Lobbyists Warn Opioid Fee Bill Would Raise Costs for Del. Patients
Opponents of the measure told members of a Senate committee that pharmacies and consumers would end up paying the cost of the proposal, which aims to create a two-tier "impact fee" on pharmaceutical firms that produce the highest-strength and most widely distributed opioid products available for sale in the state.
March 27, 2019 at 06:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Citing downstream costs and potential consequences for patients, lobbyists for opioid manufacturers and pharmacies pushed back Wednesday against a bill that would charge major drugmakers for pills they sell in Delaware.
Opponents of the measure told members of a Senate committee that pharmacies and consumers would end up paying the cost of the proposal, which aims to create a two-tier “impact fee” on pharmaceutical firms that produce the highest-strength and most widely distributed opioid products available for sale in the state.
The fee is expected to generate $8 million over three years, with the proceeds marked for a special fund to pay for treatment and prevention services. The surcharge would only kick in above a certain threshold, based on a formula used to calculate the strength of the drugs.
Supporters say the fee would not substantially increase the cost of opioids for consumers, but would require drug manufacturers to help fund Delaware's response to the opioid epidemic, which has been linked to 112 opioid-related deaths in 2016 alone.
“The principle behind this bill is that if you bring a substance into our state that has a widespread, detrimental effect on our residents, then you are responsible for a share of the the government's response to that effect,” the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Stephanie Hansen, D-Middletown, said at the hearing.
However, Christopher V. DiPietro, a lobbyist for EPIC Pharmacies Inc., a consortium of independently owned pharmacies across the state, said drugmakers are “not going to pay one penny” of the contemplated fee. Independent pharmacies, he said, operate on very thin margins, and nothing in the bill would prevent costs from being passed down the distribution chain.
“What that means is that some form of either patients, pharmacies … or carriers are going to have to bear the burden of paying this tax,” DiPietro said.
Debbie Hamilton, a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, said the bill has the potential to increase the cost of opioids for “legitimate patients,” who are prescribed medications for pain relief.
“No medication should be subject to a tax or fee. As a matter of good and sound health policy, Delaware does not tax any of these,” she said.
Hansen has disputed that her bill would increase the price of prescription opioids in Delaware because prices for the drugs are set nationally, but she did acknowledge that individual firms could still pass the costs off on consumers.
However, she said, the overall fee is “very low” compared to the profits that companies make off their products, and it would be more cost-effective for companies to just pay the fee, rather than alter the way they do business.
Under the proposal, the fee would only be imposed on manufacturers whose products in Delaware exceed 100,000 morphine milligram equivalents, or MME, in a given quarter. Producers of name-brand drugs would pay a fee of one cent per MME contained in each pill. For generic drug-makers, the levy would total one-quarter of a cent for every MME sold in the the First State.
According to the bill's fiscal note, the impact fee is expected to generate $2.8 million in the 2020 fiscal year and $2.7 million and $2.5 million in the next two years, respectively.
That revenue would go to a designated “prescription opioid impact fund” to finance addiction-prevention and opioid-addiction services, including paying for overdose-reversing drugs, treatment programs, sober-living facilities and services for the under- and uninsured.
A proposed amendment from the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services being circulated Wednesday would also allow funding to be directed to “wrap-around services,” such as care coordinators, peer coaches, community health workers and integrated data systems.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Chancery Again Rules in Plaintiff's Favor in Earnout Provision Dispute
3 minute readNovo Nordisk Files Patent Claims to Fend off Generic Rivals of Wegovy
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Prior Inconsistent Statements and Medical Malpractice Defense
- 2Public Interest Calendar of Events
- 3Why Law Firms Should Focus on IA for Improved Gen AI
- 4Post-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
- 5Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250