A ballot initiative supporters claim will lower drug prices in California is vague and poorly conceived, said a group with a long history of advocating for better cures and treatment for HIV and hepatitis C.
San Francisco-based Project Inform is officially neutral on Proposition 61, which if passed would regulate drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same amount as the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, which under federal rules can negotiate discounts of 24 percent for most drugs.
But Anne Donnelly, Project Inform’s director of health care policy, told American Pharmacy News of her organization’s real concerns over the initiative, which is largely driven by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an activist group that operates clinics and pharmacies across the country.
The initiative is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has earmarked $70 million to fight the initiative, reported Stat News, a medical and social sciences website.
Donnelly, speaking after proponents lost a state court bid to change the language of a report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), said her organization is officially neutral because it does not want to align itself with the pharmaceutical industry.
“The initiative appears to be very vague and poorly conceived,” Donnelly said. “It does tap into very real and righteous concern over drug pricing but definitely does not seem to do anything for the consumer and does not seem to save the state money.”
Her organization fears the wording will invite knock-on effects, including HIV drug prices negotiated by the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which administers and provides drugs at a state level to low income people living with HIV.
Donnelly said, “ADAP is a national purchasing agency that keeps pricing lower than those at VA. The program gets discounts...these are good prices that we believe are either close to or below the VA prices.”
She added that her organization is generally supportive of sound policies that would look into the price of drugs for consumers. "But we are neutral on this initiative because, like the legal analysis, we have found it impossible to analyze properly. It is vague and messy," she said.
The LAO reported that “the amount of any savings is highly uncertain.” One fear is that drug companies might force through increases for the VA.
Its report was challenged by supporters of the initiative, which asked a court to order the LAO to change the wording of its analysis.
Aref Aziz, an activist linked to the Yes on 61 website, argued that the office did not mention that federal law restrains VA drug pricing,
In his complaint filed with California Superior Court Aziz argued, "This silence leaves voters with the impression that drug manufacturers would be free to raise drug prices on veterans as high as they want — the sky is the limit.”
California Superior Court Judge Christopher Krueger, in a ruling published Aug. 15, wrote that the court finds “nothing misleading about the Legislative Analyst's language, much less clear and convincing proof that it is misleading.”
The analysis "does inform viewers that the federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA,” Judge Krueger added.
The initiative, to be voted on Nov. 8, asks for a "yes" vote in favor of regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same prices that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs. A "no" vote is a vote against regulating drug prices. The initiative has some high profile supporters, including former Presidential Candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Donnelly, of Project Inform, said that if the initiative were different, and required all state agencies to combine in order to negotiate lower prices, then her organization likely could have offered vocal support.
Alerts Sign-up