Although the majority of the March 3rd testimony was in support of SB 763 and SB 764, the Committee also heard two voices in opposition. Asher Lisec of PhRMA (a trade group representing pharmaceutical companies), expressed concerns with both bills, arguing that SB 763 ignores existing federal transparency guidelines and raises First Amendment questions by forcing sales representatives to use “specific speech.” Lisec also questioned the efficacy of SB 764, arguing that restricting patent settlements could actually lead to higher costs for consumers and runs contrary to United States Supreme Court rulings. In reality, SB 763 contains no speech restrictions and creates regulations very similar to the standards already in place for lobbyists, and SB 764 only restricts anti-competitive patent settlements. Moreover, the Supreme Court case referenced by Lisec doesn’t establish any framework for whether a settlement is anticompetitive – in fact, it allows lawsuits against this kind of settlement. Brett Michelin from the Association for Accessible Medicines, a pharmaceutical company representing generic and biosimilar manufacturers, also testified in opposition to SB 764, contending that without settlements, generic brands find themselves tied up in litigation and therefore lose the chance to get their products on the market at all. However, SB 764 doesn’t prevent court settlements in general – instead, it prohibits ones that encourage monopolies and anticompetitive markets for prescriptions.
Far more opposition voices arrived to testify against SB 844, from both pharmaceutical industries and medical providers. Lisec returned on PhRMA’s behalf, arguing that upper payment limits on medications wouldn’t solve the problem of drug affordability for patients, who would still face insurance copays on each prescription. Horvath rebutted these claims during her testimony, pointing out that upper payment limits would travel through the supply chain and eventually reach the patient and their insurance bill, maintaining the lower cost through every step in the process. “I think PDAB will have to work closely with insurance companies to ensure that patients with copays will benefit as well,” she added.
Representatives from organizations such as the Oregon Bioscience Association and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization also raised concerns about the impact that payment limits would have on funding for research and development of new medications, and therefore patient access to these drugs. However, Horvath pointed out that pharmaceutical companies have enormous margins in revenues that won’t be affected by upper payment limits. “In my view, the only reason people will no longer have access [to medication] is because pharma will retaliate, boycott, and take patients hostage, essentially,” she said.