U.S. Congresswoman who "puts Kansans first" tweets about voting to give government more power
Opinion/Government and Healthcare - 4 minute read
U.S. Representative for Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District Sharice Davids (D) often talks about the ways she believes in “putting Kansans first.” Her twitter bio even states, “Putting Kansans first and fighting for opportunity, because everyone deserves a shot at success.” One of the biggest issues that Davids has spoken on multiple times is affordable insulin prices, as insulin is a lifesaving medication that people should be able to afford. However, like so many people when it comes to solving big problems, Davids seems uninterested in solving the root issues, opting instead for a quick fix solution that “sounds good,” but is ultimately going to need to be reevaluated in the future.
On March 17, 2023, Davids tweeted,
While this might sound great for the first five seconds, once you actually think about what she voted for, you begin to understand a more serious reality. Davids is talking about the Affordable Insulin Now Act, but what she voted for was an attack on capitalism by growing the government big enough to decide the price of insulin rather than allowing the free-market to decide. In 2003, $21.41 was worth the same as $35 today. As government continues to print money and spend recklessly, inflation will continue to eat away at the dollar. Voting in favor to cap the price of insulin at $35 a month will eventually not be profitable enough for businesses to continue producing the product without lobbying to increase prices.
While she does state that this would cap the price for seniors specifically, this is only because the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are currently “testing a voluntary model under the Medicare prescription drug benefit (the Part D Senior Savings Model) in which the copayment for a month's supply of insulin is capped at $35 through participating plans. The model is set to expire on December 31, 2025.” If this bill only applied to seniors, inevitably, everyone else who needs insulin would feel the sting of higher insulin prices at a much faster rate than they otherwise would.
What this bill will ultimately do is cap cost-sharing for a month’s supply of insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit to be no greater than $35 or 25 percent of the negotiated price of a plan; whichever is less.
The high price of insulin is two-fold with one being the fact that insulin is a biologic compound that can be expensive to produce—but not so expensive that it should cost consumers thousands of dollars a year. However, the other reason for its high price is due to government intervention.
Under patent law, insulin makers are protected from generic competitors. Due to this, insulin makers can sell their product without having to compete in a free-market, allowing them to sell their product at whatever price they want. A lot of times, current insulin products are “tweaked” so that insulin makers can continue their exclusivity rights.
Furthermore, the approval process from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is far more stringent for “biologic” drugs like insulin. Due to this, approval can take longer than other drugs and is extremely costly for drug manufacturers. Going back to generic alternatives, most generic can lower the cost by 80 percent. Due to even a generic insulin being expensive to produce, cardiologist, CEO of PaceMate and U.S.News reporter Dr. Kevin Campbell estimates a generic would lower this cost for insulin by about 20 percent.
Advocates of lowering the cost of insulin tend to be in favor of growing the government to have a say in how businesses are allowed to price their products instead of “letting the whims of the free-market” decide, while simultaneously admitting that there really isn’t a free-market when it comes to insulin as 96 percent of the insulin market is carried by three businesses that have historically gone after smaller businesses entering the market with lawsuits.
The big three insulin manufacturers—Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk—have all complied with the $35 cap, but this does not mean they will be done lobbying politicians and filing lawsuits against potential competitors creating generic versions of insulin.
Instead of growing the government and weakening capitalism, Davids could do something that would do the opposite and be far more effective in lowering the cost of insulin permanently like introducing a bill that would help open the market to generic insulins or lowering the cost for drug manufacturers that produce insulin to go through the government mandated FDA approval process.
The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Finance. To read the full text of the bill, click here.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe. You can also support independent journalism in Kansas by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/kscon.