Morgan Griffith: ‘Trust Us’ isn’t good enough on drug rices

morgan griffithIn February, I wrote in this column about a series of hearings that were planned in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The Subcommittee, on which I serve, wanted to launch an in-depth examination of rising insulin prices. Insulin is a necessity for millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, and soaring prices are a hardship for them.

We have since had two hearings, the first featuring testimony from advocates for diabetes patients and medical professionals, and the second with testimony from executives of insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

At the second hearing, held on April 10, I asked questions about fees in the drug supply chain. Although the focus was on insulin, my questions would apply to prescription drugs more broadly, and the answers I received highlight why many are frustrated by high prices for products besides insulin.

I noted that PBMs charge fees to and demand rebates from their supply chain partners that are based on a percentage of the product’s list price. Why structure the fees that way?

One of the responses, echoed several times during my five minutes of questioning: “It’s the current system.”

That answer is inadequate. Manufacturers complain that they have to offer big rebates to get their products on insurance formularies (the lists of drugs covered by the plans). Larger rebates incentivize higher list prices, as the list prices are then raised to incorporate the various fees and rebates associated with the drug.

As far as fees go, there should not be a great variation in the actual costs of processing a hypothetical $4 drug versus a $4,000 drug, but that is “the current system.” A fee based on a percentage of the cost of these drugs obviously varies significantly. I suggested changing “the current system” and adopting flat fees. The manufacturing executives responded by saying that they attempted negotiations to do so but the PBMs would not agree to them.

PBMs defended “the current system” by claiming that prices would be even higher without their negotiations with manufacturers. That argument is hard to evaluate, however, because of a lack of transparency. How can we tell what effect negotiations would have on prices without more information?

What we do know is that some people are grievously injured by the system now in place. If you have the right insurance, you may not be hurt. But if you have a high deductible, are in the “donut hole” of prescription drug expenses not covered by Medicare Part D, or are not insured, you will likely note the negative impact of the current system on your wallet.

In the first insulin hearing, we heard from a patient advocate who described diluting her insulin to make it last longer. Such actions can be risky, but people sometimes feel they have no choice.

Both Republicans and Democrats expressed frustration at these hearings and offered words of warning to the drug companies and PBMs that they may not like our legislative solutions.

I would argue that the drug industry has some options before it to avoid that outcome. They can work to lower prices and increase transparency in the process of setting prices so we can see what is taking place.

As your elected representative, I can’t accept “trust us” from executives of the drug industry when we question them about their practices. Before we can take them at their word, they need to instill transparency in the process so we can see matters for ourselves.

To steal a phrase from Ronald Reagan, I am willing to trust but I must verify. I cannot verify without seeing all appropriate pricing data, which the PBMs have been unwilling to give thus far.

Too many of my constituents have told me about the impact high prescription drug prices have on their lives. I’m looking for solutions in these hearings on insulin prices so the people who need it, and people who use other vital drugs and products to treat their medical issues, can find relief both in their health and their pocketbook.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office.  You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.

uva basketball team of destiny

Team of Destiny: Inside UVA Basketball's improbable run

Team of Destiny: Inside Virginia Basketball’s Run to the 2019 National Championship, by Jerry Ratcliffe and Chris Graham, is available for $25.

The book, with additional reporting by Zach Pereles, Scott Ratcliffe and Scott German, will take you from the aftermath of the stunning first-round loss to UMBC in 2018, and how coach Tony Bennett and his team used that loss as the source of strength, through to the ACC regular-season championship, the run to the Final Four, and the thrilling overtime win over Texas Tech to win the 2019 national title, the first in school history.


Augusta Free Press content is available for free, as it has been since 2002, save for a disastrous one-month experiment at putting some content behind a pay wall back in 2009. (We won’t ever try that again. Almost killed us!) That said, it’s free to read, but it still costs us money to produce. The site is updated several times a day, every day, 365 days a year, 366 days on the leap year. (Stuff still happens on Christmas Day, is what we’re saying there.) AFP does well in drawing advertisers, but who couldn’t use an additional source of revenue? From time to time, readers ask us how they can support us, and we usually say, keep reading. Now we’re saying, you can drop us a few bucks, if you’re so inclined.


augusta free press
augusta free press
augusta free press news