Over 50 conservative groups issued a letter to Congress opposing the Trump administration’s move to compel drug companies to reduce prices nationwide.
drug companies to reduce prices in the United States by threatening them with tariffs, thus harming their profitability. Of the 52 signatories, 19 have accepted funding from PhRMA at some point between 2019 and 2024.
In sum, PhRMA — funded by and representing the interests of the pharmaceutical industry — paid groups appearing on the congressional letter just over $9 million during those five years, tax records'Conflict of interest': Byron Donalds takes financial interest in Bitcoin as he pushes pro-crypto platform Anti-ICE church protesters insist case is not spreading conspiracy, requiring extensive evidence review The rhetoric marshalled by the conservative groups to oppose President Donald Trump’s drug pricing policy aligns with that used by PhRMA itself. by PhRMA argue that, by reducing drug manufacturers’ domestic profits, the Trump administration will make it more difficult for pharmaceutical corporations to recoup their research and development costs, thereby reducing the number of new drugs by disincentivizing innovation. PhRMA and the conservatives also argue that such a policy could make the United States dependent onPhRMA also blamed pharmacy benefit managers and abuses of the 340B drug discount policy for high drug prices in the United States in response to Trump’s drug price maneuvering, talking points that previous reporting from theOftentimes, large grantmakers such as PhRMA will fund groups that already agree with their preferred positions. In other words, the fact that the groups PhRMA funds produce messaging that lines up with industry interests is not necessarily evidence that PhRMA is paying people to secure alignment. “We engage with different organizations who have a wide array of healthcare opinions and priorities,” PhRMA senior vice president of public affairs Alex Schriver told the. “We may not agree on every issue, but we believe engagement and dialogue is important to promoting a healthcare policy environment that supports innovation, a highly-skilled workforce, and access to lifesaving medicines.” That PhRMA has so much money to spread around, however, does give its preferences a privileged place in national discussions.This kind of coverage could heighten perceptions of controversy surrounding Trump’s drug pricing policy, a favorable development for the pharmaceutical industry. PhRMA-funded signatories of the recent congressional letter included the Council for Affordable Health Coverage; the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; American Commitment; the Pacific Research Institute; Consumer Action for a Strong Economy; the Center for Individual Freedom; the Committee to Unleash Prosperity; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity; 60 Plus, the American Association of Senior Citizens; the Institute for Policy Innovation; the Consumer Choice Center; Americans for a Balanced Budget; Citizens Against Government Waste; the Job Creators Network; the Frontiers of Freedom Institute; the Center for American Principles; and the Latino Coalition. “ITIF’s position is that U.S. policymakers are not doing enough to support one of America’s most critical and innovative industries,” a spokesperson for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation told the. “So, from that standpoint, we do not believe PhRMA has a privileged position.” The spokesperson went on to point out that their organization discloses funding from PhRMA and its other supporters on its website. The Council for Affordable Health Coverage, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and American Commitment each received more than $1 million from PhRMA between 2019 and 2024, while the Pacific Research Institute, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, the Center for Individual Freedom, and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity each accepted $500,000 or more from the trade association during that period.“We get funding from the drug companies, but we also have taken positions that they don’t like, for example, our strong support for requiring drug companies to post their prices or not get paid,” Committee to Unleash Prosperity co-founder and noted economist Stephen Moore told the“Our policy positions are determined solely by our research and analysis; no supporter has a privileged position in shaping our work either,” the ITIF spokesperson added.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Promises Trump has kept, or not kept, from his 2025 joint session of Congress speechAhead of his first official State of the Union address, the Washington Examiner evaluated which of Trump's promises were delivered on.
Read more »
Trump's tariffs are illegal unless Congress approves : AnalysisAnalyst says US trade policy stays vital but unstable after court curbs tariff powers, easing pressure yet leaving uncertainty for partners.
Read more »
Supreme Court put the brakes on Trump, after Congress helped him step on the gasThe justices rejected his claim of emergency powers to impose tariffs. Congress has done little to oversee those powers.
Read more »
Ex-FBI official fired under Trump announces run for Congress in MarylandRebecca Shabad is a politics reporter for NBC News based in Washington.
Read more »
Trump’s ‘worldwide tariff’ sets stage for rebuke from Congress ahead of midterm electionsWith slim GOP majorities and some Republicans celebrating Trump's Supreme Court setback, Democrats have the numbers to block an extension past 150 days.
Read more »
Chicago-area members of Congress to boycott Trump’s State of the Union speechThe Democratic lawmakers cited Trump's job performance and policies as reasons they're boycotting his primetime speech.
Read more »