment in and reduce consumer costs for state- and federally-operated Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces; incentivize Medicaid expansion by states; and authorize maximum price negotiations for prescription drugs under Medicare. Title I of the bill would expand eligibility for federal tax subsidies toward insurance premiums and increase the percentage of premiums such subsidies would cover. It would provide $10 billion annually beginning in fiscal 2022 to help states lower costs of ACA plans, including to provide reinsurance payments to health insurance issuers and subsidies to individuals. It would provide $200 million for grants to states to establish and operate state-based ACA health insurance marketplaces; $100 million annually for Health and Human Services Department consumer outreach related to ACA marketplace plans; $100 million annually for the HHS ‘navigator’ program, which helps individuals enroll in qualified plans; and $200 million annually through fiscal 2024 for grants to states to encourage plan enrollment. It would also prohibit implementation of August 2018 regulations related to health insurance plans that are not required to meet ACA patient protection requirements, including short-term, limited-duration plans. Title II of the bill would provide for full federal reimbursement of state Medicaid expansion costs for new enrollees for three years, then gradually decrease the federal medical assistance cost-share to 90% for those enrollees. It would authorize HHS to reduce the federal cost-share percentage for states that do not expand their Medicaid programs by 0.5% quarterly beginning in fiscal 2023, and by 10% beginning July 2027. It would permanently authorize funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. It would require Medicaid and CHIP programs to provide at least 12 continuous months of coverage for qualifying individuals and provide one year of coverage for women after the end of a pregnancy. It would allow states to expand eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP programs to include children whose family income exceeds certain amounts, and it would make citizens of the Freely Associated States residing in the U.S. eligible for Medicaid. Title III of the bill would establish a fair price negotiation program under which the Health and Human Services Department would enter into agreements with drug manufacturers to negotiate a ‘maximum fair price’ for insulin and up to 250 other Medicare-eligible, brand-name drugs that do not have generic competition and account for high levels of spending. It would require the department to negotiate the maximum price of at least 25 drugs for 2023 and at least 50 drugs in each subsequent year, with maximum prices not exceeding 120% of a drug's average international price or 85% of the average manufacturer price for that year. It would subject manufacturers who do not reach a negotiated agreement for a drug to excise taxes based on gross sales of that drug. It would require manufacturers to offer negotiated prices to private health insurers. It would authorize a total of $3 billion through fiscal 2023 for implementation of the price negotiation program. As amended, the bill would authorize $2 billion for National Institutes of Health cancer research and make Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program recipients eligible to enroll in ACA marketplace health plans.” The bill passed by a vote of 200-179. [H.R. 1425, Vote #124, 6/29/20; CQ, 6/29/20]
2019: Murphy Voted Against Allowing The Federal Government To Negotiate Lower Drug Prices And Said He Opposed What He Called “Price Controls”
Murphy Voted Against The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, Which Would Allow The Federal Government To Negotiate Lower Drug Prices. In December 2019, Murphy voted against: “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would allow the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate prices for certain drugs under Medicare programs and would make a number of modifications to Medicare programs related to drug costs and plan benefits. Specifically, the bill would establish a fair price negotiation program in which HHS would enter into agreements with drug manufacturers negotiate maximum fair prices for certain drugs.” The motion passed by a vote of 230-192. [H.R. 3, Vote #682, 12/12/19; CQ, 12/12/19]
- The Bill Would Enable HHS To Negotiate The Prices Of As Many As 250 Drugs Annually And Would Penalize Drug Companies That Did Not Negotiate. “The final bill enables the HHS secretary to negotiate the prices of as many as 250 drugs annually, a much higher number than the 25-drug threshold the speaker’s office had outlined in one of the earlier versions of the plan. Additionally, it would penalize companies that do not negotiate with HHS with a fine that starts at 65 percent of a drug’s gross sales from the prior year. For every quarter that the company does not engage, the penalty goes up by 10 percentage points, until it hits 95 percent of a drug’s gross sales.” [Vox, 9/19/19]
- The Bill Would Prioritize Price Negotiation Of The Most Costly Drugs That Did Not Have Competition From A Generic Or Biosimilar. “The drugs the HHS Secretary would prioritize under the plan are ones that are currently most costly to Medicare and the broader health care system, which do not have competition in the form of a generic or biosimilar. These drugs would be identified based on their price and volume of sales and at least 25 would be negotiated on each year.” [Vox, 9/19/19]
- Under The Bill, The Price Negotiated By HHS Would Be Available To Those With Private Insurance, Not Just Those With Medicare. “Whatever price is negotiated by HHS will be available to individuals covered by private plans, not just those covered by Medicare. The prices of drugs in other developed countries will be used as a reference point to ensure that negotiations result in a price that’s no more than 1.2 times the average price in six other places.” [Vox, 9/19/19]
- The Bill Would Require Drug Companies To Undo Certain Increases To Drugs Covered By Medicare Part B And D. “The proposal would also address pricing hikes that have been applied to different drugs covered by Medicare Part B and D, requiring companies to either undo any increases that surpass the rate of inflation or rebate the entirety of those hikes since 2016 to the Treasury. Additionally, the plan would cap out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for those covered by the Medicare Part D to $2000 annually. Currently, there is no cap.” [Vox, 9/19/19]
2019: Murphy: “Price Controls Have Never Worked, And They Won’t Work To Solve The High Cost Of Prescription Drugs Either.” “If there is one issue that all Americans can agree on these days, it is that prescription drug costs are too high. America must find a solution: a solution that lowers prices but at the same time does not stop life-saving medical cures from reaching the market. Unfortunately the Democratic House plans to pass H.R. 3, a misguided solution that would impose governmental price controls. Price controls have never worked, and they won’t work to solve the high cost of prescription drugs either.” [The Hill, Greg Murphy Op-Ed, 12/11/19]
- Murphy: “If There Is One Issue That All Americans Can Agree On These Days, It Is That Prescription Drug Costs Are Too High.” “If there is one issue that all Americans can agree on these days, it is that prescription drug costs are too high. America must find a solution: a solution that lowers prices but at the same time does not stop life-saving medical cures from reaching the market. Unfortunately the Democratic House plans to pass H.R. 3, a misguided solution that would impose governmental price controls. Price controls have never worked, and they won’t work to solve the high cost of prescription drugs either.” [The Hill, Greg Murphy Op-Ed, 12/11/19]